Reviewing Another Engineer's Work 6

[DRWeig]

Hi Group,

We've been approached by building owners and architects a number of times over the years, asking us to review building envelope, HVAC, and lighting designs that have been recently completed by other firms. They typically want our opinion on energy efficiency, whether it is to verify compliance with the energy code being enforced, for LEED accreditation, or just for another set of eyes on the effort to reduce utility cost. This usually happens prior to bidding, or at least prior to construction beyond site and foundation.

I've never had a problem accepting this work, as long as the folks we do the work for notify the original designers and ask them to cooperate with my firm. Only once did I find out that the owner did not tell anyone about what we were doing, so I quickly rectified that by calling them all myself. It has always been a solicitation that came our way out of the blue. We never offered this service to anyone or marketed it as a service.

Ethical question is: What are your thoughts about marketing this service to building owners and architects that I know are currently engaged in active designs? We might seem to be insinuating that the PEs and AIAs working on the design may give the client a less-than-optimal job. Plus, it might be viewed as interfering with a PE's existing contract.

Thoughts?

Good on ya,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

 

[dik]

The client owns the work that they paid for. They can do what they want with it (within the bounds of the contract). The clause presented above would violate my contract with my client in most cases (I usually work under an NDA).


Likely not, if you are obligated to do something and you enter into a contract that contravenes that, you likley have what is called a 'Proscribed Contract' and it might only be worth the paper to make airplanes with.

If I'm ever brought up on an ethics violation for this, then it will be followed by a lawsuit against the board, because peer review is in the public interest and that clause is not.


You may want to check; it is likely in the public interest if you advise the other engineer of your actions...

Dik

 

[zdas04]

Why???????????? If I do a peer review and find a problem, then the design will be better (safer, cleaner, more fuel efficient). If I do a peer review and don't find a problem then the only impact is my fee. What part of that does encouraging the other firm to start a smear campaign against me (as happened once) to damage my credibility if I find a problem serve?

I think that "professional courtesy" is just a smoke screen for "protecting incompetent jerks that should never have gotten through Engineering school". I've been asked to respond to a peer review on one of my projects and about 1/3 of the comments were legitimate issues that needed clarification (not wrong, just that I assumed a level of understanding that wasn't appropriate), 1/3 was because they ignored the statement that said the flow lines were being designed to ASME B31.8 and applied ASME B31.3 calculations, and the final 1/3 were style issues. I wrote my response, let it rest over night, and then threw out most of my comments and started over in a milder tone. The process would not have been improved had I known they were doing it.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[hokie66]

The requirement to advise the other engineer that you are reviewing his work was never legally based, but rather a part of various ethics codes. I can't find it in the Australian code of ethics anymore. Probably has been removed in fear of violating some competition law. I have reviewed the work of others many times, and sometimes advised them, sometimes not. It depends...

 

[graybeach]

I think the reason for the requirement to advise the other engineer comes from the possibility that the engineer doing the reviewing would unfairly smear the design engineer in the eyes of the client.

 

[urgross]

Whether the name of a 3rd party reviewer is divulged or not, for VE, O&M, or other review, the comments would still need to be provided to the engineer of record for discussion of incorporation or rejection. Before construction, someone has to put their stamp on it. If a meeting of the minds cannot be reached, that's what the IBC (my experience was with IMC) interpretation process is for.

 

[PicoStruc]

Check your local professional organisation and local law code.

Where I live, there is a clear distinction between a standard mandate and reviewing mandate

For the first one, the engineer must be sure that is his the only engineer mandated. It's the responsability of the new engineer to verify that there is no previous enginner. if there is one, the new enginner to be sure that the previous engineer mandate is finished.

For Reviewing mandate, condition differ. And what constitute a Review mandate is clearly defined by LAW.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

Done all the time!!

 

[josephv]

In Ontario, this requirement is in the Engineer's Code of Ethics:

http://www.peo.on.ca/Ethics/code_of_ethics.html

"A practitioner shall not accept an engagement to review the work of another practitioner for the same employer except with the knowledge of the other practitioner or except where the connection of the other practitioner with the work has been terminated"

It does not say that the Reviewing Engineer must contact the Authoring Engineer. Since the Reviewing Engineer's relation typically is with the client it would be prudent for the Reviewing Engineer to obtain a letter from the client stating that either the Authoring Engineer was notified of the review or that the contract with the Authoring Engineer has terminated.

The above applies to Ontario. However, like PicoStruc said it is wise to check with your regulator.