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

 

[fel3]

What you have been doing is peer review and/or value engineering (depends on exactly what you are charged with doing) and many firms offer these services, either deliberately or by word-of-mouth. There are no ethical problems that I can see. Some owners even require a 3rd party review.

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

 

[IRstuff]

So long as you are simply marketing YOUR services, without referencing anyone's work, there shouldn't be a problem, assuming you all have licenses.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[zdas04]

Peer review is a big part of my practice and I never contact the company who's work I'm reviewing (my contract is with the owner and it isn't my place to talk to the company who's work I'm reviewing). On occasion I'll have questions that require clarification and I'll ask my client to contact the other firm with my list of questions. The report I generate is the property of my client, period and I never provide it to a third party.


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.

 

[DRWeig]

Good answers. I guess I'm just overly cautious sometimes.

Good on ya,

Goober Dave

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

 

[FastMouse]

I am reminded of a guy I know whose doctor recommended a risky operation.

My acquaintance consulted another doctor, reasonably well-known in his field, and asked what he thought, and this doctor said something along the lines of "Of course, I am ethically bound to support the conclusions of my colleague."

A couple of expletives later, my acquaintance asked "Whatever happened to a second opinion?"

The funny thing is that the second doctor considered this point, and then disagreed with performing the operation, suggesting that a wait-and-see approach was better given the risks involved.

There’s nothing wrong with independent judgment.

 

[TenPenny]

An example of a doctor who does not understand ethics, or his medical association.

 

[graybeach]

I believe there is a clause in the ASCE code of ethics that requires the reviewer to inform the design engineer that the review is taking place. An exception is when the engineer doing the reviewing is employed by the owner. In any case, the statement: "We might seem to be insinuating that the PEs and AIAs working on the design may give the client a less-than-optimal job," begs the response: "And your point is?" I have seen many sealed designs containing mistakes, some very serious. Peer review is a necessity. Even NIST, in their report on the Minneapolis bridge collapse, put some responsibility for the collapse on the owner and recommends peer reviews for all engineering designs.

 

[dik]

zdas04... in some jurisdictions, if you are reviewing another engineer's work, you are obligated by the professional association to advise them of this.

Dik

 

[dik]

Forgot to add... I do it as a professional courtesy... even if not obligated.

Dik

 

[MintJulep]

Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated

 

[dik]

Thanks, MintJ... NSPE?

Dik

 

[DRWeig]

Cool, Mint,

I would have done it as a courtesy anyway, but it's good to know there's a standard.

Good on ya,

Goober Dave

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

 

[MintJulep]

NSPE = National Society of Professional Engineers

Where the unspecified and ethnocentric nationality of "National" is the USA.

 

[GregLocock]

That's a nice bit of legalistic nonsense. If my employer asks me to check some subcontractor or consultant's work I see no ethical reason why I should tell them what I am doing. The work belongs to my employer and is his to do with as he sees fit.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rowingengineer]

It would be very hard for an engineer to sue you, if you found a major mistake and as a consequence his contract was then handled differently.

http://www.nceng.com.au/

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

 

[dik]

Greg: Consider it a professional courtesy... and part of the role of being a professional... and, if push comes to a shove, I'll let you explain to the Judge why you didn't think this 'requirement' was necessary.

Dik

 

[zdas04]

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). 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.

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.

 

[lacajun]

David, I don't see anything in my NDA's that preclude me from meeting my professional responsibility to inform another engineer that their work is being reviewed by me. Perhaps the NDA's are worded differently. I'm just providing a different perspective and nothing else.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[jgailla]

I'ev always informed the other engineer that I'm reviewing their work as a professional courtesy. It hasn't always worked out well, as some engineers get angry when someone is reviewing their work. I assume that these guys are incompetent and angry because they are nervous.

zdas is as usual correct in the sense that NDAs and other contractual issues can trump professional courtesy.
The client must always be informed that you will be speaking with the other engineer.