structural engineer of record review of "design by others" submittals

[tdstructural]

I've only been a structural engineer for 12 years but in that short time I've seen the quality of "design by others" or "bidder design" submittals decline at an amazing rate. Our peers (other structural/professional engineers) will stamp and expect an approval for incomplete and mistake laden designs for the Structural Engineer of Record (SER) to review and accept.

This includes dwgs without calculations - then we ask for calcs and they provide calcs with an expired engineering stamp or a stamp from another state and obviously calcs from a similar but previous project (not even the same seismic zone criteria), then the calcs show different member sizes from what is shown on the dwgs - that is assuming the calculations can be understood. They seem to think I understand their product specific software. And never any connection design information - just member sizes.

I'm tired of wasting my time and money on these sumbittals. I end up writing a full page or two letter describing the reason for my rejection of the design. This costs me time and money to point out their obvious lack of concern for safety or professional liablity. Their submittal (stamped by an engineer) should be illegal. Is it? If yes - can I make a formal complaint to the state board for the way these engineers are abusing their stamp/seal?

 

[Ron]

In my state, this is known as delegated engineering work. I've done over 700 such projects. I agree with you and I've been on both sides of this argument.

You could complain to the state board. They will likely treat it less significantly than if you, as the SEOR, made the same mistakes. Here, we have specific requirements for delegated engineering work, and it is clearly written in the law.

As the SEOR you become the arbiter of quality and the final word. Unfortunately I know of no way to stop this kind of stuff. When one company gets its shop drawings and calculations rejected, they will just ask another engineer to do it or they'll try to go around you and get pressure put on you from another direction. Annoying at the least.

On the opposite side of that, you as the SEOR should provide the delegated engineer with your expectations. Many times I'll get a project to analyze and I have to chase the SEOR down to get specific requirements that are not written, or in some cases he doesn't even know what he's looking for in the analysis. Again, in my state, the SEOR is required to provide this information, but they often do not.

To save yourself a bit of agony, I would suggest that you come up with the items you expect and send them out to the ones you would expect structural calcs from (stair sections, canopies, walkway covers, trusses, specialty/miscellaneous steel, etc.). Give them things like....applicable code (you might have designed the building by the IBC structural loading when perhaps they generally use ASCE 7, or the opposite), special loadings, limitations (for instance if they are attaching to a wall, that wall needs to be designed for the expected reactions)...I can't tell you how many times I've had to re-do a design because someone decided to change from a cast-in-place wall to a masonry wall with no filled cells at the attachment points...and didn't tell the rest of the groups it might affect).

A lot of the problems can be alleviated by good communication, both ways. I try to make sure my calculation packages are complete and understandable, but I've seen some pretty bad ones, as you've described. Keep in mind that the people asking these engineers for service usually are not engineers and don't necessarily know how to convey what they need. The engineer should ask, but that doesn't always happen.

Good luck.

 

[connectegr]

With the present economy we are finding more and more competition, which are not required to have experience or a track record of quality. I have mentioned here the growing trend I have seen in unsupervised design provided overseas and sealed with little review. Fabricators are also depending on packaged software whenever posible and purchasing a review and seal only. This is happening on all types of projects, even complex projects. The problems you are experiencing are symptoms of the trend.

I do know where you can find the connection design quality you are expecting.

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

 

[miecz]

We ran into this problem on a transportation project. Early on, it became apparent that some working drawing submittals were going to go on and on. We kept close accounting of hours spent on those working drawing reviews. At the end of the project, we asked the DOT for extra money to cover the repeated reviews. The DOT agreed that the number of submissions was unreasonable and honored our request.

On future projects, write into your contract a reasonable limit on the number of submissions. Be brief with your reviews to keep within your budget. When a particular submission looks like it's becoming a problem, contact the owner and explain the problem and that you simply don't have money in the budget for this.

 

[Lion06]

I've only been in the profession for 4 years, but here is my experience with this so far.

When we have something that we want to see calcs for we always make a point to put performance criteria language in the specs. This typically involves having language in the submittal section for any members/connections/other that we need to see calcs for. We always specify the design loads on the drawings so that it is spelled out pretty clearly for the other engineer what we expect to see.

We also put language in the General Notes, just to hit the contractor (and usually the steel fabricator) over the head that we want to see calcs.

Finally, the connections/members that other are to design are typically shown very generically in the details with language that makes it clear that this isn't a detail to produce shop drawings from (e.g. a braced frame connection might show welds generically - with no sizes or lengths, but the note below will say to provide slip critical bolts is bolts are provided instead of welds).

With all of that said, we typically get pretty good calcs in. I've never encountered calcs for a different, but similar job.

Additionally, if I ever have questions about the calcs, I don't hesitate to call the engineer who prepared them. I would never stamp calcs as Reviewed without requiring them to be Revised and Resubmitted without having full confidence that they are right and that any marks I make on them will be picked up.

I'm involved in a project right now where I've been reviewing a ton of steel connection calcs (moment connections, shear connections, braced frame connections) and I had the engineer doing the calcs resubmit the braced frame calcs because they were using the Uniform Force Method inappropriately for the weld design of the gusset/beam and gusset/column connections.

The other engineer was pretty reasonable about resubmitting them (I talked to him on the phone about it) and didn't give me a hard time at all.

 

[connectegr]

StructuralEIT
I find the the best design firms have the highest standards for calculation submittals. As you expressed in your comments, an understanding of the proper calculations required is important for the reviewer. We welcome the opportunity do discuss the details of our calculations and address any concerns. Your review procedure is similar to many of the best designers we have delt with. As the quality of information provided by the fabricator or detailer declines, it is most important that the EOR maintain the integrity of the design process.

We are also frequently involved in an alternate process. The connection design is provided in coordination with the EOR's design. For seismic considerations or critical load paths the connection engineer and EOR have direct communication. This information is incorporated in the bid documents. Or as an adendum immediately after award. This does require a little education of the owner. This is not an additional cost to the project, it simply recognizes the importance of this design coordination. This is also helpful with BIM projects. This design coordination eliminates many of the issues mentioned above.

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

 

[tdstructural]

Before everyone gets way off track I feel I should take the time to better describe my situation. I live/work where the SEOR designs both the members and connections.

I - as the SEOR - provide the seismic design criteria and code requirements in the "structural general notes". The "structural general notes" are both part of the specs for the project and the construction drawing package. They are on the first page of the structural drawings. On that first page I not only note the items above but I also have an itemized list of "bidder design" or "design by other" items that I expect to see calculations and dwgs for. I also show the location and the value of the load I expect from these items on my design/construction dwgs. I can estimate the loads/forces on the super structure but I haven't been compensated nor hired to design these items.

I am refering to "bidder design" items such as canopies, stair treads, mechanical/electrical units and pipes/conduits connection, etc... As an engineer I would never stamp or sign a design I didn't think was clear and correct.

I do like some of the comments above about making it clear in my contract that I'm not going to review these submittals numerous times without proper compensation. I'm going to start using that - of course there will be pressure to NOT have that in my contract. But I will try.

I would love to hear from all of you in regards to the legal and/or state requirements regarding these (worst case) misleading or (best case) maybe lazy submittals.

I think it should be illegal.

 

[Ron]

td...it is illegal in many states. I know in my state it is. The calculations and shop drawings have to meet the same standards as the primary design.

 

[LowLax]

I see a lot of cases where jobs go to the lowest bidder, and the lowest bidder is the lowest for a reason. They usually don't include the cost of secondary engineering or shop drawings. So they'll end up trying to get the cheapest engineering possible in an attempt to stay under budget. Owners and architects need to be more aware of what is included in bids and not just go with the lowest bidder. The economy doesn't help.

I like to think my company does a good job of secondary engineering services. We do a lot of cold-form framing, aluminum curtain-walls, and steel connections. Jobs always go the smoothest when the EOR & Architect gave some thought to how the secondary components were going to work.

 

[BAretired]

tdstructural,

Open web steel joists are usually designed by the joist supplier. He normally submits shop drawings, sealed by a Professional Engineer who takes full responsibility for the design based on loads provided by the SEOR. The SEOR should check to see that the shop drawings are based on a correct interpretation of loads, but apart from that, does not normally request calculations or become involved in the design of such items unless he sees something obviously wrong.

There is a growing trend among engineering firms in my area to ask for engineering seals on structural steel connection details. I don't agree with that. The SEOR should design members and connections, taking full responsibility for them, just as you do.

I have never requested calculations from a contractor for anything structural. I much prefer to check a shop drawing than a calculation. If I found issues with shop drawings, they were returned for correction, usually after a telephone conversation with the detailer. There were times when the fabricator did not agree with my comments, but it did not happen often and was usually resolved amicably.

Have things changed in the last two years?

BA

 

[slickdeals]

I must add my 2 cents to this. I find that many firms choose to have the connections designed by a third party. I am not saying that they don't do it right, but it requires considerable time and effort to document the connection design requirements, the controlling forces (out of 100+ load combinations) and an exhaustive shop drawing/ connection design review and resubmittal/rejections etc.

It is our company's policy to have all connections designed by our office, primarily because as an EOR we know the building the best. We know the assumptions, we know the behavior and in the time and effort it takes to provide connection design information, we can design it once and for all.

That being said, I have reviewed shop drawings where the delegated engineer did not have a clue of how to complete the design. There are plenty of instances where a delegated engineer's duty of design will overlap with the EOR's design. At these locations, we provide a design intent or minimum sizes for members etc. to make sure no corners are being cut in the design. The reason being that as an EOR you are responsible for the overall building even if you did not design all the components.

Sorry for the ramble.

 

[BAretired]

slickdeals,

I'm not sure I know what you mean when you say:

"The reason being that as an EOR you are responsible for the overall building even if you did not design all the components".

It seems to me that there should be a clearcut division of responsibility in the design of components. Either the fabricator's engineer is responsible for it or he isn't. If the EOR is also responsible, then how can he justify failing to check component design thoroughly?

BA

 

[JedClampett]

I see this all the time. But I don't let it ruin my day. I try to see it from the other Engineer's perspective. He's/She's given a task and an small amount of money. I'll bet some of these Engineer's post to this site, which makes them OK in my book. So they assume that this is a paperwork requirement that's likely to be filed away in that warehouse from "Raiders of the Lost Ark." The calculations are done accordingly. And some of the time that's fine. They're checked off as provided and that's the last daylight they see. On the other extreme is the document dump, where I'm provided 5000 sheets of indecipherable computer vomit. Once I communicate what I want to see, complete and correct work, they improve drastically.
It might take a couple of interations to get them to an acceptable level, but I consider that part of the price I pay delegating work. Excessive submittal reviews get backcharged to the contractor.
What I don't like are engineers who absolutely refuse to do anchorage calculations. No one likes to do ACI 318 Appendix D calculations. But if you've picked the anchorage size and pattern, it's your job to calculate capacity. And don't tell me "I don't do concrete...", "it's your concrete, so it's your job..." etc. I don't know how many times I've been given no choice and done these myself.

 

[Ron]

BAretired....the SEOR is still responsible for the design, even if delegated...It's called specific reliance. If a failure occurred, he would be pulled into it even if the delegated engineer took responsibility for his work. The SEOR would then have to prove than he met the standard of care for review of the delegated engineer's work. Assuming he could do this, then he might get out of it and the delegated engineer would have to bear the brunt of the problem; however, to get out of it would cost time and money.

That's why it is better to provide clear communication to the delegated engineer, require specific submittals, and then check the submittals against your intent. You should have some idea (order of magnitude)if the calcs are correct, but you're not obligated to check each one. If the delegated engineer does not provide adequate detail to determine if the calcs are valid in a cursory review, then reject them.

The delegated work that I do is primarily for rigid frame aluminum structures. Most structural design engineers do very little with aluminum, so it is more of a mystery to some of them than one might expect. It isn't that aluminum is any more difficult to design than anything else, it's just that it has a few quirks that can cause problems if you're not familiar with those quirks.

 

[slickdeals]

@BA:
When a delegated engineer supplies his calculations and shop drawings, you as an EOR either approve it or reject it. By doing so, aren't you becoming liable to a certain extent? It is not like you wash your hands away from the responsibility entirely.

I have not yet been part of any litigation or lawsuits, but I am curious to know what others think about this "gray" area.

 

[Ron]

Slickdeals...read the first paragraph of my last post...yes, you are correct.

 

[Ron]

Poor communication on my part!! Should have been my "previous" post, not my "last" post!!

 

[msquared48]

In my experience as the SEOR of multi-discipline and multi- engineer projects, I am ultimately responsible for all the structural engineering on the entire project, hands down, to include structuralo shop drawing approval, any structural calculations, contract drawings, changes, reports, whatever. Makes no difference.

Professionally, I do not see how you can separate the ultimate responsibility for the calculations and contract drawings to anyone else. That is my bag as the SEOR as the title ultimately implies. You are the one in charge and making the ultimate decisions. You can delegate authority, but the ultimate responsibility is still yours.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[JAE]

Just reiterating a bit of what Ron replied re BARetired's comments.

Just as in the Hyatt Regency collapse in Kansas City back in the 1970's, at least in the states, the SEOR can delegate design tasks, but cannot delegate design responsibility (per the outcome of the trials on that case).

Thus, I can and should review another's structural calculations and submittals to the extent any other reasonable engineer would do to guard the safety and welfare of the public. The engineer who did the calculations has a degree of liability for doing the job right. I also have a degree of liability for his/her work as I am responsible for the overal structural design of the project.

 

[BAretired]

Well Mike, what exactly is the fabricator's engineer responsible for? According to you...nothing.

BA