Stuctural fees vrs. Civil fees. 3

[PJD]

Hey here's a question sure to stir the pot. <br>
<br>
Why is it that Civil Engineers can demand higher fees for less liability when compared to Structural Engineers? Why can't Structural Engineers charge fees comparable to higher Civil rates?<br>
<br>
From what I can tell Structural Engineers are more compromising bunch, willing to undercut the competition by a few dollars to get a job. Structurals also seem to have less loayaty from clients who are willing to &quot;shop around&quot; for a cheaper fee. Is this a phenomenon in my local area or is it more widespread?

 

[JC]

I think structural engineers should get together and set fees comparable to lawyer's fees. Working for peanuts just don't get it.

 

[12know]

May I ask, what sort of ratio of the Civil and Structural fees, are you talking about? Is there a standard ratio? What about other lines, like M&E and Architect?<br>
<br>
If there is a standard, then you can only demand a higher fee if the client feels that it is worth paying extra. That usually means, the client gets some savings, or get to use your name as a designer for marketing purpose, or the client feels safer in your structure, or etc.<br>
<br>
So, what is the implication that strucural engineers can not demand a higher fee?<br>

 

[hangerbanger]

I've been in this racket for 22 years with several employers and I've come to the conclusion that engineers on the whole will screw each other in the name of getting their foot in the door. When they get the job another engineer will undercut them again in the name of getting their foot in the door. Then they all complain that they can't make any money. Until the profession wises up and the sense of professionalism is restored this will continue. ASCE has also to get involved with restoring a sense of professionalism and stop worrying so much about their coveted masters degree and worry first about the majority of the members who are involved with everyday work. ASCE wants to have the profession on the same level as doctors and lawyers, then we should start acting like it first and worry about the advanced education later. I don't see doctors or lawyers worrying about &quot;competitive&quot; bids and slicing their costs to get a client to give them their work.

 

[MarkRPflow]

The answers address a concern for a professional approach to the engineering vocation. This is an area that the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) (nspe.org) has been active with for years. NSPE promotes the compentent, ethecial and professional practice of engineering. They also are working to enchance the image and stature of the engineer. Their challenge has been to get the enginering community organized in this effort. If you are not involved, check it out.

 

[hangerbanger]

Lets just say that I think that NSPE has a very admirable stance on this issue and I support it whole heartedly, however, like everything else the application of the theory and the reality of the situation are very different. This applies to both members and nonmembers of NSPE.

 

[CoffeeMug]

I dont know if it's a phenomenon, but I have been asking the same question myself. <br>
<br>
The explanation I figured is that clients(developers) are more particular with things they can actually see, like aestetics. They dont really understand the importance of a good strucutural design, they feel that one structural plan is just as good as another.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

 

[PJD]

Check out the article &quot;Rethinking Bottom Line Issues&quot; by Ronald R. White in the Winter 1999 issue of Structure Magazine. There are some interesting observations about Structural fees and profitability. <br>
<br>
Now here's a question:<br>
In my area of the world, here is something that has always left me a little perplexed. If a developer wants to develop 100 acres of land, for a 4 model single family residential tract, he pays the Civil Engineer based on total land area being developed. Now on the other hand, the Structural Engineer gets paid for the design of the 4 houses one time, regardless of how many times the Developer builds those houses on that tract. Is that typical for areas you live in? It doesn't make sense to get paid for 4 structures yet take the liability for 400. In my market the same is true for apartments and condos. No wonder we can't make the kind of money the Civils do. <br>
<br>

 

[Guest]

The problem is the same everywhere and it flows from a willingness to be unprofessional. Lawyers know that it takes time to run a case properly and that they want a certain amount per hour (usually too much).<br>
<br>
Engineers seem to forget that it takes time to do the job properly. They are willing to take shortcuts and guess. In addition, we do not have a very high opinion of the value of our "profession" to the community.<br>
<br>
Perhaps engineers should enrol in the course where lawyers are taught to respect their profession and not to prostitute it by cutting corners and underestimating its worth.

 

[12know]

When I was in my final year (15 years ago) for Bachelors of Civil Engg at my home Uni (in Thailand), we had to take a compulsary subject called &quot;Professional Ethics&quot;. It has been very useful in a sense that mentioned by &quot;guest&quot;. The same is also repeated as vows, before one becomes a registered engineer.<br>
<br>
Regarding PJD's question in the 2nd post, in my experience, if the client wanted to use the same design of the structure (houses or condos, etc.) to build more than one. It would depend on negotiations between the designer and the client, how many you would allow it to be built, and how much extra you should get for each extra no. of building constructed. It is, however, as we all know, there are always some engineers who would be willing to get paid as for the design of one building, regardless how many are to be built. I dont quite remember whether or not the ethical issues say anything about this. Sorry.

 

[JC]

<br>
the best way to change things is to &quot;GET INVOLVED&quot;. In many cases, contractors get involved in changing the building codes to allow &quot;less&quot; structure to be put into buildings, mainly single family residences. When disaster strikes and the buildings (houses) fall down (hurricane Andrew in FL comes to mind) everybody wants to make the building code more strict. I'm afraid that even after the codes are rewritten after a disaster, contractors will find a way of amending the code to suit a cheaper way of building a structure(house). Structural engineers should say &quot;I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore&quot; and get involved in changing the building codes--espically residential--and require that ALL drawings be reviewed and sealed prior to construction. This should include buildings of any size, period.

 

[CoffeeMug]

Regarding the case presented by PJD, well, in my experience at least, I bill them for the original design plus a certain percentage for every house that gets built. At least 40%, depends on the volume. You should have some kind of contract drawn up. I think it is only fair since you are liable for each and every one of them (for 15 years in my area)

 

[PJD]

CoffeeMug,<br>
<br>
We have an Engineer in our our office who spent alot of time in North Caolina. He says that on multi-bldg. projects they whould get 40-60% of the original fee after the first one. <br>
<br>
The problem here is that there are alot of engineers working out of their garage who drive the prices down so badly that we are left groveling for projects with low fees. The standard has been set by these small operations and if you aren't competitive with the lowest bids you end up with nothing.

 

[JC]

Have we beat this subject to death, or what? It's simply the law of supply and demand. As long as there are people who are willing to work for peanuts, you get paid in peanuts.