What constitutes a review of another professional's work 1

[skeletron]

For discussion:
1. What constitutes a review of another professional's work?
2. At what point do you consider the review necessitating contacting the other professionals for notice? Is this a professional courtesy or a mandated requirement in your jurisdiction and/or opinion?

For the purposes of context:
Situation A: A contractor requests a second opinion on a single issue noted on site. You receive the project documentation and review the information (drawings, timeline of events based on reports and correspondence, etc.) prior to attending site. Your opinion is based on the background information and your observations on site.

Situation B: A client engages you to provide a solution to a problem. They offer you the design from a proposed solution by another engineer, which they are seeking cost-savings or improvement. You review the proposed solution to get "the lay of the land" but, ultimately, come up with an alternate solution.

Situation C: A client engages you for a renovation/addition to an existing, recently built structure (5-10 years old). They provide existing drawings, as required to tie-in the new to existing. In your review of the work, you notice an issue with the existing structure that may cause future problems.

Situation D: A client requests a site review. They provide existing drawings prior to your site assessment. You review the drawings prior to attending site.

I'm interested in hearing the interpretations/opinions on others.

 

[dik]

As soon as I review the material, I advise the other consultant, as a professional courtesy. If asked to review the work, I advise before even looking at it. I did a serious critique of a forensic report for the Algo Mall collapse, and it was internal, giving our office a method of doing forensic reports. The report was terrible... It was a great example of how not to write a report. I advised the engineer that prepared the report notification that I was reviewing his work, prior to giving the talk. The presentation never left the office

You should have no concern about reviewing someone else's work and advising them.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[phamENG]

1) Anything that could result in the calling into question of the other engineer's professional ability and/or reputation.
2) If the review is at the request of a client, the result of a forensic investigation, or otherwise triggers number 1. No my knowledge it's only a courtesy around here.

A) I would pass. Job sites are not single issue. I've had contractors pull it on me - they don't like that I hammered them for putting the wrong foundation in the wrong place, so they get somebody else to say it'll be fine. They don't appreciate it when I then tell them if they want another engineer to approve the foundation, that engineer had better be prepared to take on the whole project, because I'm pulling my seal from the job.

B) I would decline to view the other engineer's plan. I would provide my solution, and they can pick the one they want. (I would also require a retainer.)

C) That would be an 'incidental' review. You're not setting out to review their work, so I wouldn't worry about contacting them. But if I found a problem, I would contact them immediately to inform them and let them take action. If they failed to act, I would escalate it if I felt there was a genuine risk to health and safety.

D) Is this just some random, existing building? If so, I wouldn't contact the original engineer. I'm assessing the current condition, not the engineer's design.

 

[skeletron]

From my research:
-PEO does not have this as a requirement in their document unless the other engineer is from the same employer
-EGBC encourages it, but it is not a requirement in the Code of Ethics

I agree that if you are specifically reviewing the design work, then some communication or notice should be provided. Mainly because I think you can solve a lot of misunderstandings Engineer-to-Engineer. But I do not believe that incidental reviews, or reviews of drawings pre-site review, do not necessitate the courtesy.

 

[Rabbit12]

skeletron, not sure if you've seen this thread:

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=481972

It has some interesting information as far as review of other's drawings. About 3/4's the way down in that thread is a post from jmec87 about a case where an engineer was disciplined for reviewing another engineer's design without the original engineer's knowledge.

So, to answer your first two questions:

1) I don't think you automatically need to notify another engineer to review his work. However,
2) if you find an issue/deficiency the original engineer should be notified to allow them to rectify the error.

Situation A: I would notify the original engineer. I'd also likely turn this work down. The contractor appears to be shopping which is dangerous in our profession. The original engineer likely has intimate knowledge that subsequent engineers could not have.

Situation B: Seems similar to Situation A.

Situation C: Notify original engineer to allow them to rectify the problem. If it's a life safety issue and the original engineer does nothing this needs to be escalated.

Situation D: Notification of the original engineer is not required unless you find an issue.

 

[Brad805]

A: I have never found one can evaluate a single design aspect. I would turn this down as we have found the work is more of a headache than its worth.
B: If you do not offer an opinion on the original engineers design I do not think you need to notify them.
C: In this case I think you need to notify the other engineer and give them the opportunity to explain or defend their design. Few seem to engage in the discussion, but you have to try.
D: Unless you offer an opinion about their design I do not think you need to notify them.

I have worked for BC Housing many times. On larger projects they hire a review engineer. I have always been notified by their engineers.

 

[skeletron]

@Rabbit12: Thanks for providing the thread link. That's interesting. I remember the issue being mentioned while actively working in APEGA's jurisdiction. It appears that they are one of the few that mentions it is a requirement. Another interesting note is that the discipline notices in the thread pertain to a direct review of work, and a review of work that is also a colleague. These are similar to the limitations mentioned in the PEO document.

It's interesting that so many respondents to this thread are immediately flagging Situation A as a No-Go. Lesson learned for me. Sub-contractor contacted me about cracks and deflections. Seemed really desperate to have another engineer review on site as his concerns were not being validated by the project team. As part of my process I requested all project documentation to gain familiarity with the site and timeline of events. My report (ie. my "opinion") looked at the documents and compared if X in the design had evidence of being completed in the field by the subcontractor. I included my observations and then made a conclusion. I don't interpret my conclusion as commenting on another Engineer's work. Rather, I commented on the observed cracks.

It seems as if the subcontractor has now submitted the report to the general, who in turn gave me a fairly threatening email and ultimatum to rescind the letter. Part of the general's claim is that I did not offer the other engineers courtesy of notice which constitutes unprofessionalism. I mean, it seems like a pretty heavy handed response that doesn't come from the actual project engineer...

 

[phamENG]

I think your situation is a little different from A, though.

In your case, where it is a job in construction, the EOR should have been notified. Your opinion may have been that the deflections and cracks were the result of stripping forms too early, or it could have been that the engineer undersized the beam. Either way, you did review the other engineer's work as part of your investigation and a notification would have been the right thing to do as a professional courtesy.

A distinction with my statement above: often times these are cases where the contractor makes a change, the engineer says no, and the contractor tries to get somebody else to say it's okay to make the EOR look bad and pressure them to accept. I'm not playing that game. But a potential safety hazard that somebody else is hand waving away? I'll go take a look - but as I said, it would involve notifying the EOR first.

For your case...threatening as in legal action? Unprofessionalism - real or perceived - is immaterial in the face of previously ignored structural defects that could endanger life and property.

 

[skeletron]

Threatening as a reporting for investigation (ie. disciplinary) if I don't rescind my report. It's written as an ultimatum.

The complaint is also being wrapped up in a "trespassing" allegation. I was under the impression the sub-contractor was authorized on site at the time of my review. I state that in my service agreements too as the client's responsibility. We were on site for an hour in the middle of the day. Lots of people walking around, it seemed okay at the time. Never was I under the belief that what we were doing was not authorized.

 

[Just Some Nerd]

A little impressed that it was a subcontractor getting this ballsy. On-site, my contact is basically only with the builders - subcontractors are there to build things correctly, not to question designs or find an out for their fuckups. If there's ever a serious, serious problem, then a second firm can be engaged by the builder to review what happened - has happened once to me before (and unsurprisingly they also determined it was the fault of the idiot who didn't epoxy the bars they were meant to). I can't say I've encountered this situation though where a subcontractor is expressing greater concern than the builder, I do wonder how bad things really are if the builder/engineer looked at the problem and deemed it okay where a subcontractor didn't.

Bit late to learn the lesson now, but if you're ever on site and weren't organising the visit with the builder directly, go into the site office for a sign-in and talk to the builder to make sure they're aware regardless (assuming this was a larger site if many people were all walking around). Even if everything is above board they should be tracking who is coming in and out of site for a variety of reasons, e.g. safety, and you could have caught the current issue there.

Regarding what to do going forward, I'm not sure it's worth the hassle of not rescinding the letter if there's isn't a safety risk involved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why yes, I do in fact have no idea what I'm talking about

 

[skeletron]

My review basically found 3 things:
1. The subcontractor (my Client) didn't camber the slabs. Structural plans point to a general note that specifies the camber. I couldn't perceive or measure the claimed slab deflection (Issue #1). Recommendation provided to have accurate survey measurements would be required to review.
2. The source of the vertical cracks (Issue #2) was potential settlement. They were in one area that had large depths of fill, adjacent to a series of tiered retaining walls.
3. There was documentation missing from the project record that confirmed whether the area was verified for compaction. And there was also documentation missing that made it clear whether the structural engineer had accounted for this on-site change in bearing pressure. Bearing pressure on drawings was 8400psf; bearing in the fill areas was changed to 2500psf by geotech after they increased the fill depth during construction.

Ultimately the issue is "who pays and who fixes" and the subcontractor was miffed that the whole compaction issue was being 'hand waved' by other engineers and the general. Given that I noted #3 in my report (a potential problem that could impact the structure when service load is applied) I think it looks worse if I don't stand by opinion, regardless of the threat of investigation. Ironically, before submitting my report I did have a "peer review" to make sure that my conclusion was reasonable.

Yes. My senses didn't really click with there not being a site office right off the street entrance. I feel like that is a bit misleading of the subcontractor to be honest, but it is what it is now. I guess I'm so used to getting called by CFS contractors on big TI's, and just jumping into the review with little process involving the builder. I believe that Colour of Right is valid in my defence.

 

[Sparweb]

I work in a completely different industry from you.
How does the old joke go? Civil engineers build the targets for Aero engineers... or something like that.

If I received another engineer's work, in aerospace, I would handle the document very cautiously.
If the owner of the original document is "bigger" than me, then I would notify them that an individual or corporation provided a copy of their proprietary data (trade secret) to me. Then I'd try to confirm that they were authorized to do so. If I am caught holding the document then I could get squashed, so it's in my interest to declare it, so that the matter can be resolved properly between the two parties that should have a NDA (non disclosure agreement). Sometimes, just quietly losing the document in a way that cannot be recovered is the right thing to do - but virtually impossible now in the age of e-mail.

In scenario (B) if I used that information and provided a quote based on another firm's proprietary data, I would have knowingly appropriated a trade secret for monetary gain. Maybe building plans don't have that notice in the title blocks, but we always do.

In most cases, lawyers are not an issue, and fair play dictates different reactions to different situations. Most engineers I know in aero are decent folks, and when they see a problem they give you a call, they don't "call you out".

 

[skeletron]

Dog help us all if the General Notes page(s) of structural drawings are proprietary data!

 

[phamENG]

This is a tricky situation.

On the one hand, you should have obtained permission from the superintendent to go on site - that should be SOP for any site visit. You also should have informed the engineer that you had been engaged to review the sub contractor's concern.

On the other hand, had you done so, it sounds like you have been barred from the site and not permitted to perform the review.

Now that you've done it, though, you've witnessed potential structural defects that could result in significant property damage - and talking about tiered retaining walls could there be a potential for catastrophic failure? It sounds like you probably have a duty to report at this point.

Might be risky, but if you can get them to agree to drop the whole thing if you rescind the letter and let it go, you could probably have a good argument in your defense that the complaint against your license is simply retaliatory and an attempt to extort/blackmail you into covering up their mistake. (Because, of course, you won't rescind it.)

As for the trespassing...I'd put the client on notice that, because they breached the contract and failed to obtain appropriate permissions, they'll be on the hook for any lost time/legal fees resulting from that charge up to the maximum amount allowed by your contract.

 

[Rabbit12]

Ooooo.....this is interesting. From the sounds of it, the general contractor is concerned the fault finger may be pointed at them.

Good chance there is a likely lawsuit you'll be pulled in to. Please keep us updated on this situation.

 

[skeletron]

@Rabbit12: Ha! Yes. I think there is a bit of unraveling to go.

I appreciate the feedback on this thread. I was hesitant to divulge information, but feel like an "anonymous" forum like this actually is a good avenue for discussing this broad stroke grey areas and case studies for the betterment of the profession. I feel like I have learned some identifiers for future use, and I feel like my concerns were both validated but also debated with constructive criticism.

 

[Enable]

In the situation we're now talking about I would say there may have been an ethical transgression but only at the stage you issued your report.

As a temporary works engineer I review EOR drawings all day long and it is not at all common to notify them that I am doing so. As far as I know this is widespread industry practice (in the rare occasion I'm the EOR it's the same). They'll figure it out when we submit the shops for review. If we took the ethical requirement as suggesting we need to notify an engineer every time we simply glanced at their work we'd spend more time notifying than doing anything else. So I see no trouble in you reviewing the contract documents for the particular item of interest. It's no different than me designing re-shoring.

On the other hand, once you found the compaction discrepancy that might lead to a significant issue you probably should have notified the EOR. At least they'd be made aware of it, and in the event they had an explanation, they presumably would have gave it to you and this might materially have impacted your conclusions.

As far as the site-super is concerned you can tell him to pound sand. It's his responsibility for enforcement on-site and staffing entry-points, which they clearly didn't do. Moreover, LOL at trespassing. It's not their property! The Owner, not the GC, has the ability to press charges in that regard. Owner is probably more worried about their new structure having settlement issues than some rando dude walking on-site.

 

[CWB1]

I'd politely tell the GC to pound sand. Not sure about Canada but stateside trespassing is a comedically difficult crime to prosecute, unless fences or doors were breached the law generally requires property owners to issue/report a warning (in case of accidental trespass) and only the second (or more) occurrence can be prosecuted. Moreover you were onsite with a sub who was authorized to be there and responsible for knowing/following sign-in/out procedures, that's not your problem. Many sites are also run entirely by subs or contract security, not the owner or GC. I've worked in well-posted, secure (classified) govt facilities where employees brought unauthorized family members in and can say that even in those obvious/exteme circumstances the guest wasnt prosecuted unless malicious intent was obvious, blame always fell on the employee.

Notifying an engineer that you're reviewing their work is a courtesy found in various private organizations ethical standards but I dont recall ever seeing it as a legal requirement. IME that courtesy is generally understood to mean that you notify them AFTER finding a potential issue for the purpose of allowing them to explain their logic or acknowledge/help remedy the issue otherwise. Regardless, unless its law for the locality then I'd inform the GC that no such requirement exists. If he doesnt immediately apologize and back down then I would notify the professional licensing board, the appropriate muni business regulator, as well as the local district attorney of his attempt to blackmail you into potentially jeopardizing public safety. Under no circumstance would I rescind your report, the genie is out of that lamp.

 

[gte447f]

Skeletron, it stinks that you find yourself in the middle of this situation, but the phrase "second opinion" as stated in Situation A of your OP, should have been a HUGE red flag and a definite trigger to notify the other engineer. Frankly, I think I would have seen this a mile away as a potential hornets' nest or **** storm, but that is probably just because I made a similar mistake in the past and the results imprinted a spidey sense in me about this sort of thing. There is nothing wrong with getting involved with matters like this, but it is best to follow a formal process, which involves open communication and understanding of the process between all of the parties involved. Notifying the other engineer as a professional courtesy, regardless of whether it is an ethical guideline or a legal requirement, is good practice as part of that process of open communication. Frankly, I trust most engineers more than I trust owners, GC's, or subcontractors, so I find the best way to get a full understanding of the issues is to speak to the other engineer.

Usually, when an owner or contractor contacts me and asks me to get involved with something like this, and I tell them I will have to notify and speak to the other engineer(s) involved, they are very resistant to the idea and try to convince me that it is not necessary. That is a red flag, and I usually interpret that as them intentionally not wanting me to be aware of the full picture of the issues involved.

From a business perspective, I hope you are being paid very well for this engagement, because it sounds like quite a hassle. Again, it should be obvious that these "second opinion" requests are pretty likely to be inflammatory and have potential to escalate into disputes, claims, and even litigation. That sort of thing gets expensive, and its a hassle. It's not worth being a part of unless you benefit from it. If your role in the process is pivotal, then you should be compensated appropriately for it.

As for the GC threatening you, what can I say. I'm not surprised at all. They are bullies. That's what they do. It seems like if anyone was going to report you for not notifying the other engineer, it would be the other engineer, but of course it's the GC.