Advise for dealing with an unreasonable engineer 23

[RontheRedneck]

I had a conference with a GC, architect, and engineers on a project. It came in over budget, and the GC asked for some VE (value engineering) suggestions. Not an unusual thing - Happens all the time.

I wrote out what I thought. Several things that were called for were totally unnecessary. I referenced section numbers on the drawings and explained what I was suggesting.

The engineer shot down pretty much everything. They lied about what was "structurally necessary".

So we're going to charge more to do it their way, as it will cost more to get the job done. The owner of the building is going to pay for what they want, even though they're absolutely clueless.

In a way I guess it's no skin off my back - I don't have to pay for it. The situation just bugs me. I feel like the owners are being taken advantage of.

Before you ask - No, I'm not going to get into specifics of what they want. If I did you'd just debate details instead of the situation.

I do trusses for buildings like this about every 2 weeks, and have been in the truss business for close to 40 years. So it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about or am just guessing.


Since you guys are all from a vastly different perspective than I am - What would you suggest that I do?

 

[DaveAtkins]

Explain to the engineer what you have typically done, and ask again if he can revise his design.

DaveAtkins

 

[RontheRedneck]

That's what I already did.

 

[phamENG]

Before you ask - No, I'm not going to get into specifics of what they want. If I did you'd just debate details instead of the situation.

You catch on quick!

Unfortunately, most engineers will take such a challenge very personally. They're the smartest person on the room, just ask them. Once they've dug their heels in, there's no changing their mind. Best success I've had is to help them come up with the idea themselves.

 

[BridgeSmith]

Sorry Ron, but your experience doesn't necessarily mean that you're right and the engineer is wrong. You may think you're right; you may even be right, but the person putting their PE seal on the design has the final say...and the legal and moral responsibility if it falls down and kills someone, so yeah, with that in mind, us engineers are often conservative in what we do.

If you won't share the specifics, there's really nothing for us to evaluate, so if you're hoping for validation that you're right and the engineer is wrong, I don't think you're going to get it.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

They lied about what was "structurally necessary".

There are all kinds of ways to define "necessary".
a) We could be talking about strength of the overall truss. I know that truss manufacturers often rely on testing not calculations. But, if the engineer is relying on his calculations then "necessary" to him may be different than to you.
b) Same thing with connections of the truss. He might want / need to nail something to the truss at certain spots and doesn't want to split the truss members when nailing or connecting to it.
c) It could be a serviceability issue. That means deflection, even ponding / stability, vibration. It could be related to other direction from the architect or fire protection or such.
d) It might mean that he was required to design the roof for future HVAC equipment or something.
e) When it's a hospital or school project, he may have experience working in the field and knows what's acceptable and not (to the plan checkers who can be unreasonable). Why fight them if he doesn't have to?


Ultimately, if he (or she) is stamping the project they determine what's "structurally necessary". Some of this is easy to point to (calculations, specific code regulations, etc). Some of it can be based on years of experience in the field and no wanting to go outside what would be considered standard practice.

It's not uncommon for us engineers to be criticized for being too conservative. We've got to get our designs done quickly and cheaply. Our profit margins are thin. Sometimes we work with contractors that spout the "I've been doing this for xx years and that engineer is out of line". Yawn. We've all heard that before. What it often means is "the project can save $10,000 in cost if we're are personally willing to eat $5,000 of free engineering to re-work something that was never in our original contract."

My favorite story was when a structural engineering colleague was aske by a friend to review the work for their new house. The contractor was complaining endlessly about the "over-engineering" and continuously spouting off the "I've been doing this for 30+ years and this isn't how it's done". My friend looked it over and told her friend, "It might be a little much, I haven't checked any calculations though. I'm certain that the GC has been doing it the other way for 30 years. That's the way to do it with the least construction cost. But, a few years ago the Northridge earthquake hit and a people died in an apartment collapse. I'm pretty sure that's why the engineer wants to add these moment frames... to prevent the type of soft story collapse that was talked about so much in the Northridge post-disaster evaluation / recommendations."

 

[271828]

There's not enough detail to offer much help.

The first step is to present your list in a way that avoids causing a clash of egos. If you're using words like "totally unnecessary" in the meeting, then you're asking a lot of the engineer to not become defensive! LOL

 

[rb1957]

I feel like there's a lot being unsaid. To say someone lied is a pretty big statement. Maybe it is their opinion, vs your opinion (based on many years in the business). Maybe new requirements have come into play, things that don't add measurably to day-to-day safety but are required ? Maybe there's more oversight ?

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[ChorasDen]

The situation just bugs me. I feel like the owners are being taken advantage of.

Without providing any details or design considerations for us to consider, it's hard for anyone here to agree to one party or another as discussed in the OP. However, not sure I would agree that the owner is being taken advantage of. The engineer performs and justifies their design, but then the designed product is purchased and fabricated through the truss supplier (you). I assume that the truss supplier is not affiliated with the project engineer. Perhaps the design is overly conservative, who's to say, but I think that is a different situation than the owner being taken advantage of.

 

[271828]

What would you suggest that I do?

Since you sorta asked for advice, the following book has sections on how to deal with team members in ways that don't detonate ego bombs, etc. It has one specific section that would've helped a lot in this case.

I read it a couple of years ago. It's the most "I wish I knew that earlier" type of book I've seen yet. You might check it out.

https://www.amazon.com/Leadership-Strategy-Tactics-Field-Manual/dp/1250226848

 

[Tomfh]

First of all I'd back off a bit from the idea the other engineer is being "unreasonable" and that their suggestions are "totally unnecessary". That isn't a good starting point for a successful resolution. Different engineers (and builders) have different ideas at times. Same as doctors or any other professionals. The other engineer may simply have a different professional opinion.

If the other engineer is genuinely not amenable to any alternatives, and you feel strongly that an alternative is the best solution, then seek a second opinion.

 

[KootK]

Before you ask - No, I'm not going to get into specifics of what they want.

Can you tell us if the EOR's arguments pertained to lateral design issues? That would be my guess and, if so, I could offer meaningful suggestions.

What would you suggest that I do?

I've worked in precast, MPCWT (pre-eng wood truss for the uninitiated), and glazing. As a supplier / delegated design professional, you've only really got two levers to pull:

1) Promote your clients' interests as best you can but generally accept that the EOR gets the final say in engineering work that falls within their purview. Go with the flow and focus on only that which is within your control. It sounds as though you're already an old hand at this. And that's great. Trees bend in the wind for good reason.

2) Master the issues that tend to concern EOR's so well that you're able to bend them to your will by force of argument alone when it suits your purposes. This, of course, is rather a lot of work for little gain for most folks.

I got my start in prefabricated wood trusses and wound up taking path #2 by accident (I've mostly been an EOR). I can say with some confidence that, on the rare occasion that I decide to dip my toes back into the MPCWT world, I don't lose a lot of arguments with EORs proposing silly things. Sometimes I work as a "persuader for hire" for my MPCWT friends. It beats the heck out of grinding out calcs.

 

[Brad805]

Move on. You did what you could.

 

[3DDave]

There's an argument to be made if there is concern the proposed solution is dangerous. There is less argument if it is money. It's a shame to waste it, but it is likely a fraction of a percent of the total cost.

Unless the engineer is getting a kick back, who is taking advantage?

A structural analysis shows if any detail is necessary. Write up a comparison analysis of with vs without. If they are unnecessary there will be no change. It's also possible that the OP is missing a load case that makes the detail very necessary.

You might be dealing with someone who is wrong/misinformed or another Diane Hartley. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center#Engineering_crisis_of_1978

for background.

 

[Aesur]

Best success I've had is to help them come up with the idea themselves.

Well said! I learned this long ago as well, phrasing ideas in certain ways can make a world of difference. Instead of saying "if you move this beam here we have a more efficient design" try phrasing as a question "Hmmm I wonder if moving this beam here could work?" I find you will get drastically different responses typically; although there are the few projects I still meet my match on (dealing with 2 right now that make me want to scream).

As others have said, it's hard to share any input or ideas without knowing more, but we also understand why you are hesitant to share more information. I suggest moving on and not worrying about it as JoshPlumSE said, our profit margins are thin, sometimes we just have to design within our budget and it unfortunately means more expense to build. While we try to sell ourselves as being more expensive because of the level of service we provide gives a more efficient and cheaper design, but as you can imagine, that doesn't get you many jobs. I wish owners understood the value of paying an engineer better.

 

[jhnblgr]

The best way to try to explain something as an outside engineer is to present the ideas in a way that they think they are their own. Often times the reason for not changing is the effort to make the changes and the impact can be tedious. Hours of calculations and load paths investigated, fitting beams with in floor joists, columns in walls, headers sizes, all can be a bit aggravating to redo to save a few bucks. Architects throwing in so many windows there barely is any wall left, beam spans requiring widths exceeding interior walls, steel not being allowed due to contractor skill set. Often times these ideas were looked at but had issues that either didn’t work out or just was more complicated. In today’s world the architects make last minute changes with a year of planning and then they nickel and dime the engineer at an accelerated timeline and then have contractors lined up and digging holes out 3 days after the engineer got the plans. People today have very little knowledge about how houses are constructed and they try to manage the project with the architect but today’s architects mostly do interior design and fail to guide the client through process that they sold their client on from the get go.

 

[Eng16080]

I would love to know the specifics on this. For strictly educational/entertainment purposes, it would be interesting to investigate what unreasonable things the engineer is requiring on this project. Lacking information of any value concerning that though, I think it's safe to say that most engineers here have probably been burned on such value engineering endeavors. The "just a few changes" always ends up taking a lot more time than anybody (myself included) ever expects it will, and quite often nobody wants to pay for that. One small change can have unintended consequences and it takes time to ensure that there isn't a negative impact on some other part of the design. And these changes are doubly difficult from an engineering perspective when the design was completed half a year ago, and now you need to get your head back in it.

Personally, I'll usually entertain changes for the potential benefit of the project especially if the changes are clearly noted on the plans (as OP indicated), but it's often a frustrating process, and I can understand why some engineers might not be willing to do so. I know it's not always the case, but in stamping the plans, I feel that we have the most liability should there be a structural problem. It seems that we're often entertaining changes proposed by individuals who have nothing to lose and often have barely even looked at the plans. I don't think that's the case with OP, but it often it.

Without looking into the details, it's impossible to form any reasonable opinion concerning which party might be unreasonable. I suppose most here would probably be biased to defending the engineer.

You really can't share any details? How about another post titled something like: "Unreasonable things engineers do" with a numbered list of issues? That would be fun if nothing else.

 

[RontheRedneck]

It would seem that I touched a nerve with some of you.

Some of you comments on how I presented the ideas. I presented them as ideas only. I avoided any word that might sound critical or insulting. I did not use the phrase "totally unnecessary" or anything remotely close to it.

I am not taking the bait and getting into specifics. Don't think it's a good idea.

 

[driftLimiter]

All respect ron, there is a certain measure of flippancy with your original post, and frankly you are in engineers' home turf.

I think you received a lot of good general advice for how to handle this situation. But with intentional vagueness on this particular topic in this particular forum you should expect defensiveness. Most engineers will give any other engineer the benefit of the doubt especially without evidence of such strong claims as made in your original post.

If you really think they lied to the customer then report them to the board of engineers because it's unethical for an engineer to behave that way. If you don't think you have a strong enough case to convince the board, well then... Time to move on ?

 

[BAretired]

I did not use the phrase "totally unnecessary" or anything remotely close to it.

No?

I wrote out what I thought. Several things that were called for were "totally unnecessary". I referenced section numbers on the drawings and explained what I was suggesting.

You didn't touch a nerve with me. We have all come in contact with unreasonable people. Engineers are not immune. If you don't want to get into specifics, then don't. This entire thread should never have been started...there is nothing to discuss.