Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Fwd: Re: building code minimums for wood frame[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: addseaoc(--nospam--at)euken.com
- Subject: Fwd: Re: building code minimums for wood frame
- From: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org (Richard Lewis)
- Date: 30 Jul 1997 14:31:29 GMT
RLFOLEY(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-02-25 01:20:06 EST, you write: > > > wish someone could help unite our efforts to overcome this degradation. > > I have been in private practice for 29 years so I am even 2.9x more cynical > than you, Dennis. > > In the late 70's I helped gather Orange County S.E.'s for regular lunch > meetings to discuss mutual problems. It was benificial to face your > competitors and get to know them. We had these same discussions about problem > clients and accomodating engineers. The real problem was that these > engineers were for the most part not interested in coming to our meetings. So > again we were preaching to the choir, and sometime I suspected even some of > the choir members strayed from time to time. > > Rationalization of fees will always take place and you have just read many in > this thread; I charge as much as I think I can get; I charge less the first > time to get a client; I ask the client how much he is willing to pay; If I'm > not busy I'll charge less, etc. As long as there is this type of rationale > used to set our fee structure, is it any wonder the client feels he should > "shop" around. > > We have ourselves to blame and also, personally I feel in addition we have > gotten little support in the area of proper fee structures from SEAOC. > > Thank you for your concerns and good efforts > > RL Foley, SE > Bravo, Dick. I agree with your comments on how you arrive at a fee structure, and I don't know if that should change even if it could. I'm a big fan of the free enterprise system. In my personal (and humble) opinion, I think SEAOC has fallen short in promoting the PROFESSIONALS vs. the profession. It would be nice to see some business seminars put on by the organization that would help improve the ways we can increase our fees. It would be nice to see some CODE (both UBC and Business and Professions Code) changes where we don't have to compete with people that are not qualified to do structural engineering. When I see a seminar coming up on the design and detailing of wood framed structures for example, it would be nice to have a discussion about how much time it takes to perform the due diligence. From prior discussions, it appears that we are all charging about the right hourly rate. It just seems that, when a presentation is made about what we should consider in a design example, a parallel discussion should take place about how much time it takes to perform the due diligence. Consideration should be made also about the percentage of the total A-E fee as compared to the proportionate (word?) liability. While we all are competitors, we are also colleagues. While offering an attractive fee when slow or trying to develop a new client is reasonable and makes sense, some care should be taken about setting precedence or affecting the entire market. I recently received a telephone call from a prospective client who wanted me to consider a single story residential structure. This was a fairly simple project, maybe only a steel frame at the garage. The client told me that he had already gotten a quote to do "calc and sketch" for $500. At the time I got this call, I REALLY could have used $500. But, even if I only spent 6-8 hrs on this, I decided it wasn't worth stamping and signing for that. Whoever is doing these kinds of jobs for $500 shouldn't. Even if they're moonlighting, I really don't care how much profit they believe they are making. This kind of fee hurts all of us. Off the soap box for now. Regards, Bill Allen --- Internet Message Header Follows --- Received: from server1.seaoc.org (bqe.com [184.108.40.206]) by host1.texramp.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA12942 for <rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:15:09 -0600 (CST) Received: from darius.concentric.net by server1.seaoc.org (NTList 3.02.10) id wa004676; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:00:55 -0800 Received: from newman.concentric.net (newman.concentric.net [220.127.116.11]) by darius.concentric.net (8.8.5/(97/02/12 3.22)) id MAA07369; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:58:55 -0500 (EST) [1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network] Errors-To: <ballense(--nospam--at)concentric.net> Received: from BAllen (61024d0002la.concentric.net [18.104.22.168]) by newman.concentric.net (8.8.5) id MAA08568; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:58:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3315CB38.733C(--nospam--at)concentric.net> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:58:16 -0800 From: Bill Allen <ballense(--nospam--at)concentric.net> Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Subject: Re: building code minimums for wood frame References: <970227111215_-1975333937(--nospam--at)emout04.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Error-To: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Loop: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Info: [SEAOC] Owner: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-POP3-Rcpt: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Sender: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Precedence: list X-ListMember: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org [seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org] __________________________________________________ Richard Lewis, P.E. Missionary TECH Team rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org The service mission like-minded Christian organizations may turn to for technical assistance and know-how.
- Prev by Subject: Fwd: Re: building code minimums for wood frame
- Next by Subject: Fwd: Re: building code minimums for wood frame
- Previous by thread: Fwd: Re: building code minimums for wood frame
- Next by thread: Fwd: Re: building code minimums for wood frame