Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: $$ CHARGES FOR B &S PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I appologize if you found my comments offensive. They were not intended to
be that way. My slightly tongue-in-cheek comments were intended to be taken
a little lighter.

My frustration stems from this fact. Suppose we could figure out a way so
that we could eliminate unqualified people from doing plan check as well as
get a more consistent plan check procedure. We could then budget with a
little more accuracy. The problem with this is that, even if we could come
up with the ideal solution, we have demonstrated in the past that we are
unwilling to get together and formulate any action. It's just a bitch
session anyway. Why put more scrutiny on plan checkers than we do with
design professionals? Or contractors? Or architects? (whoops, they are
design professionals, sorry) or unlicensed people performing architecture?

I also have gotten my fair share of rediculuous plan check comments which,
by responding to them, bust my budget. They (the plan checkers) typically
are not sensitive to the fact that one simple, rediculous comment may take
a lot of time to calc, sketch, cadd, back-check, plot, print, stamp, sign
and redeliver.

But, we're not going to fix that!! I feel that the time and energy is
better spent on doing the best job you can to prepare clear, concise
construction documents, void of boiler plate, standard details that really
don't apply to the job, negotiate the best fee you can and go on to the
next job.

Randy, I believe I share the majority opinion that it would not be
productive if you stop participating in this list service. Anyone else out
there wonder how many times I've gotten upset by something someone said
:o). I'm still here.

You don't have to agree with me (or anyone else for that matter). But we do
need you to participate!

Regards,
Bill Allen

----------
> From: Randy Vogelgesang <rvogel(--nospam--at)jps.net>
> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> Subject: Re: $$ CHARGES FOR B &S PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS
> Date: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 11:13 AM
> 
> Not at all!! I am sure that his office does an excellent job. I am only
> saying that if a comment is off base then it is by defintiton not
relevant
> to the work that is presented. I base my opinions not only upon my
> experience but the input that I have recieved from many engineers in this
> area.  My ONLY point is that there is little that we can do to protect
> against off base, time consuming planchecks.  
> 
> I am sorry that you think that I need some realism.  I thought that I was
> just providing some input on a topic that seems to be of intrest.  I do
not
> wish to offend anyone, so I am done sending my opinions to this list for
a
> while...
> 
> Randy Vogelgesang
> 
> 
> 
> At 09:40 AM 8/20/97 -0700, you wrote:
> >Are you implying that Lynn Howards' office does not get plan check
> >corrections because that office produces poor plans? Get real.
> >
> >Although I know what you are talking about (it's hard to be critical of
a
> >blank sheet of paper), I don't totally buy your arguement. If your plans
> >were indeed complete, thorough and accurate, there could be no criticism
> >(sp?). If the plan checker is unqualified to check your work either
report
> >him to his supervisor or hold his hand. Your choice. If you routinely
> >encounter this level of plan checking, build this time into your fee. If
> >your fees get too high so that you are not competitive, get into another
> >line of work. Alternatively, produce half a** plans so that you don't
get
> >these plan check corrections (as you claim).
> >
> >This is not a difficult issue. 
> >
> >Regards,
> >Bill Allen
> >
> >----------
> >> From: Randy Vogelgesang <rvogel(--nospam--at)jps.net>
> >> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> >> Subject: Re: $$ CHARGES FOR B &S PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS
> >> Date: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 8:32 AM
> >> 
> >> Of course doing a good job is proper, but when an unqualified person
is
> >> checking they don't have the technical foundation to reconize good
from
> >bad.
> >> I guess by inference that if one gets unreasonable requests they are
> >doing a
> >> bad job?  I have found that locally the engineers that do a poor job
> >> encounter less plancheck problems because they simply give them less
to
> >look at.
> >> 
> >> Randy Vogelgesang
> >
> 
> 
>