Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: FEE Survey

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I believe this is where we are today. It is a competitive market. If we
have a small backlog, we write tight proposals. If we have a large backlog,
we write fat proposals. Someone out there tell me this is not standard
practice. I don't have a problem with this since I am a capitalist at heart
(soul and mind for that matter). The only thing that bothers me is that we
have to go too low to get the work and I believe this is because the
regulations permit just about anyone to do structural engineering work.
This includes architects, civil-civils, civils doing structural engineering
but with only two years of experience, practicing professionals without E&O
insurance. If the field was a little more restricted, we would still
compete for the work, but gravitate to a little higher level. I must say
that, since Northridge, it hasn't been as tough convincing clients I have
to spend quite a bit of time designing and detailing the lateral force
resisting system. Maybe we need a few more natural disasters to get the
code writers to tighten this up for us.

Regards,
Bill Allen

----------
> From: MJSLAYSMAN(--nospam--at)aol.com
> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> Subject: Re: FEE Survey
> Date: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 7:51 PM
> 
> Item for disucssion:
> 
> Do you think that fees would go up if we were in a pure bid enviorment
such
> as the contractors?  We have to understand that our fee is generally
limited
> by the fee that the client, i.e, architect gets for the entire project.
>  Consider this:  If  projects (all architects' and engineers'  fees) were
put
> in a pure competive basis with a defined scope of work and open bid it
seems
> that an initial drop in fees the fees would rise to what "the market
would
> bear".  All you have to do is look at the contractors.  They bid tight
when
> the market is tight and fat when the market is fat.  We on the other hand
> seem to price ourselves tight when the market is tight and tighter when
the
> market is fat to absorb more work to make our profits up by volume.
> 
> Interested in hearing discussion
> 
> Mel Slaysman
> 
>