Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: BORPELS and residential room additions

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill, I agree.  Assuming that the case as presented is accurate, a finger
needs to also be pointed at the SE who evaluated this project for borpels.
Engineers that do alot of legal work tend to idealize what a perfect job
would look like in a perfect world in order for their clients to get more
money.  It is an expert witnesses job to sharpen their pencil and find the
maximum fault, to make the situtation looks worse than it is. (remember OJ
?).  I can understand (but don't like it) why in the legal world of half
truths this happens but, my question is why would borpels hire a hit man for
a peer review?  

Randy Vogelgesang SE


At 07:12 AM 9/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
>This is totally rediculous. It appears that the engineer applied the
>"standard of care" typical for this type of project. I think this incident
>has identified the enemy and the enemy is BORPELS. After all, it is BORPELS
>who makes us compete with architects, civil-civils with inadequate
>experience and other unlicensed persons thereby forcing us to to reduce our
>fees (and effort) to match those who don't have a clue of what is required
>to do a proper job. BORPELS seems very willing to punish those of us who
>are trying to compete in this market but are quite unwilling to eliminate
>those who are technically unqualified to practice structural engineering.
>This is another example of how the risk to reward ratio is extremely
>unbalanced for the structural engineering profession. I think that, if
>BORPELS continue to take this kind of action without tightening up who can
>practice structural engineering, it's time for me to get out.
>
>Regards,
>Bill Allen
>
>----------
>> From: HARRISENGR(--nospam--at)aol.com
>> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
>> Subject: BORPELS and residential room additions
>> Date: Thursday, September 11, 1997 8:20 PM
>> 
>>      I have been asked by a civil engineer in another county to comment
>on
>> his structural engineering for a 500 SQ. FT. room addition he calc'ed in
>> 1987.
>>      There was a complaint ( but no failure type problem ) and BORPELS
>asked
>> one of their technical consultants, who also does litigation work, to
>> comment. The expert SE said the civil engineer should have investigated
>the
>> site, tested the concrete, obtained a soil report, as well as performed
>> structural observation , and since he did not the civil engineer is (
>1997 )
>> incompetent and BORPELS has offered to settle by allowing the civil
>engineer
>> to give up his license for 4 years. 
>>      It was a calc and sketch job for  $450.00 and the were 37 pages of
>calcs
>> and sketches.
>>      I have probably plan checked 3000 room additions, and these calcs
>were
>> above average . I am shocked by what the BORPELS consultant recommends.
>If i
>> did everything he is criticising i would have to charge $3500.00 plus
>another
>> $2000.00 for a soil report and $750. for a concrete testing lab, all for
>a
>> calc and sketch job on a 500 sq. ft. room addition!
>>       Am i in left field or do others calc and sketch without a soil
>report (
>> use 1000psf ), not visiting the site ( assume it was built to code ) ,
>and
>> forego structural observation on small room additions.
>>      I would like to know what others include as minimum services for a
>> residential room addition.
>> 
>> 
>>      Thanks in advance.
>> 
>> 
>>      Tom Harris , SE
>>      Thousand Oaks, CA