Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Proposed Standard of Care "again"

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
"On a number of occasions I have received contractor submittals of designs
performed by Professional Engineers which were unchecked and which included
significant errors. What standard or law can I point to regarding their
unchecked and erroneous designs? I have also reviewed previous designs by
Professional Engineers for existing structures which also were unchecked and
contained errors."

You seem here to equate "unchecked" with erroneous.  Many of the notable
structural failures throughout history were checked by a number of different
engineers, each of whom failed to see the problem for a variety of reasons.
In that light, I'm not sure on what basis you assume that the designs you
reviewed were "unchecked" unless the engineer's design methodology came out
in a later court case.  Perhaps the engineer who checked them also missed
the error.  In some firms, checking "flows downhill" and thus each level
that it passes through is less capable of finding problems than the one that
they received it from.  "Checked" is a very broad term in that sense.  

"If a client purchases engineering services, how does the client know what
level of quality assurance they will receive from the engineer? Why
shouldn't each engineer contracting for such services be held to the same
standard of service?"

Like anything else, the reputation and resume of the firm tell more about
their work than anything else.  Even if a specific regiment of checking was
mandatory, you would still see wide differences in the standard of service
offered by firms based on staff experience, staff level of education, level
of continuing education, workload and overtime, software used and experience
with it, office conditions, and even general temperment.  Checking is
crucial, but it is a long way from assuring a uniform level of service from
different firms.