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

RE: Engineering compensation

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: RE: Engineering compensation
If engineers were all competent and never made mistakes, then plan checking would not be a necessity. However, reality is that some engineers do not produce designs fully in compliance with codes, and mistakes are made in design or in construction detailing. If full design and drawing checking, as well as peer review, are required on a project, then I would agree that "Plan Checking" would be somewhat redundant. I consider some sort of review/checking by someone other than the preparer to be essential for all structural engineering. 
In general I agree with Bob Hanson's description of the primary purposes of plan checking: "... should try to catch gross errors, point to code sections that may not have been considered, and verify that there is enough information or quality into the documents to provide life safety and for the inspector to spot items of importance." I feel that the EOR should have their own checking system in place and should take responsibility for the adequacy of the design; the Plan Checker should not need to do detailed reviews of calculations, etc, unless specific concerns are encountered with a design. And where there are differences of "opinion" rather than of explicit code requirements, the EOR should make the final decisions.
Stan Caldwell wrote:

The question should be, why is plan checking necessary anywhere?  When a licensed engineer seals his/her plans, he/she takes full responsibility for their accuracy and completeness.  Formal review by third parties seems to me to be a perfect example of needless bureaucracy.