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

RE: Engineering compensation

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Paul,
That was my point. I've known Gerry long enough to know that is the
principles he subscribes to as well. I really don't believe that he (or most
anyone conscientious enough to be on this List) would promote a lower
standard because fees were driven down. If anything, he might be implying,
let the low bidder do his thing and , Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware!

Gerry's comments were simply venting the frustration - he is too well
respected by his peers to so blatantly exemplify any less of a standard. We
all get pissed off at times!

Regards,
Dennis

PS: I've been meaning to ask for such a long time - any relation to Leonard
Feather - great Jazz historian?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Feather [mailto:pfeather(--nospam--at)san.rr.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 8:39 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Engineering compensation
>
>
> Dennis,
>
> Your actions are genuinely admirable.  The quote by Gerry was "do a lousy
> job and charge low fees", not provide a quality job for low fees.
> I understand cynicism and frustration, it is frustrating to learn
> you spent
> time preparing a proposal for a project that was awarded for less than you
> were expecting to pay your draftsman.
>
> From your comments it is clear that you would not allow yourself
> to provide
> substandard work because you under priced a project.  The argument that
> there was not enough in the fee to do the job properly does not wash with
> me.  If you accept a job you are bound by ethics, honor, self-respect, or
> whatever, (or should be) to provide proper engineering services.
>
> Paul Feather
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Structuralist" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 1:22 AM
> Subject: RE: Engineering compensation
>
>
> > Paul,
> > I think Gerry was being somewhat cynical and sarcastic on the
> issue - pure
> > frustration. Another "cynical" way to look at it is that many
> of us should
> > underbid the bottom feeders - just to make sure the job is done
> correctly
> > and the quality of the work is appropriate. I had a client walk in two
> years
> > ago who was building his own home. The drawings he had were the worst I
> had
> > seen. He was going to rely upon a builder who I knew would do a terrible
> job
> > and the client was building is first home - a 1250 s.f. starter
> home on a
> > low income or lower middle income. He maxed himself out and wanted my
> advise
> > as to what he needed to do to insure that he his home would be built as
> well
> > as possible. He understood that if the details did not exist, the
> contractor
> > under prescriptive methods, could do almost anything he wanted and this
> > included cutting every corner he could.
> >
> > I drew up all the details and revised his plans with good specification,
> > notes and cross referenced details. I charged him less than $500.00 for
> what
> > I would have charged $2,500.00 to any other client. I wanted to
> make sure
> he
> > was not a victim of poor performance and high repair costs in
> the event of
> > an earthquake. In return, his wife and child dropped off a large box of
> > fruit (dates, figs etc.) along with a letter thanking me for what I had
> done
> > for his family.
> >
> > My goal was to make sure his home was safe and although I could
> have told
> > him I was busy or not interested, someone had to do it and only
> one thing
> > mattered - the welfare of his family.
> >
> > I think that this is what Gerard was really acknowledging.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dennis
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Feather [mailto:pfeather(--nospam--at)san.rr.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 7:06 PM
> > > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > > Subject: Re: Engineering compensation
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Gerard Madden" <GMadden(--nospam--at)mplusl.com>
> > > To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 5:34 PM
> > > Subject: RE: Engineering compensation
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I hear ya loud and clear on the fees issue. Sometimes I think it is
> better
> > > to do a lousy job and charge low fees because those guys
> always get the
> > > jobs - especially in low-rise commercial. Architects want it all for
> > > themselves.
> > >
> > > Take care,
> > > -Gerry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is something I just cannot accept.  It is never "better" to lower
> > > yourself to the level of general incompetence.  These are the
> > > same attitudes
> > > that produce the garbage drawings referred to in the plancheck thread.
> > > Architects who employ lousy engineering firms based on bottom dollar
> > > eventually get what they deserve, plancheck delays,
> construction delays,
> > > unhappy clients, litigation, and loss of future work.
> > >
> > > Engineers need to learn that we pick our clients as much as they
> > > pick us.  I
> > > have several architectural firms I simply will not work with because
> they
> > > either want everything for nothing, or produce such low quality
> > > work product
> > > I don't want to be associated with them.  I have not seen a decline in
> my
> > > gross billings as a result, in fact quite the opposite.  If you fill
> your
> > > schedule with low fee work you have lost the opportunity to pursue
> quality
> > > clients.
> > >
> > > I would rather spend my day at the golf course, or close my
> > > practice, before
> > > I would allow myself to feel pressured into producing
> sub-standard work.
> > >
> > > Paul Feather
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > > *
> > > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > > *
> > > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> >
> >
> > *
> > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> >
>
>
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org


* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org