Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Re-use fees

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Mark:

This subject has been discussed several times in the past on the list.  I
would suggest looking through the archives.  Based upon the list search
function thread, this appears to be easier said than done.  However, this
general topic was discussed in the "3rd Quarter" (Jul through Sept) of
2003 under the topic "Repetitive Use of Design".  You can find the archive
for that period of time here:

http://revobiz.dyndns.org/group/seaint/2003c

The key things is (as David pointed out) that even though you may not have
to spend significant design on future implementations of your design, your
potential liability will increase with each repeat building constructed.
Thus, it would be prudent for your fee to reflect such an increased
potential for future liability.  But, it really comes down to what your
comfort level is and how far you want to push (as Bill kind of hinted at).

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

On Tue, 18 May 2004, David Fisher wrote:

> Mark:
>
>
>
> We use the 25% repeat fee all the time.
>
>
>
> Look at it this way:
>
>
>
>
>
> 1)       Will the owner indemnify you if there is a problem with
>
> The 100th unit?
>
>
>
> 2)       The owner makes the same profit for the 100th unit as he does for
> the first, so why should
>
>           You assume that same level of liability and exposure for any less
> than 25%????
>
>
>
>
>
> Other options:
>
>
>
> 1)       A reducing repeat fee schedule, i.e., 25%, 20%, 15%, etc. to zero
> by the sixth unit.
>
>
>
> 2)       A "hold harmless" clause for any subsequent unit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> When in doubt, check with your O/E carrier.see what he says.
>
>
>
> Heck, my insurance guy thinks my BASE fees are too low, let alone any
> repeats!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David L. Fisher SE PE
>
> Fisher + partners
>
> 372 West Ontario
>
> Chicago 60610
>
>
>
> 312.573.1701
>
> 312.573.1726 fax
>
>
>
> 312.622.0409 mobile
>
>
>
> www.fpse.com
>
>   _____
>
> From: Mark Pemberton [mailto:markpemberton(--nospam--at)sbcglobal.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 2:26 PM
> To: SEAOC
> Subject: Re-use fees
>
>
>
> I have typically used a 25% re-use fee for the residential projects I have
> done in the past.  I now have a project with potentially hundreds of units
> being built.  Using this percentage for a re-use fee in this case seems a
> bit excessive.  Any input appreciated.
>
>
>
> Mark Pemberton, S.E.
>
> Pemberton Engineering
>
> Davis, CA
>
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********