Construction Estimating: the Odd Numbers game

Posted on by

As a design professional, you have likely seen your share of construction estimates.  You may be in charge of evaluating bid proposals and/or in reviewing projects for value engineering possibilities.  Of course, you are almost certainly involved in submitting your own proposal estimates for architectural or engineering services on a project.

I saw a recent blog discussion on construction estimates, and how owners view them.  In the situation discussed, a contractor was losing business because his estimates were in nice round numbers, creating the suspicion in the owner’s mind that the numbers were not carefully put together.

tall building

 

One commentator, a civil engineer, said:

As a Professional Civil Engineer and owner’s representative, I am very leery of proposals received that are round (up or down) unless I’ve done business with this group before and am aware of it. I agree with the other comments that it appears as if the bidder has not put much effort into their proposal.

What do you think? Are you leery of an estimate that is a nice round number? Do you round your own estimates? Does an estimate of $21,975 look more legitimate than an estimate of $22,000?  Share your thoughts, and your practice, below.

————————

Photo credit: Håkan Dahlström.

Specialized Certification for Structural Engineers: a necessity?

Posted on by

States with Certification RequirementsIn North Carolina, as in 39 other states, there is no special certification for structural engineers.  As structural engineering becomes more complex, is specialized certification an idea whose time has come?

“Increasingly, structural engineers, architects and construction firms work together at the earliest stages of a project,” says Jon Schmidt, Associate Structural Engineer and Director of Antiterrorism Services at Burns & McDonnell and Chair of the Editorial Board of STRUCTURE Magazine. “In today’s world of complex structures and 3D modeling, structural engineering is a partnership among architects, contractors and engineering firms. The structural engineer must be able to offer insightful and pragmatic suggestions, and doing that requires strong technical knowledge, depth of experience and problem-solving abilities that have been well-honed over time.

“To this day, only ten states actually license structural engineering as a unique discipline; among these ten states, the requirements vary substantially. This has made it very challenging for contractors to determine what skills and experience structural engineers bring to the table,” says Schmidt.  “In the 40 states that do not specifically license structural engineers, they are typically licensed as Professional Engineers. This is a generalist license that does not distinguish between structural engineering and related disciplines such as civil engineering. As such, engineers in these states are allowed to perform structural engineering tasks, yet there is no formalized way to know if they possess the in-depth skills and experience that can make all the difference in a major project.”  (For a state-by-state look at the 10 states which do license structural engineering, click on the map above to enlarge the image).

SECB certification is the structural engineering profession’s self-imposed benchmarking process that was initiated in 2003, when the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) voted to establish an independent entity to develop a process of certification. One of the biggest challenges the structural engineering profession faced, until SECB was formed, was that there were no clear benchmarks by which to evaluate the skill levels of professionals in the discipline.

Eight years after its formation, and over 1,752 certifications later, the goals of SECB remain, since there is still no national licensing process for evaluating the discipline-specific skills and expertise of structural engineering professionals. SECB hopes to transform its certification process into the basis for national licensure.

———————————————

What do you think?  Should a national licensure program be established?  What about other disciplines within the engineering umbrella– should there be separate certifications for those disciplines too?  From a legal standpoint, if an engineer has the SECB designation, he may be seen as holding himself out to a higher standard of care.  With a higher standard of care may come increased liability.  Is this fair for an engineer who voluntarily studies for additional certification?

Share your thoughts on certification and specialization in the comments section, below.

Rapunzel vs. the Structural Engineers

Posted on by

Rapunzel-tower

A little light-heartedness for your Friday morning………….

Do your kids’ eyes glaze over when you tell them what you do for a living?  The only exposure many kids have to architects and engineers is Mike Brady (thru Brady Bunch re-runs) and NASA folk.  If you don’t work for NASA (and I’m pretty sure you aren’t Mr. Brady), then you may have trouble generating enthusiasm within your brood.  Never fear!  How about showing your kids exactly how *you* would design Cinderella’s pumpkin-turned-carriage, the smart little pig’s brick house, or, better yet, Rapunzel’s castle.

Yes, that’s right– there are now sketches circulating the web showing a prototype castle for the long-haired beauty, all part of a challenge created by NYC architect Andrew Bernheimer and his sister (and children’s book author) Kate Bernheimer.  They asked three A/E firms to create designs for popular fairy tale stories.  Guy Nordenson and Associates had the coveted story currently popular with 4 year old girls everywhere: Rapunzel.  They created a design to meet the story: a “tower that stood in a forest and had neither a door nor a stairway, but only a tiny little window at the very top.” When asked about the key structural elements, the structural engineers responded, “We were able to meet the Grimms’ strict design requirements by employing a slender tower design of vertical cylindrical stems that are joined by intermittent outrigger beams with a reinforced space at the very top for Rapunzel’s long captivity.”

Create your own fantasy design to show your kids that yes, you are too cool!

(Hat tip to Behold the Architect for the story).

Sketch via Design Observer.

Duke’s Power Lines Project & Native American Sacred Mounds (News Note)

Posted on by

Tuckasegee River

[This article was originally posted on January 9, 2012]

Duke Energy has been cleared to update power lines near the Eastern Band of the Cherokee’s reservation in the western North Carolina mountains.

Late last month, the North Carolina Utilities Commission handed down their ruling, allowing Duke’s project to continue despite protests from the Cherokee tribe and other residents of the Kituwah Valley. The Valley is home to a sacred site for the Cherokee and fear of damage being done prompted their reaction against the plans floated by Duke. The Valley is located along the Tuckaseegee River east of Bryson City.

The state utilities commission decided that Duke had not acted illegally by beginning construction on a 161-kilovolt transmission line upgrade. The upgrade is intended to help with increased demand in the area, specifically from the Harrah’s Hotel and Casino and surrounding development in Murphy, North Carolina.

The tribe and local citizen groups argued that the construction project would damage property values by destroying the natural beauty of the area. They requested that either the project be stopped entirely or that they be compensated for their predicted loss in property value.

The Commission ruled that the complainants had not met their burden of proof and had failed to show that Duke Energy had acted unreasonably or inappropriately in their planning of the power upgrade. The Commission also said that it was not empowered to order any compensation for loss in property value. “The complainant’s members will need to pursue that remedy in the appropriate court,” the Commission said.

This isn’t the only issue the group has had with Duke’s planned project. The original complaint filed by the Cherokee included an objection to Duke’s plans to locate an electrical tie station in the area. Duke subsequently voluntarily relocated that station. Duke plans to build a tie station, which steps power down from high-voltage transmission to lower levels needed to serve distribution stations for residential and commercial customers, to serve growth in the bustling casino area.

Duke says it has found two alternative sites for a power station so the company can avoid construction near the sacred mound which Michell Hicks, chief for the tribe, says is the home for the tribe’s mother town. One option is 13 acres in the Swain County Industrial park that is almost 4 miles from Kituwah, says Duke Spokesman Jason Walls. That site would cost $400,000. The second site is about 12 acres at Sheppard’s Creek, and would be about 1.4 miles from Kituwah. Because that is private property, Duke is not disclosing the cost.

The necessary improvements should be completed in 2012.

Have you followed this dispute?  Have comments or questions about the decision? Drop me a line in the comments section, below.

Source “Duke Energy cleared to build high voltage line near reservation,” by John Downey.  Photo (c) Kevin Dobo-Hoffman via CC.

Top 3 Take-Away Lessons for Engineers from the Sewage case (law note)

Posted on by

takeaway signAs we discussed yesterday, CH2M was held liable in negligence for the accidental death and other injuries sustained by workers at the Spokane wastewater treatment facility.  Today, a few take-away lessons for design professionals, regardless of where you work:

  1. Never assume that you cannot be sued.  The engineers at CH2M thought they had a slam-dunk case, because there was actual language giving them immunity in the law.  However, even then that immunity language did not stop the lawsuit and liability.  You can always be sued, even with the best language in the law or your contract.
  2. Even limited work can give you significant liability.  One of CH2M’s arguments was related to the fact that they were providing limited work on an “on call” service contract.  As the Court noted, just because you have not actually put pencil to paper (or made the CAD drawings), doesn’t mean that you are not “designing” in the eyes of a court of law.
  3. You must assume the negligence of others.  Okay, the case doesn’t specifically say this, but it does note that CH2M could not escape liability because the City had made modifications to the plant over the years.  The Court held that “a reasonably prudent engineer in the position of CH2M could reasonably have anticipated” that the plant might have been modified over the years, and that a prudent engineer would have conducted an engineering analysis to make that determination.

Comments, thoughts, or questions?  Drop me a line!  I want to hear from you.

Photo:  (c) Debbi Long via CC.