www.sefindia.org

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FORUM OF INDIA [SEFI]

 Forum SubscriptionsSubscriptions DigestDigest Preferences   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister FAQSecurity Tips FAQDonate
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log in to websiteLog in to websiteLog in to websiteLog in to forum 
Warning: Make sure you scan the downloaded attachment with updated antivirus tools  before opening them. They may contain viruses.
Use online scanners
here and here to upload downloaded attachment to check for safety.

consultancy fee structure
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topicReply to topic Thank Post    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
swamikrishnan
E-Conference Moderator


Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:28 pm    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

It is surprising to me that PEER REVIEW is being used by developers for the purpose of cutting project costs. PEER REVIEW, by definition, is a process of "self-regulation by a profession" or a process of evaluation by peers (competent individuals in the same field) for the purpose of "improving quality, upholding standards, identifying vulnerabilities and eliminating them". Structural engineers should not allow this important means of "oversight" to be used by developers for purposes that the process was never intended to be applied for. The use of a structural engineer for the purpose of cutting costs on a project is perfectly legal. However, it is termed "Value Engineering" and NOT "Peer Review". It is our responsibility as structural engineers to ensure that the term "Peer Review" is not misused in this fashion.

Regards,

Swaminathan Krishnan
California Institute of Technology
http://krishnan.caltech.edu

On 01/25/2013 01:02 AM, arunkashikar wrote:
Quote:
    Though I agree with the view expressed by Satish and others, I thought, I should also put developers perspective across.

1) As developer is selling homes on per sqft basis, anything for him including consultants fees are per sqft figures, and this is unlikely to change.
2) Lowest per sqft fee will be favored unless consultant can prove that higher fee demanded by them can result in safe but economical structure. Unfortunately, many consultants are not sensitive towards the cost of structure they are designing. They are not ready to go extra mile to make the structure economical, ( of course without compromising the safety and serviceability of structure) , if this need extra effort.
3) Now a days, most of the developers get their designs peer reviewed. If suggestion by peer review consultants results in saving, they are normally not accepted by main consultant as this need extra effort, or need accepting that the design was uneconomical. In my opinion uneconomical designs should be treated at par with unsafe design.
4) If all consultants stick to their professional integrity, by refusing to compromise on safety and serviceability of structure, award of job on ‘kg/sqft of reinforcement’ is in line with fare competition


Regards,

Arun Kashikar
Head - R&D

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd.,
Tel.: (D): +91 22 - 66614988 | Mobile: +91 9819055576

Facebook | http://twitter.com/#!/tata_housing]Twitter | Linkedin |Youtube | Flickr
7 Switch off as you go | qAlways recycle | P Save a tree... think before print.... Go green


From: satish_jain [mailto:forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:49 PM
To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org)
Subject: [SEFI] Re: consultancy fee structure



Good point on Inflation! I have been making the same point to several structural engineers. Keeping low fees(in sq. ft terms) will certainly kill our firms in the coming 4 to 5 years, if you work on the same fees today and 5 years from now.

Real estate prices increase over the years and our fees gets depreciated - way to go for a country like ours. I have to agree that even I have to take fees in terms of sq. ft as that is the demand no matter what from the clients but we probably reject 5 jobs in 10 just because of low fees offered. We revise our asking rate from year to year based on the inflation and take only those jobs where the client can understand that to provide good engineering, I have to keep good staff and that costs MONEY!


Regards,
Satish Jain

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:08 PM, efficientdesign forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org) (forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)))> wrote:
--auto removed--







Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
srinivasan_vasudevan
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:50 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

I would like to draw attention to these points regards economics of design, When we focus our attention on developer projects , it is surprising that the discussuon starts with" kg/sft". when one parameter of the design is given as an input , then the structural design parameters like member sizes,concrte grade , rebar grade , column location etc., should be" solely" at the discretion of the designer.It is very difficult to comprehend, when most of the parameters are" dictated "to the designer and yet his design economics are measured by 'kg per sft. In short , to achieve the required economics , structural designer should be free to choose his structural system, otherwise, designers have to become magicians !!!
Vasudevan
Consulting engineer
Bangalore
Regards
TSVcruthi consultants consortium Pvt.Ltd
rajajinagar
Banglore

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slstructural
General Sponsor
General Sponsor


Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:40 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

View expressed by Mr Swaminathan are absolutely correct and revealing. Peer review consultancy shall not be misconstrued for other means. Further such a notional understanding by developers / consultants can endanger the position of main consultant as it coveys the meaning that  designs are uneconomical by default. Rangarao


On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:16 AM, swamikrishnan <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:
[quote]            It is surprising to me that PEER REVIEW is being used by developers for the purpose of cutting project costs. PEER REVIEW, by definition, is a process of "self-regulation by a profession" or a process of evaluation by peers (competent individuals in the same field) for the purpose of "improving quality, upholding standards, identifying vulnerabilities and eliminating them". Structural engineers should not allow this important means of "oversight" to be used by developers for purposes that the process was never intended to be applied for. The use of a structural engineer for the purpose of cutting costs on a project is perfectly legal. However, it is termed "Value Engineering" and NOT "Peer Review". It is our responsibility as structural engineers to ensure that the term "Peer Review" is not misused in this fashion.

Regards,

Swaminathan Krishnan
California Institute of Technology
http://krishnan.caltech.edu

On 01/25/2013 01:02 AM, arunkashikar wrote:        --auto removed--

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vijay3566
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:54 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Dear friendsMy view is really different and it may look a unwise suggestion


i may explain with an example
suppose Mr x built a structure at a place in zone v and invested 2 lacs extra for earthquake safety but no such big earthquake in next 100 years occured.if the money would have been saved and fixed, it would have become a saving of 20 crore 48 lacs .
so as an engineer,we should use over safe design for only public building like hospital school.or i should say minimum support design for general personal houses.


On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM, bsec <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:
Quote:
           Dear Mr Kashikar,

I do not agree with your views. I think the builder’s need to change their outlook about appointment of structural consultants. When you consult a doctor, you do not necessarily go to the doctor who is charging the least consulting fee. No doctor comes to your door step to prove that the high consulting fee that he charges is due to X, Y & Z factors and certainly that is not the reason for your choosing that particular doctor. Than why different yardstick for Structural Engineers ?

Money is a great motivator and therefore if the builder pays reasonable amount to the structural engineer, he may travel that extra mile for you to make the structure economical. You are actually expecting that the consultant shall be paid the least amount and he should give the maximum. That’s not fare as a builder. After all what is the extra % of cost we are talking about ? Very little from Builder’s perspective.

Please remember that structural consultants is only a small (but no less important) part of the civil engineering society. The big players must take note of the interest of all stakeholders in their own larger interest.

Best Wishes

Alok Bhowmick


From: arunkashikar [mailto:forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:32 PM
To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org)
Subject: [SEFI] Re: consultancy fee structure




Though I agree with the view expressed by Satish and others, I thought, I should also put developers perspective across.

1) As developer is selling homes on per sqft basis, anything for him including consultants fees are per sqft figures, and this is unlikely to change.
2) Lowest per sqft fee will be favored unless consultant can prove that higher fee demanded by them can result in safe but economical structure. Unfortunately, many consultants are not sensitive towards the cost of structure they are designing. They are not ready to go extra mile to make the structure economical, ( of course without compromising the safety and serviceability of structure) , if this need extra effort.
3) Now a days, most of the developers get their designs peer reviewed. If suggestion by peer review consultants results in saving, they are normally not accepted by main consultant as this need extra effort, or need accepting that the design was uneconomical. In my opinion uneconomical designs should be treated at par with unsafe design.
4) If all consultants stick to their professional integrity, by refusing to compromise on safety and serviceability of structure, award of job on ‘kg/sqft of reinforcement’ is in line with fare competition


Regards,

Arun Kashikar
Head - R&D

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd.,
Tel.: (D): +91 22 - 66614988 | Mobile: +91 9819055576


Facebook | Twitterhttp://twitter.com/#!/tata_housing]Twitter[/url] | Linkedin |Youtube | Flickr
7 Switch off as you go | qAlways recycle | P Save a tree... think before print.... Go green



From: satish_jain [mailto:forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:49 PM
To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org) (general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org))
Subject: [SEFI] Re: consultancy fee structure



Good point on Inflation! I have been making the same point to several structural engineers. Keeping low fees(in sq. ft terms) will certainly kill our firms in the coming 4 to 5 years, if you work on the same fees today and 5 years from now.

Real estate prices increase over the years and our fees gets depreciated - way to go for a country like ours. I have to agree that even I have to take fees in terms of sq. ft as that is the demand no matter what from the clients but we probably reject 5 jobs in 10 just because of low fees offered. We revise our asking rate from year to year based on the inflation and take only those jobs where the client can understand that to provide good engineering, I have to keep good staff and that costs MONEY!


Regards,
Satish Jain

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:08 PM, efficientdesign forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org) (forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)) (forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org) (forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))))> wrote:
--auto removed--
     




     



Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bsec
Bronze Sponsor
Bronze Sponsor


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 199

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 10:32 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gautam chattopadhyay
...
...


Joined: 17 Feb 2009
Posts: 128

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:09 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

A client, in builder or contractor or concessionaire remain very happy to consultant if a structure can be constructed in 0 cum of concrete, 0 kg of reinforcement, 0 sft of scaffolding. Some "consultants" always rush to show their skills of "economising" structures to such clients. After lot of efforts and handing over drawings to such clients they realise that such a job client has purchased at 0 Rs. Even then an unhealthy competition is going on to prove every code wrong, every book wrong, "real design" consumes very less cubic metres of concrete and tons of reinforcements. I remembered an over enthusiastic structural engineer from Calcutta designed a 10 storey building in 250 mm x 250 mm columns, mmaking the architect and the client very happy. Only ESE saved the real clients, the flat purchasers by disapproving and cancelling license of the over talented engineer. he was later terminated from the company also.

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 2:05 PM, slstructural <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:
Quote:
           View expressed by Mr Swaminathan are absolutely correct and revealing. Peer review consultancy shall not be misconstrued for other means. Further such a notional understanding by developers / consultants can endanger the position of main consultant as it coveys the meaning that  designs are uneconomical by default. Rangarao


On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:16 AM, swamikrishnan forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:
Quote:
             It is surprising to me that PEER REVIEW is being used by developers for the purpose of cutting project costs. PEER REVIEW, by definition, is a process of "self-regulation by a profession" or a process of evaluation by peers (competent individuals in the same field) for the purpose of "improving quality, upholding standards, identifying vulnerabilities and eliminating them". Structural engineers should not allow this important means of "oversight" to be used by developers for purposes that the process was never intended to be applied for. The use of a structural engineer for the purpose of cutting costs on a project is perfectly legal. However, it is termed "Value Engineering" and NOT "Peer Review". It is our responsibility as structural engineers to ensure that the term "Peer Review" is not misused in this fashion.

Regards,

Swaminathan Krishnan
California Institute of Technology

http://krishnan.caltech.edu

On 01/25/2013 01:02 AM, arunkashikar wrote:       --auto removed--
     



     





Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
knsheth123
Silver Sponsor
Silver Sponsor


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 123

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:11 pm    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Dear Sefians,

Once Prof. Habibullah (CSI-Berkley) said in Ahmedabad.
I would not like my son to become a structural engineer. Instead if he becomes a good broker, will be a wise decision. Immediate fees at you discretion, no bargain, on satisfactory completion of deal, fees recd. and responsibility is also over.

For a structural Engg., marginal fees at discretion of Archi-Owner with extreme bargain. He is required to prove his ability in reducing Lizards Tail (This is Structural Cost to a Builder)  to a minimum. Then shoulder the responcibity of ill-functioning of every aspect of the structure till you Live.

Prof. Habibullah said the way people appreciate Docs & Lawyers as professionals, Engineers are not looked at. There has to be enough social involvement of Engineers in peripheral activities also, wherein the people are made to realize their contribution in every day life.

Now that Civil Engineers are in great demand. Our UG Students are getting jobs fro 5-7.5 Lacs p.a. Now Meritorious Students do not opt for PG - Structures. The society & Law makers at large will have to pay for its
negligence towards this profession in future. Common People forget easily the disasters like Guj. EQ which resulted in loss of life due to proved structural failures.

K. N. Sheth

 


On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:07 PM, gautam chattopadhyay <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:
[quote]            A client, in builder or contractor or concessionaire remain very happy to consultant if a structure can be constructed in 0 cum of concrete, 0 kg of reinforcement, 0 sft of scaffolding. Some "consultants" always rush to show their skills of "economising" structures to such clients. After lot of efforts and handing over drawings to such clients they realise that such a job client has purchased at 0 Rs. Even then an unhealthy competition is going on to prove every code wrong, every book wrong, "real design" consumes very less cubic metres of concrete and tons of reinforcements. I remembered an over enthusiastic structural engineer from Calcutta designed a 10 storey building in 250 mm x 250 mm columns, mmaking the architect and the client very happy. Only ESE saved the real clients, the flat purchasers by disapproving and cancelling license of the over talented engineer. he was later terminated from the company also.

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 2:05 PM, slstructural forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:
      --auto removed--

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jayant Lakhlani
General Sponsor
General Sponsor


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 191
Location: Rajkot, Gujarat, India

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:05 pm    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Dear Mr. Kashikar

I agree with your view point that as a developer you would like to make your project safe and yet economical. I am happy that you have given priority to safety against economy. To achieve the same goal of 'safe and yet economical' structure, as a structural engineer, I would expect following from the developer.

1) Developer has got his own right to select a structural engineer on the basis of lowest fee per sq ft provided he ensures that the design prepared by that structural engineer shall be safe. So, if developer is going to get the structural design reviewed by a competent peer consultant for safety, then only he should choose the structural engineer on lowest fee basis.

Unfortunately, in majority of projects this does not happen and, as Sangeeta mentioned, this ends up either in a mess or adding to a stock of unsafe buildings, with a probability of problems for developer also in future.

2) It is a developer's right to expect that the structural engineer should revise design if it is becoming more economical as per suggestions of a peer consultant. But do developers include this in scope of work of the structural engineer and pay additional for this extra effort on part of the structural engineer?

Because, it is very easy for a peer consultant to suggest that if you make this and that changes, the structure will be economical, but for the structural engineer that will be a complete redesign of the building requiring lots of his additional time and resources. In structural design, there are number of structural configurations possible and that too for each of the structural system out of various possible. It is not possible for the structural consultant to know by judgment that which combination shall prove the most economical. So, unless you design the building with few alternatives, most economical can not be achieved. If developer is ready to pay for all these efforts, the structural consultant shall be more than happy to do that. (As mentioned in my earlier mail, we recently did this for a residential tower project and ultimately it was a win-win situation for me and the client both)

It is a sad situation that formal contracts are not drawn between structural engineer and client (Particularly in private sector), where it is clearly written that what shall be included in the scope of work of the consultant and what shall not be included. Due to this, client is expecting the maximum and structural consultant wants to deliver just sufficient proportionate to the fees he has quoted. I think origin of Mr. Kashikar's complain against structural consultants lies in this fact.

Regards.

Jayant Lakhlani
For
Lakhlani Associates
www.lakhlani.com
Quote:
-- Original Message --
From: arunkashikar (forum@sefindia.org)
To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org)
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 14:32
Subject: [SEFI] Re: consultancy fee structure


Though I agree with the view expressed by Satish and others, I thought, I should also put developers perspective across.

1) As developer is selling homes on per sqft basis, anything for him including consultants fees are per sqft figures, and this is unlikely to change.
2) Lowest per sqft fee will be favored unless consultant can prove that higher fee demanded by them can result in safe but economical structure. Unfortunately, many consultants are not sensitive towards the cost of structure they are designing. They are not ready to go extra mile to make the structure economical, ( of course without compromising the safety and serviceability of structure) , if this need extra effort.
3) Now a days, most of the developers get their designs peer reviewed. If suggestion by peer review consultants results in saving, they are normally not accepted by main consultant as this need extra effort, or need accepting that the design was uneconomical. In my opinion uneconomical designs should be treated at par with unsafe design.
4) If all consultants stick to their professional integrity, by refusing to compromise on safety and serviceability of structure, award of job on ‘kg/sqft of reinforcement’ is in line with fare competition


Regards,

Arun Kashikar
Head - R&D

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd.,
Tel.: (D): +91 22 - 66614988 | Mobile: +91 9819055576

Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin |Youtube | Flickr
7 Switch off as you go | qAlways recycle | P Save a tree... think before print.... Go green


From: satish_jain [mailto:forum@sefindia.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:49 PM
To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org)
Subject: [SEFI] Re: consultancy fee structure



Good point on Inflation! I have been making the same point to several structural engineers. Keeping low fees(in sq. ft terms) will certainly kill our firms in the coming 4 to 5 years, if you work on the same fees today and 5 years from now.

Real estate prices increase over the years and our fees gets depreciated - way to go for a country like ours. I have to agree that even I have to take fees in terms of sq. ft as that is the demand no matter what from the clients but we probably reject 5 jobs in 10 just because of low fees offered. We revise our asking rate from year to year based on the inflation and take only those jobs where the client can understand that to provide good engineering, I have to keep good staff and that costs MONEY!


Regards,
Satish Jain

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:08 PM, efficientdesign forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org) (forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)))> wrote:
--auto removed--







Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bsec
Bronze Sponsor
Bronze Sponsor


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 199

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:50 pm    Post subject: RE : Consultancy Fee Structure Reply with quote

Dear Mr Kashikar,  I do not agree with your views. I think the builder’s need to change their outlook about appointment of structural consultants. When you consult a doctor, you do not necessarily go to the doctor who is charging the least consulting fee. No doctor comes to your door step to prove that the high consulting fee that he charges is due to X, Y & Z factors and certainly that is not the reason for your choosing that particular doctor. Than why different yardstick for Structural Engineers ?  Money is a great motivator and therefore if the builder pays reasonable amount to the structural engineer, he may travel that extra mile for you to make the structure economical. You are actually expecting that the consultant shall be paid the least amount and he should give the maximum. That’s not fare as a builder. After all what is the extra % of cost we are talking about ? Very little from Builder’s perspective.  Please remember that structural consultants is only a small (but no less important) part of the civil engineering society. The big players must take note of the interest of all stakeholders in their own larger interest.    Best Wishes  Alok Bhowmick 



From: arunkashikar [mailto:forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)]  Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:32 PM  To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org)  Subject: [SEFI] Re: consultancy fee structure 

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bsec
Bronze Sponsor
Bronze Sponsor


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 199

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:10 pm    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Dear Mr Kashikar, 
I do not agree with your views at all. I think the builder’s need to change their outlook & attitude towards structural consultants. When you consult a doctor, you do not necessarily go to the doctor who is charging the least consulting fee. No doctor comes to your door step to prove that the high consulting fee that he charges is due to X, Y & Z factors and certainly that is not the reason for your choosing that particular doctor. Than why different yardstick for Structural Engineers ?  Money is a great motivator and therefore if the builder pays reasonable amount to the structural engineer, he may travel that extra mile for you to make the structure economical. You are actually expecting that the consultant shall be paid the least amount and he should give the maximum. That’s not fare as a builder. After all what is the extra % of cost we are talking about ? Very little from Builder’s perspective.  Please remember that structural consultants is only a small (but no less important) part of the civil engineering society. The big players must take note of the interest of all stakeholders in their own larger interest.    Best Wishes Alok Bhowmick 

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Jayant Lakhlani <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:
[quote]            Dear Mr. Kashikar

I agree with your view point that as a developer you would like to make your project safe and yet economical. I am happy that you have given priority to safety against economy. To achieve the same goal of 'safe and yet economical' structure, as a structural engineer, I would expect following from the developer.

1) Developer has got his own right to select a structural engineer on the basis of lowest fee per sq ft provided he ensures that the design prepared by that structural engineer shall be safe. So, if developer is going to get the structural design reviewed by a competent peer consultant for safety, then only he should choose the structural engineer on lowest fee basis.

Unfortunately, in majority of projects this does not happen and, as Sangeeta mentioned, this ends up either in a mess or adding to a stock of unsafe buildings, with a probability of problems for developer also in future.

2) It is a developer's right to expect that the structural engineer should revise design if it is becoming more economical as per suggestions of a peer consultant. But do developers include this in scope of work of the structural engineer and pay additional for this extra effort on part of the structural engineer?

Because, it is very easy for a peer consultant to suggest that if you make this and that changes, the structure will be economical, but for the structural engineer that will be a complete redesign of the building requiring lots of his additional time and resources. In structural design, there are number of structural configurations possible and that too for each of the structural system out of various possible. It is not possible for the structural consultant to know by judgment that which combination shall prove the most economical. So, unless you design the building with few alternatives, most economical can not be achieved. If developer is ready to pay for all these efforts, the structural consultant shall be more than happy to do that. (As mentioned in my earlier mail, we recently did this for a residential tower project and ultimately it was a win-win situation for me and the client both)

It is a sad situation that formal contracts are not drawn between structural engineer and client (Particularly in private sector), where it is clearly written that what shall be included in the scope of work of the consultant and what shall not be included. Due to this, client is expecting the maximum and structural consultant wants to deliver just sufficient proportionate to the fees he has quoted. I think origin of Mr. Kashikar's complain against structural consultants lies in this fact.

Regards.

Jayant Lakhlani
For
Lakhlani Associates
www.lakhlani.com
      --auto removed--

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topicReply to topic Thank Post    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 7 of 16

 

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


© 2003, 2008 SEFINDIA, Indian Domain Registration
Publishing or acceptance of an advertisement is neither a guarantee nor endorsement of the advertiser's product or service. advertisement policy