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 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 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
abubaker_ka
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 8
Location: KOCHI KERALA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:59 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Dear all
From the discussions , I understand that some struc.consultants are charging fees based on kg of steel used for the work. Recently a leading Mall builder from N.India also asked me in this line. I am not agreeable to this, bcz I feel that this is not a good concept as this will lead the designer to uneconomical designs, to increase the quantity of steel. To me the best way is to charge based on sq.ft basis. My policy is to do works carrying only good rates- min Rs.4/sq.ft. If one does the design properly and gives proper detailing and have random site visits at least Rs.8 to 10 to be obtained based on the present cost of living. If we all work together this is not impossible.
Another thing I would like to mention is that it is high time that the SE stops working as sub consultant of Architects. The main reason for our poor fee is this. Are we not having individuality? Why should the post graduate structural engineer work under an architect? For the last 12 years I have been working independently . I have decided that I will not do any work as sub consultant. If the client want my service they have to either directly entrust the architectural plans to me for struc.design or the entire work including the architectural part to be entrusted . In this case the architectural work will be got done by my architects . This works well and is well rewarding. Of course for the first year you may have some difficulty, but it will be compensated in the coming years. I think all the st.engineers can try this.



With warm regards

Prof.Dr.K.A.AbuBaker


Sent from my iPad





On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:22, "sriprakash_shastry" <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:


Quote:
           Lets say that the client agrees to pay Rs. 4 per kg of reinforcment to the SE at the begining of the job. Lets also assume that the estimate at the beginning of the job is 800 Tonnes. At the end of the job lets say the actual tonnage that comes up is 900T. In line with Mr. Kashikars email and I quote "award of job on ‘kg/sqft of reinforcement’ is in line with fare competition" the consultant will then be paid 4 kg per sqft on 900T.

If this is not what the developer/client wants and he wants to pay Rs 4 per kg for 800 T only, then basically what the client wants is a lumpsum contract.

In India an architect is not one who knows how to plan well. An architect is one who holds a 5 year degree course in Architecture. You can be great at planning but you cannot call yourself an Architect if you dont hold a five degree in Architecture.

The problem is architects have a role to play in all aspects of the structure whereas SE's dont. The architects role ranges from

1. Location of electrical panel rooms in a building.
2. Location and type of electrical fittings.
3. Type and style of plumbing fittings.
4. Furniture and Internal Layouts.
5. Space Planning.
6. Conveying and rotuing of services.

The list is endless. Whereas many structural engineers think of themselves as people who put rebars into concrete. The role of engineers is not just that of people putting bars into concrete. We have all been educated on drain design, fluid mechanics, pavement design, but yet very few engineers put this to use. architects have no clue about levels and contours, cut and fill, drain design, Integrated Services Co-ordination etc. These are areas which are still untouched.

In another 10 years there is going to be a dearth of good engineers who can provide comprehensive engineering services and also Project managers. Currently a lot of the Project management firms are pencil pushers. They fill out forms and checklists and sometimes they are also MBA's sitting at site and have no clue about engineering. There people are ruling the roost primarily because of their communication skills. Architects are nowadays unable to co-ordinate so many trades and work out schedules and provide cash flow scenarios to clients.

We need to understand that only 10% or so of buildings in India are actually engineered, the rest of them are built by the mistry at site. So there is room for all of us.

Think about why a WS Atkins or Ove Arup & Partners does not work on a sqft basis. It is because of their name and integrity. We are finally only a nation of subcontractors. We are also a nation of back offices. We are not the thinkers. We are the workers.

Integrity, honesty and track record should be the deciding factors for appointing a consultant and not any other factors.

There is always scope for improvement and everyone of us should have a chapter of "Lessons Learnt" at the end of every job to improve oneself.

Regards,

Sriprakash.
     



     


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


Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:47 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Dear All,

The points brought out by Sangeeta are absolutely spot on. But, We being part of the Structural Engineering fraternity, shall look out for some options, which may one or the other way help the entire fraternity to get benefited. The solution shall be either forming an association covering entire India or may be regional.


I've worked both in Indian companies and as well as MNC's. Biggest challenge for us as Structural Engineers is not taking up the works and delivering quality outputs, but sorry to say  facing the Indian Clients. Most of the time the Clients /  their representatives will not be familiar with planning / requirements of the project. This ultimately ends up in repetitive works and we are the major sufferers. If these kind of things have to be controlled, there shall be stringent guidelines from our end about the fee structure and time requirement for producing the quality out put. 


Most of the MNC's shall be working on these guidelines and believe me there will not be revision from structural Consultant and if at all there are any revisions from Client / Architecture, the Clients are made to pay for that dearly. These rules shall be brought out and forming an association is a must if any body's planning to keep the Structural Consultants in good shape / health.


Regards,


Eco-Struct

On 29 January 2013 11:58, arunkashikar <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:
Quote:
           Dear Sangeeta,

Thanks for the reply. I am not surprised to see strong opinions on my mail. I am sure you know that I have spent major part of my career working in Tata consulting engineers – a leading consulting organization - and therefore claim to understand both sides of the coin.

I would like to conclude my thoughts on the issue as under:

1) I have always agreed that fees of structural engineers are very low and mostly non-workable. In none of my posing earlier or even during discussion with you previously I have claimed fees are high. My only point was and still is that consultants are mainly responsible for this condition. I am sure you understand that in ‘corporates’ like ours decisions are not taken by one person and therefore convincing anyone based on personal view is very difficult. If you go by process, prequalification is only answer form our side, result of which you know..
2) The only solution in my opinion is the one suggested by Mr. Swaminathan, which is some sort of consultants association which can regulate both fees and guarantee good quality of service for the client. Only blaming builders and developers for lower fees will definitely not change the situations, as what they have to do is not in our hands. Believe me, I am not happy with the current situation and I know we are not getting good service form structural designer most of the times because of lower fees. I will be very happy if this is changed, but I don’t see it changing from developers side, Believe me I am trying to change it in our organization, but not finding it easy. Choice is yours, just blame others and wait for the situation to change or change it yourself….
3) I have also known so called reputed consultants who claim and get very high fees compared to the mass and give very bad service. The associattion also need to control these elements. These may be excpetions, but unfortunately I have come across such consultants who were given work because of their so called reputation. How can I convince my organisation then that an higher fee will gaurantee better job ?
4) Views about peer review and proof checking like “one structural engr gets licence to pull down the other structural engr” expressed by some of your peers need to change and consultants have to be open to accept and respect other structural consultants view with open mind. This dis-respect for peers is main hurdle in uniting, I believe.

Hope all this discussion will lead to something benefitial both the developer and consulting comminity.

Regards,
Arun Kashikar


From: SANGEETA WIJ [mailto:forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 7:04 PM
To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org)
Subject: [SEFI] Re: consultancy fee structure




My dear Mr Kashikar

I am responding to your and Mr Maitrey’s email collectively, wherein you have clearly washed off your hands by saying who are we if the structural consultants quote so low?(it is as if someone is driven to jump in a well, and you are closing your eyes to the problem?). Are you not aware that one of your Prequalified Consultants had quoted, for Proof Checking a fees of Rs0.50 per sq feet, and later reduced it to half during negotiations? What kind of services do you expect to get if the fee is such a pittance? Surely as experienced Structural Designers, you at Tata Housing do understand the concept of a minimum workable fees? Or is it so difficult to understand? How else does a Structural Consultant hire the best brains, buy the best(reasonably) hardware and ETABS(original) and pay for AMC and overheads if he’s not getting paid enough to cover his expenditure on your Project? Why is it too much to ask at least the educated and experienced SE Professionals as Clients to understand and appreciate that there is a basic minimum price of doing a good job and to put it bluntly, at the price of a donkey you cannot expect to buy a quality stallion? What Value engineering are you expecting if the poor SE cannot afford to make both ends meet and therefore carries your Project with him into a big mess!
I hope this shows that the ongoing discussions are leading to nothing useful as everyone of us here understands what a good structural designer ought to do, but the Clients conveniently close their eyes to what a good Client ought to pay, for a good job! To quote my friends in Germany, they charge a flat 10% for a structural design and PMC job and no one even dares to argue, bargain or talk about free market forces! You cannot expect to get Gucchi or Prada if you shop at footpath stalls!
I hope I have made my point without hurting any sentiments.
Regards
Sangeeta Wij

From: arunkashikar [mailto:forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org) (forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))]
Sent: 28 January 2013 12:15
To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org) (general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org))
Subject: [SEFI] Re: consultancy fee structure




It is good to see so much discussion on my mail related to developers view on structural consultants fees. Since it appears there are lot of miss-interpretations of what I have written, I would like to clarify some of the presumptions for clarity and for healthy discussion, which can benefit all.


1) I never said in my mail that peer review is done to reduce the cost of structure. I , and most of the developers know the difference between peer review and value engineering. Off course objective of peer review is second check regarding safety, serviceability and constructability of structure. But, while doing a peer review, if peer review consultant come across additional margin or even more reinforcement than required provided by error ( we can’t say this cannot happen, as no peer review is required if all consultants are sure of error free design always!) is it not the responsibility of main consultant to revise his drawings. Unfortunately, in most of the peer review we get done, we have experience consultants are over conservative is their design are no peer reviewed.
2) No change in framing plans or structural system is which required re-analysis and redesign is expected in peer review, this is expected in value engineering, where we link the fees to saving achieved by value engineering. There is fixed fee in caser of peer review, which is paid irrespective of saving done or not, though most of the peer review result is saving by removing over conservatism in the design.
3) We, at Tata housing do not select consultant by lowest per sqft fee, we have a consultant prequalification process, which is very detailed and proven process. My point was, among the prequalified consultants, if all consultants stick to their professional integrity ( no compromise on safety, serviceability and constructability of structures) if we select the one with lowest fee, how it is wrong?
4) I completely agree that in general current fees of structural consultants are too low, but who is to be blamed for it? In my opinion, root cause of the issue is, for getting the job, consultants compromise on the effort required by them to design the structure economically in addition to meeting safety, serviceability and constructability of structures. ( I never said these can be compromised , and this is the reason we appoint peer review consultants for each of our project)
5) I again emphasize here that consultants need to become sensitive toward economy of structures while maintaining their professional integrity while demanding the fare fee.

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: swamikrishnan [mailto:forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org) (forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:16 AM

To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org) (general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org)) (general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org) (general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org)))
Subject: [SEFI] Re: consultancy fee structure




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--





Download Attachments  


~WRD184 jpg
Click on thumbnail for full size image

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/files/_WRD184_644.jpg][/url]






Disclaimer: The Information contained and transmitted by this E-mail along with attachments, if any, may contain privileged, proprietary, and confidential material and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you have erroneously received this message, please delete it immediately and notify the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are further notified that any use, distribution, transmission, printing, copying or dissemination of this information in any manner is strictly prohibited. The opinion expressed in this mail are those of the sender, and not necessarily reflect those of TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.
     




     
Download Attachments:

image001.jpg





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


Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply Reply with quote

Dear all

I have seen various discussions here i would like to emphasize that in big cities we have nominal rates but as we go to tier 2 cities the rates hit abysmal low along with the quality of the detail provided. This happens due to two reasons generally the professors/ people working in college or even the practicing pwd engineers provide the details at a very low rate compared to professionals dedicated to the structural engineering alone. Professionals dedicated to structural engineering alone are forced to give details which are not standard and hence the over all practice gets overhauled by unholy precedent of cheap design and detail which is not standard also i feel that frequent visits to the site is not posssible to them because of their primary duty as professor or PWD engineer.

In such a scenario the upcoming freshly graduated engineers i.e people who have experience say in design face uphill task in convicing people for higher price but increased quality and site visits.

Also due to strong architectural lobby it is very difficult toget fair price because the architects look to save their money by giving the projects to the professors/ people working in college or even the practicing pwd engineers who can do the work.

I feel that no offence but the established structural engineers lack of courage and will and lack of strong political representation as the main reason for the suffering of structural egineers. Also the established structural engineers feel threatned by the young incumbants into the feild and these are to be fair a very serious problems structural engineering front is facing. Some times i wonder in this growing economy when there is lot of opportunity for every body and we can coexist harmoniously somewhere the law of india has to be strengthned.

Just by posting comments regarding suffering we can get some sympathy unless a strong will is there and institution as strong as an architectural body which has foot print in all the parts of country whatever we say or do  are just words and only words do not have weight.


Thanks and regards

Anup Shirhatti
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MANOJ MITTAL
...
...


Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:58 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

I agree.Sent by MANOJ MITTAL from BlackBerry® on Airtel
From: "adshrt" <forum@sefindia.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:35:07 +0530
To: <general@sefindia.org>
ReplyTo: general@sefindia.org
Subject: [SEFI] Re: consultancy fee structure

     Dear all   I have seen various discussions here i would like to emphasize that in big cities we have nominal rates but as we go to tier 2 cities the rates hit abysmal low along with the quality of the detail provided. This happens due to two reasons generally the professors/ people working in college or even the practicing pwd engineers provide the details at a very low rate compared to professionals dedicated to the structural engineering alone. Professionals dedicated to structural engineering alone are forced to give details which are not standard and hence the over all practice gets overhauled by unholy precedent of cheap design and detail which is not standard also i feel that frequent visits to the site is not posssible to them because of their primary duty as professor or PWD engineer.  In such a scenario the upcoming freshly graduated engineers i.e people who have experience say in design face uphill task in convicing people for higher price but increased quality and site visits.   Also due to strong architectural lobby it is very difficult toget fair price because the architects look to save their money by giving the projects to the professors/ people working in college or even the practicing pwd engineers who can do the work.  I feel that no offence but the established structural engineers lack of courage and will and lack of strong political representation as the main reason for the suffering of structural egineers. Also the established structural engineers feel threatned by the young incumbants into the feild and these are to be fair a very serious problems structural engineering front is facing. Some times i wonder in this growing economy when there is lot of opportunity for every body and we can coexist harmoniously somewhere the law of india has to be strengthned.  Just by posting comments regarding suffering we can get some sympathy unless a strong will is there and institution as strong as an architectural body which has foot print in all the parts of country whatever we say or do are just words and only words do not have weight.   Thanks and regards  Anup Shirhatti
        --

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


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 123

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:05 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Dear All

It is seen that the Structural Engineers are not defining their fees (may be too low) and the scope of work & deliverable for that much fees.

We should define the Scope of Work and Deliverable for that amount of fees we have agreed upon. This will help stop dragging him to indefinite revisions & review, visits and liabilities, maintaining records for the life time etc.. 

I have attached a sample - simple quotation document defining the scope of work, deliverable and fees. We at SEFI have Structural Engineers / Experts from diverse fields. We may develop a few sample contract documents which will help the members to define the Task.

K. N. Sheth

Posted via Email



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.
TYPICAL_STR-DESIGN_QUOTATION.doc
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  TYPICAL_STR-DESIGN_QUOTATION.doc
 Filesize:  81 KB
 Downloaded:  491 Time(s)

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
efficientdesign
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:45 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

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


Joined: 04 Sep 2009
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:06 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Dear Members,

According to me the fee structure shall be based on cost at percentage basis.
Registration criteria is good for the new incumbants. as for the the senior practecing structural engineers we were registered in according to Muncipal rules and subsequently due to court order the requirement of registration is  waived if the Engineer is a chartered engineer of IEI.Hence Practecing engineers with Charterred Engineer status should be allowed to continue his profession.


Proof checking is good. But This must be judicail,impartial and corrupt free


Best Wishes,
K C FRANCIS
.



On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:00 AM, girishtwadhwa <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:
Quote:
           Hi I am entering into this discussion for the first time.
my opinion on structural engineering faternity and attitude of clients and builders to structural engineering is as under ( I am replying wrt quote from Arun and replies from Sangeeta and others)
FEES :
1. Structural engineers are not respected by clients in our country. This I am comparing with Doctors, Architects, Govt officers and fashion designers.
2. Even in poor countries like Yemen, Structural engineers are valued.
3. Gujrat disaster was man-made and not nature. Eq of far more power have struct chile, newzealand and many more countries.
4. Developers and structural engrs escaped after eq because of our lax attitude to respect for law. Money buys everything
5. My opinion is today also many buildings in Gujarat including ahmedabad are being desinged sub-standard to resist eq. There will be repeat of manmade disaster should eq strike again. Maybe Maitrey Talati will be in better posn to comment.
6. When I am driving by in Navi Mumbai a basic look tells me the engineering happening there in zone IV location.
6. Fees for structural engrs today in Mumbai ranges for few Rs. per sft for a strugling engr to many times more for established engrs. Only few structural engrs in Mumbai can command premium.
7. Once you cross mumbai toll, rates drop to atleast half what you get in Mumbai.
8. even if str engr is lucky to get Rs. 10/- per sft on Built up area, it is hardly any percentage of Rs. 15000/- per sft of sale price onn BUA in cornermost corner of Mumbai. The total amount spent on getting approvals (liasoning and otherwise) is probably 20-30 times more than the amount charged by all consultants (arch, str engre, plumbing and fire fighting, supervision) put together for a residential bldg project.
9. I do try to explain to general public (like my clients etc) abt role of structural engrs in society and their importance. Most of the people in India are unfortunately born Civil Engineers and Structural engineers.
PEER REVIEW AND PROOF CHECKING
1. Our country, seems to be made of hypocrites and of people unable to make judicious independent, just decisions. The judgement of Juvenile board a few hours back is a classic case.
2. Proof checking means, one structural engr gets licence to pull down the other structural engr just like a story where the Indian was exporting crabs in open basket. On being asked why he was not covering the basket, he replied : they are indian crabs. the moment one goes up, the other pulls him down.
3. When the proof checker is checking designs and dwgs, the comments will be so innocous and un necessary. For eg - provide all calculations like moment and shear from first principles, write again and again all clauses on sheet, spel(?)ing mistakes etc. The proof checking is not for all these things, but for checking safety and whether all loads have been taken etc. This they do only to prove their existence to client. The client being not aware, will only see red marks on sheet and assume that the principal engr is dumb..
4. However many a times, I do have faced a proper proof checker, wherein we have combined to give a very good product to the client
5. Peer review : peer review also means providing inputs to principal engr on difficult structures. So peer review is not necessarily cost saving, but very important part in difficult structures.

Path forward :
1. Currently Structural Engineers have to register at multiple locations separtely to operate like Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, All Muncipal Corporations around Mumbai, Pune etc etc. How much we can run around !
2. As Engineers have put forth in this forum, the time has come to separately register Structural engineers from across the country. Probably IE can organise a Practicing Engineer certificate after due training etc (In Mumbai we need to work atleast for 3 years under Registered Structural Engineer. The certificate can be valid to work all over India. Gradation and classification can be provided.
3. We have to get together and pressurise law makers for a common law like Parliament act for Architects

rgds
Girish Wadhwa






      SANGEETA WIJ wrote:                Thanks a lot Mr Kashikar for putting forth a frank perspective of Builders and Developers and I tend to agree with most of what you’ve mentioned(although the peer review Consultant’s suggestions for economy are normally accepted by main consultants these days, unless they are already squeezed and have no resources left in their kitty to do a complete rework!).
I would like to mention again my earlier suggestion to you: why don’t you have a minimum fees worked out internally, and keep that in mind while empanelling and awarding work to Consultancy firms.

The biggest problems with award on lowest fees is that sometimes the Consultant is too desperate and quotes ridiculously low fees to get work(and lands himself and the Client into a Big mess) or he’s genuinely not in position to correctly visualize all the likely costs and quotes a ridiculously low figure(and again lands himself and the Client in a big mess). Either way, the Client and the Project suffers, in terms of design quality and inordinate delays! Both the main and proof Consultants could be offered a cut on the savings they bring in together as a team, to ensure that the Project does not suffer and the Clients get the best and most optimum designs.

Regards
Sangeeta Wij

From: arunkashikar [mailto:forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)]
Sent: 25 January 2013 14:32
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
yacub
SEFI Regulars
SEFI Regulars


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:58 pm    Post subject: Re: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Dear Structural engineers,

I was watching the arguments for increasing the fees. Now, Anil Joseph has spelt out the real reason why we does not get good fees. " We dont have the authority.

How can we get control over the construction industry? Yes, only by registration. We had been praying for the redeemer - the engineers bill. But I dont think it will come through.
s or NBC.
Then came the saviour - The Disaster management Act & NDMA. It gives tremendus power to the Civile engineer & the Structural Engineer. Government has taken pro active steps to form Techno-legal regium. Registration of professionals is the crux.

The following preofessionals have to get regstered for practicing - 1) Architect/ Engineer, 2) Structural engineer, 3) Construction Engineer.          
Builder also should register.

For eachproject, the builder has to appoint a 1) Architect or Engineer who plans the building, 2) Structural engineer 3) Construction Engineer if the building is a high rise one. These professionals have to certify the adequacy of the construction vis-a-vis the requirement as per IS code or NBC. These professional are the professionals on record as far as the building is concerned. They are responsible for the safety of construction and design.

NDMA has issued direction to all state governments to revice their codes as per the guidelines prepared by them. They have even published model building rules.

Kerala Govet has published the Kerala state Disaster Management polisy and has emphasied the need to form a techn=legal regium based on NBC, etc. They formed an expert level technical cmmittee to revise the building rules. I am the team leader for the Structural Sub committee. The report is being finalised now.

Hope other states will also revise the building rules. I would be obliged if any one can give me details of states which have already ammended the building rules as directed by NDMA.

The guideline of NDMA can be accessed in their web site or in NIDM website.
My email ID is yacub@rediffmail,com
Cell- 9447088898


Anil Joseph wrote:
Dear All
It is nice to see such a wide interest in improving the professional fee system of
structural engineeing faternity. According to
my view point there are few basic problems which need to be addressed
(1) Who is a Structural Engineer?
(2) Is there any license specifically require to practice as a Structural Engineer?
(3) Do the structural Engineer has got any authority to stop the work, if he finds that the work is not executed as per his drawing?
(4) Do the local authority insist for verifying structural design & calculation, to ensure the safety of the structure?
(5) Is not the safety of the structure, more important to the society than the asthetic prespective & set back criteria?
(6) What is the minimum prequalification require to design a particular type & size of structure?
More than improving the fee structure the Structural Engineer should insist for the Power & Control in the quality and safety aspects. Once the consultant realise the responsibility on his shoulder then automatically the rates will go up.
A broker who just shows the land to the buyer insist on 3% commission. In 1995 when we  formed association of structural & geotechnical consultants in Kerala, In line with professional Insurance for Doctors we approached the insurance agencies for coverage on our professional practice. When they work out the premium considering the values of project we undertake, we realised that the structural engineers fee structure is not sufficient to pay the premium. The sad part is that the rates have not gone up much where as the value of the projects has multiplied tremendously.
First & foremost in the fee system let us change from square feet basis to percentage basis.
Let us insist on having registration for practice based on the experience & exposure and not allow every Tom, Dick & Harry competing for the job.
With Regards
Dr Anil Joseph
Managing Director
GeoStructurals (P) Ltd
Cochin
On Jan 28, 2013 12:36 PM, "arunkashikar" <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:
Quote:
             It is good to see so much discussion on my mail related to developers view on structural consultants fees. Since it appears there are lot of miss-interpretations of what I have written, I would like to clarify some of the presumptions for clarity and for healthy discussion, which can benefit all.

1) I never said in my mail that peer review is done to reduce the cost of structure. I , and most of the developers know the difference between peer review and value engineering. Off course objective of peer review is second check regarding safety, serviceability and constructability of structure. But, while doing a peer review, if peer review consultant come across additional margin or even more reinforcement than required provided by error ( we can’t say this cannot happen, as no peer review is required if all consultants are sure of error free design always!) is it not the responsibility of main consultant to revise his drawings. Unfortunately, in most of the peer review we get done, we have experience consultants are over conservative is their design are no peer reviewed.
2) No change in framing plans or structural system is which required re-analysis and redesign is expected in peer review, this is expected in value engineering, where we link the fees to saving achieved by value engineering. There is fixed fee in caser of peer review, which is paid irrespective of saving done or not, though most of the peer review result is saving by removing over conservatism in the design.
3) We, at Tata housing do not select consultant by lowest per sqft fee, we have a consultant prequalification process, which is very detailed and proven process. My point was, among the prequalified consultants, if all consultants stick to their professional integrity ( no compromise on safety, serviceability and constructability of structures) if we select the one with lowest fee, how it is wrong?
4) I completely agree that in general current fees of structural consultants are too low, but who is to be blamed for it? In my opinion, root cause of the issue is, for getting the job, consultants compromise on the effort required by them to design the structure economically in addition to meeting safety, serviceability and constructability of structures. ( I never said these can be compromised , and this is the reason we appoint peer review consultants for each of our project)
5) I again emphasize here that consultants need to become sensitive toward economy of structures while maintaining their professional integrity while demanding the fare fee.

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


From: swamikrishnan [mailto:forum@sefindia.org ([EMAIL]forum@sefindia.org)]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:16 AM
To:
general@sefindia.org ([EMAIL]general@sefindia.org)
Subject: [SEFI] Re: consultancy fee structure



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



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.
RBI.pdf
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  RBI.pdf
 Filesize:  52 KB
 Downloaded:  371 Time(s)


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.
VOL-1(B).pdf
 Description:
Model building rule

Download
 Filename:  VOL-1(B).pdf
 Filesize:  270.8 KB
 Downloaded:  269 Time(s)


_________________
Wyemgee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
u.mukesh
General Sponsor
General Sponsor


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 98
Location: Delhi

PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:24 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure <edited> Reply with quote

Yes Unity of all structural firms is the key.

I agree with the view expressed by Mr Bhowmick & Mr. Swaminathan Krishnan.


Regards


Mukesh Upadhyay




On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:10 AM, swamikrishnan <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:
Quote:
     
[edited]
     Er. Bhowmick has crystallized the problem and the solution in one sentence.

Self-organization is the key. As I had noted in my concluding notes on the Tall Bldg e-conference, there are two important organizational initiatives that we should consider:

(i) an active National Structural Engineering Association, that is both the mouth-piece of the SE community for the outside world as well as the home for SE activities by the SE community (including seminars, webinars, networking, training, capacity-building, code recommendations to the BIS, etc.). This has to be a national initiative, with state and city chapters that have their own activities (TEDx could be a great model).

(ii) a Board for Professional Engineers that has the charge of regulating structural engineering (and other forms of engineering as well, but we can start with SE). If we can have a Board of Control for Cricket in India, we should most certainly have a self-regulating Board for Structural Engineering. Of course, it is our responsibility to ensure that it is structured in a way that it cannot become a corrupt agency and that it is rigorous and fair in its certification process. Once we have such a rigorous process in place, we will be able to honestly pinpoint and address Er. Kashikar's legitimate and valid question on the responsibility of the SE in failures such as those observed in the Bhuj earthquake.

I would also like to point out that unionization of some kind invariably leads to better pay and work conditions (cases in point are the Teachers Union and the Writers Guild in the US). This has the potential to address the unreasonably low consultancy fees and uplift our profession.

Sincerely,

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

      bsec wrote:                Dear All,

I can not agree with Sangeeta more. She has hit the bull's eye (Diagnosed the problem correctly).


But what is the solution ? What is the lesson learnt ?


DO NOT EXPECT CLIENT'S (BUILDERS, OWNERS) TO SOLVE PROBLEMS OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS. WE HAVE TO SOLVE IT OURSELVES. SOLUTION LIES IN BRINGING ALL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS UNDER ONE ROOF AND MAKING SURE THAT NO ONE QUOTES LESS THAN THE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED BY THE GROUP.


I AM OPTIMISTIC THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN IN NEAR FUTURE.


Best Wishes


Alok Bhowmick



     



     
[/quote]

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yacub
SEFI Regulars
SEFI Regulars


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:50 pm    Post subject: Consultancy fees Reply with quote

Hi Everybody

Why is there no new postings after this subject was announced as "HOT"

Dr. Yacub Mohan George
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 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 11 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