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 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 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
slstructural
General Sponsor
General Sponsor


Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:24 pm    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

I am of the opinion that the discussion is getting side tracked with views pouring in about developer, doctor, lawyer etc.Having acknowledged the problem, I wish to suggest the following
a). Method to form a form a body to qualify structural engineers/ peer review consultants (like professional engineer) to assure the developer about capabilities of engineers. This shall be applicable for both private and government developers/ clients
b). Method to form a body to set standards of deliverables, fee to be charges (like IIA)
This sort of suggestion was already made by many of our friends in the recent past. 
REgards
Rangarao




On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:42 PM, 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) (forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))]  Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:32 PM  To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org) (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: 198

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:36 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 steps to prove that the high consulting fee that he charges is due to X, Y or Z factors and certainly that is nott the reason for your choice of that particular Doctor. Than why different yardstick for the Structural Engineers ??


Money is a great motivator and therefore if the builder pays a reasonable amount to the structural engineer, he may be willing to travel that extra mile for you to carry out optimisation excercise  and make the structure economical. 


The problem is that as a builder, you are actually expecting that the Consultant should be paid the least amount and he should give the maximum to your benefit. That's not the right attitude as a builder. After all what is that extra amount that we are talking about between what you pay and what the structural consultant expects? It's very very little from the builders perspective.


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


With 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





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


Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:04 pm    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Should we assume that a developer like Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd., selects a structural consultant through bidding in terms of kg/ sft? Then how the  consultants are shortlisted/qualified  in their Techno-Commercial bid? Does the developer invite Design basis Report in the Techno-Commercial bid, to make the basis of designs at per ? 

If not, I am afraid, it is not appropriate tendering at all. I am yet to come across such method of 
invitation of technical and structural consultant anywhere in India.


If yes, then the status of Structural Consultants is nowhere different from a vegetable sellers in the squatter markets of our country!! 








On 26 January 2013 22:30, 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 Visit poster's website
bsec
Bronze Sponsor
Bronze Sponsor


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 198

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:19 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Dear All,

I endorse the views expressed by Mr Rangarao. Professional Institutions like IASE, ISSE and the likes should join hands and prepare a comprehensive guidelines for :


a) Selection of Consultants & Proof Checkers
b) Model Fee Structure
c) Model procedures to be adopted for ensuring value added service to the Client
d) Sample Formats for Design Certification as well as Proof Checking certification, which will put more responsibility on Consultants to ensure that the works delivered are of certain minimum standard.


Every structural consultant should be a member of any of these institutions and must adhere to these guidelines. 


I would also like to inform SEFI members that IASE (Indian Association of Structural Engineers) has taken some initiative in the recent past in this direction and is preparing a guideline for Proof Consultancy of Buildings as well as Bridges. It is hoped that this guideline will be ready for circulation by April-May 2013.   I would suggest that other institutions should also take similar initiative.  


Best Wishes


Alok Bhowmick

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


Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 91

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:49 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with 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 | 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]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:16 AM
To: 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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
arunkashikar
General Sponsor
General Sponsor


Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 91

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:35 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Don’t you think structural designers are equally responsible for structural failure in Gujarat earthquake? Have they been forced to design unsafe structures to save cost by developers? If yes, have they not compromised their professional integrity in doing so?  

Regards,

Arun Kashikar


From: knsheth123 [mailto:forum@sefindia.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:33 PM
To: general@sefindia.org
Subject: [SEFI] Re: consultancy fee structure



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) (forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)))> wrote:
--auto removed--  







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.



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


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 198

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:43 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

Dear All,

There is lot of confusion regarding the term 'Peer Review'. It is often confused with Proof Checking. This is clearly reflected in the posting of Mr Arun Kashikar.  


My understanding of Peer Review is that it is a broad review, carried out to judge the performance of the work done by Design Consultant. It is an evaluation of the practice of a professional engineer. This is different from Proof Checking.  


Proof Checking is performed to assess the correctness, completeness or appropriateness of the content in a document produced by the Design Consultant (which can be Design Calculation and Drawings or only Drawings). 


Proof Checking will result in a firm opinion about the quality of the output of work performed by the Design Consultant while the Peer Review will only reveal qualitatively the performance of the Design Consultant and NOT quantitatively the quality of the output.


It is obvious that Peer Review calls for an expert on the subject. He can be an individual and his involvement is much less as compared to a Proof Checking Consultant, who has to have a team to proof check the calculations and drawings. Professional fee for Peer Review will be less than Professional fee for Proof Checking - but the difference in scope of work and liability to the contract is also different. This must be well understood by all.


Best Wishes


Alok Bhowmick




On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:15 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.


     



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


Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear SEFI Members


Structural design fees have been a topic of discussion inthe forum since so many days. In past I have read in general all the posts butI am posting for the first time my views in this forum. The issue of fees is related to many other things like liability, scope of work, responsibility during construction etc.

Structural design is something similar to any professional activity and hence fees will always vary depending on the ability, experience, organization size and perception about the particular individual / firm in the market. It cannot be standardized nor do I think a minimum value of fees can be decided since we live in age of free market and competition. Clients will always want the best of services in the lowest cost. I don’t think you can standardize list of deliverable or a method to qualify structural engineers or firms by any organization since disputes would weaken such organizations.

In our country regulatory structure in terms of policy is very weak. This is one reason that quality of design, construction has too many variations and engineers can cut corners in their designs by providing less than what is recommended by our codes / regulations. If we look at earthquake of 2000 in Gujarat we had professional bodies fighting the case of these very engineers who had provided such designs bypassing the codes. According to me that particular calamity should have been used to set correct precedence.

According to me there have been suggestions in past saying government should form some body for checking - I don’t think it would work and it would only increase one more bureaucratic hurdle. One other way of looking at it would be to encourage insurance companies / financial institutes lending in the project to appoint proof checking of the design/construction. This will probably force developers, engineers, contractors to perform better. Government hence should come up with a regulatory policy that forces various types of construction being done in our country to appoint proof consultants and fixes responsibility on developers, constructors, designers etc. Finally we should adopt what western countries have that all designs and drawings are submitted to local authority and are never reviewed unless there is a failure or a specific complain. In such cases settlement of disputes through courts would be necessary. Again this is where the government should focus faster efficient courts.

The biggest challenge in our country is that people like to take responsibility collectively rather than individually which is very different from at least USA for e.g. where Professional engineer who is signing the drawings is made responsible.  The issue of fees hence cannot be reviewed in isolation nor can it be solved unless we agree to something which would make us more responsible and liable.

Regards
Maitrey Talati
SHAH & TALATI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
abhio
...
...


Joined: 08 Mar 2010
Posts: 515

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:58 am    Post subject: Re: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

arunkashikar wrote:
Don’t you think structural designers are equally responsible for structural failure in Gujarat earthquake? Have they been forced to design unsafe structures to save cost by developers? If yes, have they not compromised their professional integrity in doing so?  

Regards,

Arun Kashikar



Dear Er Kashikar,

I heartily endorse your views. Unfortunately, our society places very little value on our lives -- Witness the fact that not one engineer or builder was convicted for their criminal negligence which led to the deaths of thousands. If even a dozen builders/ engineers had been jailed for their misconduct, the whole profession would learn to take its responsibilities seriously.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dssisodiya
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:18 am    Post subject: consultancy fee structure Reply with quote

respected all,
namaskar,
hearing to all learned ones its clear that strucutre engineers are  getting least importance and least fee as well.
the reasons may be many but structure engineers do not look back into their weaknesses.
first we have to look in the market what it understands and what it demands in India.
1 most of the medium level clinents (particularly home owners)need a planner whether an architect or an engineer.
2 they think the hired planner ( whose qualification ranges from dtaftsman/mech diploma/interior decorators/non technical vastu consultants/civil diploma/civil engr/architect/ structures engrs/tplanners) will provide all services including structure details.
3 builders run behind an architect/architectural consultant who has done mostly builders works and is good in
getting the approvals .established builders run behind name of an architect and make rest secondary.
4 builders do not want to deal second consultant directly but expects principal consultant to deal with second line of consultants including structure consultant.
5 builders offer a lumsum fee to architects and architects try to minimise their structure cost and as per economizing and optimizing  there is nothing wrong in it.
6 after getting some experience architects opt not to get structural design for small houses/medium projects upto four floors where sign of structure engineers in not must (its so in M.P. and C.G) and copy paste existing structure drawings.
7 architects exploit unstable strucuture engineers to accomplish their work at minimum cost.
8 architects know that clients do not have much awareness of importance of structure engineer which is a plus point for their profession.
 
 So as per the demand in  India clients expect architectural qualities in engineers and understanding this demand pattern many civil engineers in districts and many bigger cities shifted their business to a complete consultant and they are very successful in this business and at present the major business in medium cities is with the graduate civil engineers .
Think what these civil engineers have done in towns/cities to be successful ?
they sensed the market and developed skills for planning (though its not taught in depth in civil engg )
they cater all necessities of a construction related client and are very well able to share the market from architects.
with the development of a city architects come in picture at a later stage and these civil engineers are already established to do roll of an architect, a project manager/ engineer and also as a structure engineer.
Now think on your own.
1 where does a structure engineer stands ?
2 dependent all the time on architects and blaming the system.
3 ask why do not you have developed architectural skills (may be you have to work with some architect to learn
planning/detailing)
4 why do structure engineers opt not  for full consultancy by adding architectural wing with them?
(fresh and experienced  architects are available at ease. can outsource architectural work as well)
but the structure engineers so far have opted to be away from all these business and want to get business at their desk and that too at their rates and with minimum detailing and services.
the reason is that structure engineers do not want to put their hands in mud but want clear cut neat money in their pockets. the architects take a lot of pain to extract money from the clients why the same can not be done by structure engineers on their own by asking the architects to get direct deal with the client and not through the architect.
(some architects charge their fee and introduce a structure engineer directly to the client and the structure engineer gets direct deal with the client which helps him in future prospects)
5 structure engineers do not diversify their business and stick to  only designing though there are many avenues related to structure engineering in construction as well.
 
 
I started as a graduate civil engineer in 1990 and sensed the trend, learnt autocad first and then started architectural consultancy .with time I have learnt very good skills in architerural  field and with these I added structural skills as well by joining a structure engineer and learnt related softwares(staad and struds)
after learning struds  I added computerised structure design then strud marketing and training of struds.
Over the years I had  done number of projects as a complete consultant by providing complete consultancy .
got PG at a later stage and now get structure jobs as well for multistories but still I prefer to complete consultancy jobs over structural jobs.
I am choosy on structure works and put some of my technical conditions on minimum column width (like 300 mm for more than 5 m span), direct deal with the client, direct fees from private clients  and thats why not so many works of structures but still I am very happy and never blame any one .
what structure engineers need to do?
1 as per demand mould your product to a full fledged consultancy firm.
2 Add architects with you or develop architectural skills over the years.
2 diversify the buisness
  avenues for diversification
a: add interior wing
b: add project management team
c: do one or two  turn key works( if you do 2 or 3 houses/bunglows in a year you will get enough money
for your whole year . one of my junior stopped structural designing and moved to turn key with own consultancy including interior  and charges 70 to 200 rs per sq ft)
d:restrengthening and rehabilitation of structures
e:  structure software training to architects/ civil engineers
f:industrial designs ,steel structure design, plant and chimney designs which is now a days being done by mech engrs
g: make groups to do multidisciplinary consultancy which is in shortage even today in India.
(like civil, mech, electrical, MEP,water resources related structures,metallurgy,interior,architecture,turnkey,project 
 management)
3 be bold enough to dictate your terms to architects and learn to get paid well in time before delivery of drgs.
4 look business in medium and upcoming cities (migratory birds move from siberia to india in colder season , they are 
  more intelligent than us.why not we?)
5 create awareness in clients for the importance of structural engineering .
6 be united to raise the fee. (divided we die united we survive)
7 cut establishment costs by becoming expert on software tools(autocad/zwcad,nisa,strap,strud,staad n bentley tools,
  dimension solutions for foundations and other soft tools as per your liking and demand)
8 be brave to face the existing system and instead of blaming ,understand the demand and be a successful one by becoming fit in the demand of the market.
9 make your own pathway to tread and trade easily to fulfill your goals as well as your structural ambitions.
 
D.S.Sisodiya
Sisodiya and Associates
structural and building engineers
3 F.F.Ashirwad Bhavan Raipur  (C.G.)
 
 

 
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:15 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[/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)]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:16 AM
To: 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--
     




     



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 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 8 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