View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
swamikrishnan E-Conference Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2011 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:28 pm Post subject: 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: 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 |
|
|
srinivasan_vasudevan SEFI Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:50 am Post subject: consultancy fee structure |
|
|
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 |
|
|
slstructural General Sponsor
Joined: 13 Nov 2011 Posts: 19
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:40 am Post subject: consultancy fee structure |
|
|
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 |
|
|
vijay3566 SEFI Member
Joined: 01 Dec 2009 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:54 am Post subject: consultancy fee structure |
|
|
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 |
|
|
bsec Bronze Sponsor
Joined: 26 Jan 2003 Posts: 204
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 10:32 am Post subject: consultancy fee structure |
|
|
Posted via Email |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gautam chattopadhyay ...
Joined: 17 Feb 2009 Posts: 129
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:09 am Post subject: consultancy fee structure |
|
|
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 |
|
|
knsheth123 Silver Sponsor
Joined: 26 Jan 2003 Posts: 123
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:11 pm Post subject: 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))> wrote:
--auto removed--
Posted via Email |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jayant Lakhlani General Sponsor
Joined: 26 Jan 2003 Posts: 192
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:05 pm Post subject: consultancy fee structure |
|
|
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 |
|
|
bsec Bronze Sponsor
Joined: 26 Jan 2003 Posts: 204
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:50 pm Post subject: RE : Consultancy Fee Structure |
|
|
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 |
|
|
bsec Bronze Sponsor
Joined: 26 Jan 2003 Posts: 204
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:10 pm Post subject: consultancy fee structure |
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|