In response to CI’s ongoing discussion of challenges in the industry, several readers expressed their feelings on the matter. To contribute to this discussion further, please send responses to Marvin Oey at moey@asce.org.
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify some of my comments [from the Nov/Dec issue]. I should not have stated that engineers are largely responsible for the current state of the construction industry. This is an absurd statement.
However, there is much that engineers can do to help close what ACI President Thomas D. Verti, in the October 2006 issue of Concrete International, referred to as the “‘responsibility gap’ between owner, A/Es, and contractor.” In his President’s Message, Mr. Verti cites the FMI – 2005 Annual Survey of Owners which found “the problem of incomplete and inadequate plans was the leading cause for [construction project] cost overruns.”
According to Mr. Verti, the FMI – 2006 Annual Survey of Owners “points out the need for key improvements, including the need for A/Es to be more conscious of the cost of the designs; the need for more attention to critical technical design details; the need for coordination and collaboration among team members; the need for quality reviews by the contractor early in the design phase; and the need to bring contractors and subcontractors on board early in the design phase.”
Design engineers cannot be expected to have the level of construction expertise of a competent contractor; however, a measure of construction experience in the engineer’s training is invaluable, and the profession should recognize this.
Jon F. Rauschkolb, P.E., M.ASCE
Greensboro, NC
I believe more education is required in addition to a much more well thought out practical education process for intern engineers, especially civil engineers, beyond the bachelor’s level.
It is telling that we have pushed ourselves out of the meat of our profession by distancing ourselves from the field as a part of our licensing process. Why has it become a norm to think that drawing the picture and running the analysis is more intrinsically important than knowing how to actually build the project?
Our practice is about turning ideas into concrete reality. Our license should esteem to say we can do that from concept, through design, to building, and maintenance. For this, I believe the requirements of our profession need to require growth in a full spectrum of skills, both practical and educational.
Erik C. Backus, P.E., M.ASCE
Fairfax, VA
Engineers are the lone voice for better quality plans and project information. Owners and a lack of funds are dictating the less design, less detail, less experienced personnel on jobs.
The engineering profession as a whole has lost the perspective on how important the construction process is to the owner. But the owners have lost this perspective also.
I have seen in my 25 years of professional experience, in design and on construction projects, good designs that have been nothing but problems in the field and poor quality plans that have been no problem at all in the field.
The quality of the construction experience is solely dependent on the quality of the contractor, and quality of his experience dictates the success of a project. The quality of the contractor, his personnel assigned to the project, and the professional quality of the contractor’s personnel make or break a construction project.
And I believe this is true regardless of the quality of the plans and specs, quality of the owner’s construction personnel on site or the attributes of the engineer who signed the plans. Experienced, knowledgeable and professional personnel working as an owner’s representative has not been valued for decades.
Cost-cutting measures as recently as the Iowa DOT’s move to have snow plow drivers inspect large public works improvements without any experience and minimal training show that owners do not see the benefit of the right person on the construction project for the owner. If it is not valued by the owner, the services will not be paid for and if there is no money, there will not be professionals to do the work.
There is no acknowledgement in the engineering profession on how important this role is, so yes, we have contributed to the problem, and there is no foreseeable change in the long, slow deterioration of the importance of the owner’s representation on construction sites until something happens to change that.
What will change it? Good question.
Jim Edgmond, P.E., M.ASCE
Moline, IL
I presently review construction documents for State building projects in South Carolina. My job entails interpreting the plans and project manuals to assure state agencies get safe projects within code and are within their construction budgets approved by the legislature.
More and more, my review comments are aimed at “cleaning up” the plans and specifications to prevent, or at least reduce, confusion on the part of the contractor when the project is advertised for bids.
One of the other BIG problems, as stated by Jon [Rauschkolb], is the inaccurate construction estimates thrown together by some design professionals. The use of firms specializing in estimating has proven to be invaluable to South Carolina’s state agencies.
Some of the plans and specifications are obviously thrown together in such a manner as to “get by” and “get through.” It is also obvious that the manner in which some of the plans are “prepared” that the preparers don’t understand what they are drawing, what they are specifying or both. It is also obvious that in some cases there is a lack of quality control in the preparation of the documents. Contractors would have a field day preparing change orders.
After 30 years of working around the construction industry, I believe that proposals for changing licensure requirements might be appropriate to include actually working a construction project prior to licensure.
Tim S. Ray, P. E., M. ASCE
Columbia, SC
Engineers do not expect contractors to be able to design projects, perform intense calculations, and fully understand the theory of the project.
In the same manner, contractors do not expect engineers to understand everything involved with making a set of plans become reality. However, engineers should have a good understanding of the construction (transition) phase to make the design as practical as possible.
Ask a reputable contractor some characteristics of a good engineer. More than likely, some characteristic will be that the engineer didn’t lose sight of the project once it went out to bid, the engineer’s construction experience helped produce a quality set of plans, and the engineer understood and could relate to RFI’s and would make site visits as needed to keep the project moving forward.
I am very happy to know that I am not the only engineer that believes construction experience should be a prerequisite for licensing. What I am seeing in this industry is that there is some progress being made to recognize the importance of construction engineers. (NCEES will add a construction engineering module to the afternoon section of the PE exam beginning with the Spring 2008 Exam.) However, this still does not address the value of a civil engineer that has real-world construction experience.
Recently, NCEES has voted to change the model law requirements for taking the PE exam which would require an E.I. with a bachelor’s degree to obtain an additional 30 credits of acceptable engineering coursework. The problem is that this still does not address the very obvious need for design engineers to have construction experience. The fact is engineers need contractors and contractors need engineers to make a project successful.
Jason A. Sorenson, P.E., M.ASCE
Carson City, NV
Construction Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers