structural field services

huangyhg

structural field services
working for an a/e firm in the midwest, we are often limited by our contracts with the owner to part time field services. our ca services include shop drawings review, weekly meetings at the site, processing of pay requests, resolution field problems, etc.
field observation is often done by a person who conducts the weekly meetings which is normally a non-engineer or someone who doesn't immediate recognize structural issues. he may take a few photos to show general construction progress but often no photos showing construction errors/issues.
the structural engineer is often limited to going to the job site only once or twice during the course of the project, which is woefully inadequate for most decent size projects.
we require structural testing services as part of the general contractor's or owner's responsibility. we prefer to have those services under the gc because we have had experience with owners omitting the services as  unnecessary.
unfortunately, testing is not really what is needed. structural inspection is what is needed. we need a pair of eyes to see whether it is being built properly. qc often takes third place to schedule and budget.
any thoughts?


i think that under the ibc - structural observation is only required in higher seismic and wind regions.  
submittal reviews and such are usually considered part of the practice of engineering and so must be performed by a pe.  
for the on-site visits, i would always like to go to the site more often.  primarily i'm interested in ensuring that my plans are understood.  i try to insist on some level of on-site examination.  wish it were more than we normally do so i agree with your concerns.
you can try to explain the importance in the beginning to the owner but if he doesn't accept it in the contract, there is not much more you can do except not take the project (yeah right). i wouldn't keep my fee the same and give more onsight inspection services though.
it just falls right in line with our generally being undervalued.
for electric power station construction, we (the owner) have field forces that are a mix of the following:
1. the engineer's construction management staff, usually degreed engineers (with & without pe), supplemented by technicians. this team provides day-to-day leadership of construction activities. the design engineers are normally not on site.
2. owner's in-house engineers (with & without pe) - primarily for contract management and technical/financial coordination of field changes. contract technicians, hired by the owner, also perform field inspections, but usually just mechanical & electrical work.
3. dedicated inspection services contract for things such as pile driving logging, rebar & concrete placement inspection, structural steel welding & bolting inspection. this is in addition to typical concrete cylinder testing, soil compaction testing, etc.
on this type large project, the built-in checks & balances have kept costs under control and minimized the chances for misunderstandings.
i have been considering one of two approaches:
promoting the importance of additional structural services to clients and attempting to sell those additional services to them.
modifying our specifications to require inspections by a qualified structural engineer (not necessarily us) for specific areas where we constantly see problems.
slideruleera seems to make my point that on many projects there is certainly alot of construction oversight for schedule, budget, and testing of all types of materials but how much real qualified inspection is actually being done? often, inspection by technicians is not very productive and effective. i see inspection as the weakest part but it is intimately tied to the ultimate integrity of the structure.
granted there are some differences in projects since i am involved in mainly commercial projects, some private and some public.
jike...we have typically tried to get testing/inspection services paid by the owner because in my area (se usa), the contractors are typically the ones who will not engage the services.  without regard to that, it is an educational process to go through with the owner to show the importance of construction process observation and documentation.  construction is both simple and complex....sometimes the simple things bite you on the butt...other times it's the complex.  often it takes an engineering perspective to tell the differences between the two and to highlight the problems.  owners and contractors don't always understand that.
i agree with ron. i once inspected the reinforcement for a concrete slab designed by another firm.
the bars were called up in a confusing way "provide 16mm bars at 300mm additional to those shown on plan"
when i inspected the site, we found that 10 tons of steel was missing from the slab. i only picked it up because the reinforcement over the supporting walls was less than the reinforcement in the middle, an architect would not have picked this up!
sometimes you may need to do more inspections just to cover your ass. if you turn up on site and the reinforcement is only half done, and you know that they are going to mess up the remainder or the corrections, then it might be hard to explain to a court why you didnt spend a couple of extra hours going to site. if your company will not let you do this then make sure you recommend it to the appropriate people and make a note in your diary that you have done so.
site visits can be construed to mean inspections.  let's say you, the engineer, show up and look at steel framing and cmu walls.  you're not there to check things like rigging and scaffolding, sog and so forth.  the next day a man falls off the scaffolding that you didn't inspect and gets hurt.  guess who gets sued... you do, for not pointing out the problem.
being able to show up on site any time would be nice but we open ourselves up to more than we bargained for in the process.  besides that, we deserve to get paid for that time we spend.  often no one wants to pay for it.
ucfse...standard language in your contract terms and conditions should specifically preclude your responsibility for site safety, even during a site visit.
you're right...they try to hang us with stuff like that because, as the lawyers like to say, we have "superior" knowledge!  that's why we have to be very careful to qualify our reports of site visits and to characterize them as observations not inspections (there's a legal difference), and to state what we did and the limitations of what we did.  leave them with the clear impression that if we didn't say we saw it, we don't know anything about it and take no responsibility for it.
chapter 17 of the ibc provides requirements for special inspections.  in my area, architects, contractors and especially owners are not used to having most special inspections performed by anyone.  everyone is used to having testing for concrete strength and sometimes field welding, but inspection of drilled piers, cmu and concrete reinforcing is usually not done unless the eor does it as part of his observations.  i started preparing a statement of special inspections when the ibc requires special inspections, putting similar info in the general structural note and special inspection requirements in the specs.  architects and contractors are complaining until i point out chapter 17.  i don't provide the special inspections as part of my design services, although a few architects and owners tried to say the si work was part of my design contract.  my fee letter specifically excludes special inspections.  i am considering offering the si services, but right now do not have the manpower to do it.