Quick Search
905 Consequences of low professional fees
Report ID: 905
Published: Newsletter 59 - July 2020
Report Overview
An engineer says that despite public concerns about workmanship issues on site, low professional fees mean that engineers are not able to adequately check the work on site.
Report Content
An experienced engineer is concerned that professional fees are currently so low that engineers usually no longer attend site meetings and only pay very occasional visits to site. They say that most consulting firms would normally have allowed in their appointment documentation for an average of a visit every two weeks. This is far from ideal, in their opinion, but just about enough as there would be more frequent visits in the early stages and fewer as the work progressed.
With concerns generated by the workmanship issues raised in the Hackitt report on Building Safety (Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety: final report) and by the Edinburgh Schools failures (Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Construction of Edinburgh Schools), the reporter believes that as opposed to the lessons being learned, we are actually at a stage where the level of expert inspection is still being driven down.
The November/December 2019 issue of The Structural Engineer contained a letter in Verulam concerning professional indemnity (PI) insurance cover, rising premiums and greater restrictions. Clearly claims are rising as a result of failures of some sort. The letter asks why this is happening and lists possible causes, including over-reliance on computers, poor checking and poor supervision. The reporter believes that they all play a part and are often driven by low fees.
The problem engineers have is that clients are quite happy to pay the engineer less if they can, and that they are mainly interested in ensuring that the engineer has PI insurance. If things go wrong, the insurers will pay and unfortunately the engineer gets dragged in even though they may not have been directly involved.
The reporter feels that this a serious issue and that rather than chatting amongst themselves engineers need to start taking action, so they have decided to share these views with CROSS who can then raise the matter with other relevant bodies.
Comments
Previous page
Email Updates
How to Report
Online submission:
Submit by post:
Feedback
Submit comments and questions regarding CROSS-AUS and this website.
The first part of this has links with the two reports above (894 and 926) and the benefits of Engineers attending site. The second part is more difficult as it is not clear what the relevant bodies can do about fees in an open market, although it is hoped that more of a focus on competence and clearer duties may make it more difficult to undercut sensible fees.
Insurance will rarely pay the true costs of a major loss suffered by a client, and avoiding the problem from the outset is of greater value. It would be better for the industry to stipulate minimum inspection requirements. There are a number of bodies looking at this at the moment following the Hackitt report, and GIRI (Get it Right Initiative) is one such group.
It is the view of many that problems are being exacerbated by design and build procurement methodology. To minimise costs, contractors are receiving designs and then asking Engineers not to attend site, whilst not appreciating the consequences of changes or shortcomings in the execution of the work which designers can positively address. CROSS believes there is a strong case for sufficient independent supervision of the works e.g. by calling the design team in to help assure adequate quality during construction. Self-certification has been shown to not work in many CROSS reports.
Clients need to realise that small additional sums expended undertaking such assurance will pay dividends in the long term through improved longevity and less maintenance. Responsible contractors should welcome this approach as it will drive upskilling, quality control and drive down the costs of rework. The industry needs client investment/engagement to make this happen.
In CDM 2015 it says "A client must make suitable arrangements for managing a project, including the allocation of sufficient time and other resources." Whilst CROSS is not aware of cases where HSE has prosecuted Clients for buying too cheaply and thus not getting ‘sufficient resources’, the legal mechanism exists.
CROSS depends on you for reports. If you have experienced a safety issue that others can learn from, please Submit a CROSS Report which is treated as confidential
If you have any comments regarding this CROSS report, please Submit Feedback
View other CROSS reports published in Newsletter 59