Posted: 6/26/2014 11:05:24 AM EDT
|
Back in March our house's drain failed and after several attempts to restore it we decided to replace it. On the recommendation of our contractor we hired an engineer to draw up a replacement system. This was done so that that the plans would be approved faster by the county and because of one failed system we didn't want the second to fail. The Engineer took core samples and did a drawing for a new system about two weeks later. The system that was drawn would be placed at 3 feet of depth and was a new type of system for this area. When the contractor came to install it the soil was to wet so it couldn't be installed with out smearing the clay below it. Due to that fact that the area has high water table, the location has poor soils and we've had a record wet year we asked if it was ever going to dry out enough to get it put in within a reasonable amount of time.
We just met again two weeks ago and the soil is still wet at 24'' and 36'' so the discussion turned to designing a new system that would work with these soil conditions. The reason the sand mound wasn't originally proposed was due to an undersized pump in our lift station. I'm fine with spending money on a new pump because I want to move forward with this project and I'm sick of paying the pump truck every 2 weeks. So today was the day to get the new drawings and the engineer wants to bill us again for these. Is it common to bill for every set of plans and drawings? The fee's are close to the same as our original bill but in this case there was no site work, core samples, or layout. We are now delayed even further due to not having our drawings in order to get them to the county while we sit and haggle over a bill. This whole thing is beginning to cost way to much money. |
Typically you pay for the engineering work, not the actual paper drawings. What type of engineer is charging you double for another copy of plans? 
I could see if he charges you a small fee for copying or something but claiming the job is twice as expensive because of two sets of plans is pure BS. ETA I just read your whole post in detail. If redesign is needed I would expect him to charge his hourly rate for the new work required. |
|
Quoted:
Typically you pay for the engineering work, not the actual paper drawings. What type of engineer is charging you double for another copy of plans?
I could see if he charges you a small fee for copying or something but claiming the job is twice as expensive because of two sets of plans is pure BS. ETA I just read your whole post in detail. If redesign is needed I would expect him to charge his hourly rate for the new work required. Sounds like you are having a New system designed. I feel your pain in these circumstances. Maybe discuss with septic contractor on who he uses for design and engineering. Is engineering required? I bet since its a septic system it is. |
|
Quoted: Even if the original design for the replacement failed or was never able to meet the spec's of the site? Is there a contract or scope of work stipulating the engineer will deliver something suitable for your application or just that the engineer will deliver something? |
|
The design was a flat rate and the field work and layout was hourly. When we first started this we received a proposal that outlined all of the fee's. After our meeting two weeks ago there was never any discussion of additional fee's so we assumed that it was included in our original proposal. It wasn't until we asked for the new plans to be email to us that the new payment was brought up?
The original design didn't work because the soil never dried out. But one of the original criteria was that we needed it sooner that later thus waiting for the soils at depth to dry was not something we wanted to do. |
|
If you are paying to have your tank pumped every two weeks, there would be little to no solids being removed at each pumping.
It sounds like you only need a water pump to get you by, not a trash pump like you would need for solids. Don't you have anything that needs watered? |
|
May or may not reflect on your situation, but here goes.
I have a good number of friends who are engineers. When they are at work, they want to get billable hours, and their boss wants them to have as many billable hours as possible. Several have their time tracked quite closely, every minute has to be logged as to the reason. If they have to stop and print up another set of plans for you, they're not going to put that time down as "personal" or anything like that, it's going to be logged as being billed to you, and the firm is going to send you a bill. |
|
Quoted:
The original design didn't work because the soil never dried out. But one of the original criteria was that we needed it sooner that later thus waiting for the soils at depth to dry was not something we wanted to do. Engineer spends time to design and draw up plans. Designed system does not work due to site conditions. New system is necessary due to site. Engineer spends time to design and draw up plans. Unless the engineer had knowledge of the wet soils and knew that they would not dry out in the time frame that you presented then he should be entitled to be compensated for the design fees the second time. The engineer can't control the site. Sucks for you but it probably wasn't the engineers fault. I design foundations all the time per a geotechnical report. Unfortunately, most geotechnical reports are very vague due to limited exploration. Building owners get pissed off when the soil/rock is different than described but we have to design with the info we have. If we have to redesign our work then the owner gets charged for our time. The only suggestion is that maybe you can negotiate a reduced fee. Explain to him that he already performed some preliminary site work and the new fee should be less. Keep in mind though that the new system may have taken longer to design. Cheap, fast and good. Pick two. |
|
Quoted:
Engineer spends time to design and draw up plans. Designed system does not work due to site conditions. New system is necessary due to site. Engineer spends time to design and draw up plans. Unless the engineer had knowledge of the wet soils and knew that they would not dry out in the time frame that you presented then he should be entitled to be compensated for the design fees the second time. The engineer can't control the site. Sucks for you but it probably wasn't the engineers fault. I design foundations all the time per a geotechnical report. Unfortunately, most geotechnical reports are very vague due to limited exploration. Building owners get pissed off when the soil/rock is different than described but we have to design with the info we have. If we have to redesign our work then the owner gets charged for our time. The only suggestion is that maybe you can negotiate a reduced fee. Explain to him that he already performed some preliminary site work and the new fee should be less. Keep in mind though that the new system may have taken longer to design. Cheap, fast and good. Pick two. Quoted:
Quoted:
The original design didn't work because the soil never dried out. But one of the original criteria was that we needed it sooner that later thus waiting for the soils at depth to dry was not something we wanted to do. Engineer spends time to design and draw up plans. Designed system does not work due to site conditions. New system is necessary due to site. Engineer spends time to design and draw up plans. Unless the engineer had knowledge of the wet soils and knew that they would not dry out in the time frame that you presented then he should be entitled to be compensated for the design fees the second time. The engineer can't control the site. Sucks for you but it probably wasn't the engineers fault. I design foundations all the time per a geotechnical report. Unfortunately, most geotechnical reports are very vague due to limited exploration. Building owners get pissed off when the soil/rock is different than described but we have to design with the info we have. If we have to redesign our work then the owner gets charged for our time. The only suggestion is that maybe you can negotiate a reduced fee. Explain to him that he already performed some preliminary site work and the new fee should be less. Keep in mind though that the new system may have taken longer to design. Cheap, fast and good. Pick two. Thank's for that and I agree about the reduced fee. We have an offer of half on the table now. What pisses me off about the whole thing is that had they redrawn the plans back when I pushed them on the wet site issues back in April I probably would have paid full rate. But I got blown off about it them and now we are another 1,500.00 into this due to pump fee's and has I not pushed them we would have been waiting until Sept. to find out that it couldn't be put in. |
|
Quoted: Engineering work is billed much like an attorney's fees. By the minute. Now this engineer creating a poor design that obviously won't work and then continuing to charge you to fix his mistake doesn't sound right. You might have some room to negotiate there. I'm a registered professional engineer and I occasionally design septic systems. Septic systems typically are not difficult, but it sounds like you have shitty soils. If he gave you a design and said it will work and it now changing it, because it won't work, I would ask him why you should pay for him to correct his mistake. What was your original agreement? Pay him by the hour or a fixed fee for a design that works? If I give a fixed fee, I stick to it unless we run into something unforeseen or the client changes the scope of work. Either way, I discuss it with the client before I invoice him and I make sure he is happy with my service. I would stand to lose more money in the long run by not having happy clients. |
|
Quoted:
I'm a registered professional engineer and I occasionally design septic systems. Septic systems typically are not difficult, but it sounds like you have shitty soils. If he gave you a design and said it will work and it now changing it, because it won't work, I would ask him why you should pay for him to correct his mistake. What was your original agreement? Pay him by the hour or a fixed fee for a design that works? If I give a fixed fee, I stick to it unless we run into something unforeseen or the client changes the scope of work. Either way, I discuss it with the client before I invoice him and I make sure he is happy with my service. I would stand to lose more money in the long run by not having happy clients. Quoted:
Quoted:
Engineering work is billed much like an attorney's fees. By the minute. Now this engineer creating a poor design that obviously won't work and then continuing to charge you to fix his mistake doesn't sound right. You might have some room to negotiate there. I'm a registered professional engineer and I occasionally design septic systems. Septic systems typically are not difficult, but it sounds like you have shitty soils. If he gave you a design and said it will work and it now changing it, because it won't work, I would ask him why you should pay for him to correct his mistake. What was your original agreement? Pay him by the hour or a fixed fee for a design that works? If I give a fixed fee, I stick to it unless we run into something unforeseen or the client changes the scope of work. Either way, I discuss it with the client before I invoice him and I make sure he is happy with my service. I would stand to lose more money in the long run by not having happy clients. I agree with you on that. There was no discussion of payment or increase in design fee's until we needed the drawings. When we all met in person to discuss the next step the budget was brought up several times and not once was the additional engineering fee's brought up. The resigned should have been pretty simple as the majority of the calculation had been worked out. All they needed to do was calculate it for a pressure dosed sand mound. And if I remember correctly they had all ready tried to get the numbers to work for one the first time but couldn't due to pressure loss from our smaller pump so they scratched it and went with the other system. Now that they are going back to it the fee's are twice what the original system was. |
|
Quoted:
I agree with you on that. There was no discussion of payment or increase in design fee's until we needed the drawings. When we all met in person to discuss the next step the budget was brought up several times and not once was the additional engineering fee's brought up. The resigned should have been pretty simple as the majority of the calculation had been worked out. All they needed to do was calculate it for a pressure dosed sand mound. And if I remember correctly they had all ready tried to get the numbers to work for one the first time but couldn't due to pressure loss from our smaller pump so they scratched it and went with the other system. Now that they are going back to it the fee's are twice what the original system was. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Engineering work is billed much like an attorney's fees. By the minute. Now this engineer creating a poor design that obviously won't work and then continuing to charge you to fix his mistake doesn't sound right. You might have some room to negotiate there. I'm a registered professional engineer and I occasionally design septic systems. Septic systems typically are not difficult, but it sounds like you have shitty soils. If he gave you a design and said it will work and it now changing it, because it won't work, I would ask him why you should pay for him to correct his mistake. What was your original agreement? Pay him by the hour or a fixed fee for a design that works? If I give a fixed fee, I stick to it unless we run into something unforeseen or the client changes the scope of work. Either way, I discuss it with the client before I invoice him and I make sure he is happy with my service. I would stand to lose more money in the long run by not having happy clients. I agree with you on that. There was no discussion of payment or increase in design fee's until we needed the drawings. When we all met in person to discuss the next step the budget was brought up several times and not once was the additional engineering fee's brought up. The resigned should have been pretty simple as the majority of the calculation had been worked out. All they needed to do was calculate it for a pressure dosed sand mound. And if I remember correctly they had all ready tried to get the numbers to work for one the first time but couldn't due to pressure loss from our smaller pump so they scratched it and went with the other system. Now that they are going back to it the fee's are twice what the original system was. If they knew about the soil conditions, and still screwed up the design, they should at minimum put the cost of the first system towards the second. |
| OP, I would say your engineer sucks, because they gave you a garbage idea for the location in the first place. They should have understood and gave you what was needed in the first place. This should have been no surprise to them and they are just operating clueless, htrough some code BS as they go along. They do charge for all additional work. |
|
Quoted:
Engineer spends time to design and draw up plans. Designed system does not work due to site conditions. New system is necessary due to site. Engineer spends time to design and draw up plans. Unless the engineer had knowledge of the wet soils and knew that they would not dry out in the time frame that you presented then he should be entitled to be compensated for the design fees the second time. The engineer can't control the site. Sucks for you but it probably wasn't the engineers fault. I design foundations all the time per a geotechnical report. Unfortunately, most geotechnical reports are very vague due to limited exploration. Building owners get pissed off when the soil/rock is different than described but we have to design with the info we have. If we have to redesign our work then the owner gets charged for our time. The only suggestion is that maybe you can negotiate a reduced fee. Explain to him that he already performed some preliminary site work and the new fee should be less. Keep in mind though that the new system may have taken longer to design. Cheap, fast and good. Pick two. Quoted:
Quoted:
The original design didn't work because the soil never dried out. But one of the original criteria was that we needed it sooner that later thus waiting for the soils at depth to dry was not something we wanted to do. Engineer spends time to design and draw up plans. Designed system does not work due to site conditions. New system is necessary due to site. Engineer spends time to design and draw up plans. Unless the engineer had knowledge of the wet soils and knew that they would not dry out in the time frame that you presented then he should be entitled to be compensated for the design fees the second time. The engineer can't control the site. Sucks for you but it probably wasn't the engineers fault. I design foundations all the time per a geotechnical report. Unfortunately, most geotechnical reports are very vague due to limited exploration. Building owners get pissed off when the soil/rock is different than described but we have to design with the info we have. If we have to redesign our work then the owner gets charged for our time. The only suggestion is that maybe you can negotiate a reduced fee. Explain to him that he already performed some preliminary site work and the new fee should be less. Keep in mind though that the new system may have taken longer to design. Cheap, fast and good. Pick two. THe engineer is required by law to know the site conditions and engineer accordingly. He should be sued for malpractice if the $s are significant enough. |
|
Quoted:
THe engineer is required by law to know the site conditions and engineer accordingly. He should be sued for malpractice if the $s are significant enough. How do you define knowing the site conditions? Most of the time the site exploration is paid by the site owner. If they want to spend $2 then you have to do the best you can with $2 worth of info. If it turns out that $2 worth of info isn't worth crap then it isn't the engineer's fault. I agree that the engineer is at fault if they knowingly choose a system that will not work with the info they have. If something comes up with the site during construction then it is not their fault if it wasn't uncovered during the exploratory phase. |
|
Quoted:
How do you define knowing the site conditions? Most of the time the site exploration is paid by the site owner. If they want to spend $2 then you have to do the best you can with $2 worth of info. If it turns out that $2 worth of info isn't worth crap then it isn't the engineer's fault. I agree that the engineer is at fault if they knowingly choose a system that will not work with the info they have. If something comes up with the site during construction then it is not their fault if it wasn't uncovered during the exploratory phase. Quoted:
Quoted:
THe engineer is required by law to know the site conditions and engineer accordingly. He should be sued for malpractice if the $s are significant enough. How do you define knowing the site conditions? Most of the time the site exploration is paid by the site owner. If they want to spend $2 then you have to do the best you can with $2 worth of info. If it turns out that $2 worth of info isn't worth crap then it isn't the engineer's fault. I agree that the engineer is at fault if they knowingly choose a system that will not work with the info they have. If something comes up with the site during construction then it is not their fault if it wasn't uncovered during the exploratory phase. We paid the engineer to take a core sample during the site work phase. They knew going into it the site was saturated and it still is. In the plans it states that construction cannot take place until the soil is dry but based on our area and what we know of the conditions here we could be waiting until the end of time. 
|
|
Quoted:
How do you define knowing the site conditions? Most of the time the site exploration is paid by the site owner. If they want to spend $2 then you have to do the best you can with $2 worth of info. If it turns out that $2 worth of info isn't worth crap then it isn't the engineer's fault. I agree that the engineer is at fault if they knowingly choose a system that will not work with the info they have. If something comes up with the site during construction then it is not their fault if it wasn't uncovered during the exploratory phase. Quoted:
Quoted:
THe engineer is required by law to know the site conditions and engineer accordingly. He should be sued for malpractice if the $s are significant enough. How do you define knowing the site conditions? Most of the time the site exploration is paid by the site owner. If they want to spend $2 then you have to do the best you can with $2 worth of info. If it turns out that $2 worth of info isn't worth crap then it isn't the engineer's fault. I agree that the engineer is at fault if they knowingly choose a system that will not work with the info they have. If something comes up with the site during construction then it is not their fault if it wasn't uncovered during the exploratory phase. This is a septic system. The designer of the system is required to determine exactly what soil types are present at various depths and design accordingly. The OP has indicated there's a failed system and the engineer apparently has designed to provide for another failed system. IOWs, the soil will not drain and historically has not drained. The soil type gives the engineer that drainage information. They were also probably suposed to do some seep perk test to an appropriate depth. A few auger holes, as required, not as per low cost or high cost, would have indicated the soil type, historical saturation levels, and the likelihood that the original design would work. If, it had, by occurance of probability, been dry enough to instal the system; it would have failed in short order. Given that the guy is doubling the price, I think that inflating the original project estimate is his standard way of "earning" money and he's also not any good at what he does. If he was any good, he wouldn't be sticking it to the OP with a 2X over on the final invoice. |
|
Quoted:
We paid the engineer to take a core sample during the site work phase. They knew going into it the site was saturated and it still is. In the plans it states that construction cannot take place until the soil is dry but based on our area and what we know of the conditions here we could be waiting until the end of time. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
THe engineer is required by law to know the site conditions and engineer accordingly. He should be sued for malpractice if the $s are significant enough. How do you define knowing the site conditions? Most of the time the site exploration is paid by the site owner. If they want to spend $2 then you have to do the best you can with $2 worth of info. If it turns out that $2 worth of info isn't worth crap then it isn't the engineer's fault. I agree that the engineer is at fault if they knowingly choose a system that will not work with the info they have. If something comes up with the site during construction then it is not their fault if it wasn't uncovered during the exploratory phase. We paid the engineer to take a core sample during the site work phase. They knew going into it the site was saturated and it still is. In the plans it states that construction cannot take place until the soil is dry but based on our area and what we know of the conditions here we could be waiting until the end of time. A standard tank and tiles should never be placed at a site like that, because it's guaranteed to have a short life. The engineer should stick to his original estimate, otherwise I'd be calling whichever MT dept of pro licensing and discussing with them. Unless they're completely lax, they'll want to quiz him on the technical matters and on his business process. |
|
OP,
I didn't see too much in your postings about it, but you did mention that you originally didn't want to deal with a sand mound. If that was relayed to the engineer it could be the reason why the first design went another direction. I couldn't count the number of times I've had a client tell me they didn't want something only to find out that it was what they really needed to do. |
| The original system that was drawn that based on the Presby system put in at 36". After a long discussion about site conditions it was modified to 24" and approved by the County. Two months later the site didn't dry so now they drew up a pressure dosed sand mound. I'm more comfortable with the sand mound because it doesn't use proprietary design elements or require the 13' vent that the other system did. At this point I've learned far more about drain fields than I ever cared to and if could run an excavator better I would have had it done by now. |
|
Quoted:
OP, I didn't see too much in your postings about it, but you did mention that you originally didn't want to deal with a sand mound. If that was relayed to the engineer it could be the reason why the first design went another direction. I couldn't count the number of times I've had a client tell me they didn't want something only to find out that it was what they really needed to do. No I had originally told the engineer that the pump was less than 6 months old and if we didn't have to replace it would be great but that it was no big deal if we had to replace it becuase I can do it my self and purchase the pump at wholesale. So in their infinite wisdom they scrapped the sand mound and spec'd the presby system that was 3,000-$4,000 more. The material costs alone were $5000.00. So with the presby we were required to wait for the soil conditions to improve. I aksed several time what happens when they don't and was told to not worry about it and that they always do. So now they are drawing up a sand mound and we'll have to spend $700.00 on a new pump that will take me 20 min to replace. The more I think about it the less sense it makes. |
|
Quoted:
No I had originally told the engineer that the pump was less than 6 months old and if we didn't have to replace it would be great but that it was no big deal if we had to replace it becuase I can do it my self and purchase the pump at wholesale. So in their infinite wisdom they scrapped the sand mound and spec'd the presby system that was 3,000-$4,000 more. The material costs alone were $5000.00. So with the presby we were required to wait for the soil conditions to improve. I aksed several time what happens when they don't and was told to not worry about it and that they always do. So now they are drawing up a sand mound and we'll have to spend $700.00 on a new pump that will take me 20 min to replace. The more I think about it the less sense it makes. Quoted:
Quoted:
OP, I didn't see too much in your postings about it, but you did mention that you originally didn't want to deal with a sand mound. If that was relayed to the engineer it could be the reason why the first design went another direction. I couldn't count the number of times I've had a client tell me they didn't want something only to find out that it was what they really needed to do. No I had originally told the engineer that the pump was less than 6 months old and if we didn't have to replace it would be great but that it was no big deal if we had to replace it becuase I can do it my self and purchase the pump at wholesale. So in their infinite wisdom they scrapped the sand mound and spec'd the presby system that was 3,000-$4,000 more. The material costs alone were $5000.00. So with the presby we were required to wait for the soil conditions to improve. I aksed several time what happens when they don't and was told to not worry about it and that they always do. So now they are drawing up a sand mound and we'll have to spend $700.00 on a new pump that will take me 20 min to replace. The more I think about it the less sense it makes. WTF is a "presby"? ETA: reading through this thread, I still don't know whether this an engineering or a constructability problem. |
|
Quoted:
We paid the engineer to take a core sample during the site work phase. They knew going into it the site was saturated and it still is. In the plans it states that construction cannot take place until the soil is dry but based on our area and what we know of the conditions here we could be waiting until the end of time. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
THe engineer is required by law to know the site conditions and engineer accordingly. He should be sued for malpractice if the $s are significant enough. How do you define knowing the site conditions? Most of the time the site exploration is paid by the site owner. If they want to spend $2 then you have to do the best you can with $2 worth of info. If it turns out that $2 worth of info isn't worth crap then it isn't the engineer's fault. I agree that the engineer is at fault if they knowingly choose a system that will not work with the info they have. If something comes up with the site during construction then it is not their fault if it wasn't uncovered during the exploratory phase. We paid the engineer to take a core sample during the site work phase. They knew going into it the site was saturated and it still is. In the plans it states that construction cannot take place until the soil is dry but based on our area and what we know of the conditions here we could be waiting until the end of time. You've answered your own question there. Oh, and it "fees", not "fee's". |
|
Quoted:
You've answered your own question there. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
THe engineer is required by law to know the site conditions and engineer accordingly. He should be sued for malpractice if the $s are significant enough. How do you define knowing the site conditions? Most of the time the site exploration is paid by the site owner. If they want to spend $2 then you have to do the best you can with $2 worth of info. If it turns out that $2 worth of info isn't worth crap then it isn't the engineer's fault. I agree that the engineer is at fault if they knowingly choose a system that will not work with the info they have. If something comes up with the site during construction then it is not their fault if it wasn't uncovered during the exploratory phase. We paid the engineer to take a core sample during the site work phase. They knew going into it the site was saturated and it still is. In the plans it states that construction cannot take place until the soil is dry but based on our area and what we know of the conditions here we could be waiting until the end of time. You've answered your own question there. Right but they knew the conditions when the drawing was done and we impressed upon them that we wanted this done asap or as soon as winter was over. Knowing that over saturation was an issue with our old system and the possibility of continued saturation one would think they would have designed it based on current conditions not on what may happen in the future. You don't design a sky scraper and sell the plans as buildable but put a foot note at the bottom that it requires building material that may never become available. And here is the Presby http://presbyeco.com/products/advanced-enviro-septic%E2%84%A2-wastewater-treatment-system/ |
|
The perk should have indicated the system was NG, see table A in the manual below. It applies to any system like this. Both of them should have known better, because the alternate to ignoring the perk would only be warranted if they judged the wet conditions as being unusual. edit: which the soil type indicates is not unusual.
http://presbyeco.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MT-Manual-05-14-12.pdf |
|
Quoted:
No I had originally told the engineer that the pump was less than 6 months old and if we didn't have to replace it would be great but that it was no big deal if we had to replace it becuase I can do it my self and purchase the pump at wholesale. So in their infinite wisdom they scrapped the sand mound and spec'd the presby system that was 3,000-$4,000 more. The material costs alone were $5000.00. So with the presby we were required to wait for the soil conditions to improve. I aksed several time what happens when they don't and was told to not worry about it and that they always do. So now they are drawing up a sand mound and we'll have to spend $700.00 on a new pump that will take me 20 min to replace. The more I think about it the less sense it makes. Quoted:
Quoted:
OP, I didn't see too much in your postings about it, but you did mention that you originally didn't want to deal with a sand mound. If that was relayed to the engineer it could be the reason why the first design went another direction. I couldn't count the number of times I've had a client tell me they didn't want something only to find out that it was what they really needed to do. No I had originally told the engineer that the pump was less than 6 months old and if we didn't have to replace it would be great but that it was no big deal if we had to replace it becuase I can do it my self and purchase the pump at wholesale. So in their infinite wisdom they scrapped the sand mound and spec'd the presby system that was 3,000-$4,000 more. The material costs alone were $5000.00. So with the presby we were required to wait for the soil conditions to improve. I aksed several time what happens when they don't and was told to not worry about it and that they always do. So now they are drawing up a sand mound and we'll have to spend $700.00 on a new pump that will take me 20 min to replace. The more I think about it the less sense it makes. As a consulting engineer, I would re-design that for no charge. |