Structural Engineering: RE: Paying for clarification

Gary,
I'm in a one man office. Can I borrow your legal staff?

Regards,

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Ehrlich, Gary [mailto:gehrlich@nahb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 2:29 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Paying for clarification

David,

Based on my experience at my last employer, I'd simply instruct the CAD
drafters to (a) go over every note, ID, and call-out word by word and make
sure everything is spelled right and (b) go back and check that they are
conforming to the office's layer, line type, line color, and other drafting
standards. For each project in the office, that would have been several days
of work right there!

Gary

Gary J. Ehrlich, PE
Program Manager, Structural Codes & Standards
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
1201 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005
ph: 202-266-8545 or 800-368-5242 x8545
fax: 202-266-8369
gehrlich@nahb.com
Attend the 2009 International Builders' Show
January 20-23, 2009, Las Vegas, NV
www.BuildersShow.com

-----Original Message-----
From: David Fisher [mailto:dfisher@fpse.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:48 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Paying for clarification

Drew:

The only problem has been, with the slowdown in the Chicago construction
industry, the number of permit applications has dropped to near ZERO, so
more and more frequently, the City is denying the use of structural peer
review to keep the municipal
Examiners busy.

Or worse, when approval IS granted by the structural peer review, if things
are "slow" at the building department, the project can be "audited" by the
City even though its been "approved", so you are back to round(s) of inane
comments.

The ultimate in irony: in a time where the economy is in
recession/depression (take your pick), the City plan reviewers are taking
even longer to make their comments as they want to keep a backlog of
projects on their desk and protect their jobs.

I certainly can sympathize with someone trying to keep their gig, but the
overall effect
Is more detrimental as an already slow process grinds to a halt.

Today's story from the last recession (1992):

I was a "green behind the ears" engineer at a large A/E firm in Chicago and
things got so slow, that I told the draftsmen (remember those...pencil on
mylar, no less) to draw a sheet of details and then erase the whole thing
and re-draw it so that they could appear busy and not get laid off.

Of course, that tactic doesn't fly in today's age when you can erase a whole
sheet with one mouse click.

Lot longer with a mechanical eraser.

David L. Fisher SE PE

Fisher and Partners - Cayman
372 West Ontario Chicago 60610
75 Fort Street Georgetown Grand Cayman BWI
319 A Street Boston 02210

312.573.1701
312.573.1726 facsimile
312.622.0409 mobile

www.fpse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Drew Morris [mailto:dmorris@bbfm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 12:36 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Paying for clarification

We have/had a similar situation up here in Anchorage. Due to overflow
and the backlog at the Municipality, they let a contract to let a firm
in the Northwest do review. I followed their comments and had no
problems in understanding what their concern was and how to respond.

David Fisher wrote:
>
> Believe it or not, we actually have a pretty good system here now in
> Chicago.
>
> We can elect to by-pass the City plan reviewers and obtain a
> "structural peer review"
>
> From a certified peer reviewer.
>
> We find the comments to be more in line with "real word conditions"
> and the process
>
> Much more expeditious and worthwhile.
>
> No more comments like:
>
> */"David, what if your building suddenly grew to a mile long?"/*
>
> No joke.
>
> David L. Fisher SE PE
>
> Fisher and Partners - Cayman
>
> 372 West Ontario Chicago 60610
>
> 75 Fort Street Georgetown Grand Cayman BWI
>
> 319 A Street Boston 02210
>
> 312.573.1701
>
> 312.573.1726 facsimile
>
> 312.622.0409 mobile
>
> www.fpse.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Michel Blangy [mailto:mblangy@satco-inc.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 07, 2009 12:04 PM
> *To:* seaint@seaint.org
> *Subject:* RE: Paying for clarification
>
> > I don't want the plan checker signing off my work because I am a
> 60-ish year old white haired engineer who he believes has the great
> knowledge of experience to rely upon.
>
> I am 30-ish and am having insecure feelings that the plan checkers are
> starting to rely a little to much on me. I am not being arrogant, but
> I expected corrections on several of my recent submittals and got
> almost none.
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Thursday, January 8, 2009

RE: Paying for clarification