Additional invoice from structural engineer?

FTB_Dan

Evening!

It would be great to get your input on this. 

Background:
Last year we hired an architect to provide drawings/measurements etc for the plans + structural calculations (they sourced the structural engineer drawings as well) for a knock through + small extension.

As the works commenced (and the steels were put in place), it became evident that based on the architect + structural engineer drawings, there was no access to secure the steel in place (steel B - into the web of the other steel).




As a result - we went directly back to the structural engineer to revise the drawings so that they could be welded in situ. 

Fast forward to today, we have received an invoice from the architect regarding an additional payment for the updated calculations. I also now realise no connection detail was added to the initial calculations from the structural engineer, which I believe they should have?

Any thoughts on where we stand regarding this additional fee? 

jonnydeppiwish!

You asked for it and they were completed. You’ll need to pay for it. The structural engineer wouldn’t have know there was no access.

FTB_Dan

jonnydeppiwish! said:

You asked for it and they were completed. You’ll need to pay for it. The structural engineer wouldn’t have know there was no access.

Thanks for your input. Happy to pay if its right to do so.

Does it matter that even on the drawings it shows no access (the corner of beam B meets an existing wall)?

Section62

FTB_Dan said:

As a result - we went directly back to the structural engineer to revise the drawings so that they could be welded in situ. 

Who decided beam B should go where it is?  What does it support?

If push comes to shove I think the SE might reasonably claim the problem was with the builder not figuring out a way of assembling the steel as designed - it should be possible with some planning, even with the restricted access.

That said, the connection design should be part of the SE package.  If that was missing then I'd ask why. (in fact how did it get past BC without the connection designs?)

Another possible issue is with you going to the SE directly rather than through the architect.  There's an argument you've created a new contract for the additional work. Particularly with a request to redesign for site welding, rather than querying the assembly method and/or the querying the scope to split Beam B into two parts to facilitate the bolted connection approach.

(it would help for further discussion if you could say which letter is used to describe the beam that A and B connect to)

FTB_Dan

Section62 said:

FTB_Dan said:

As a result - we went directly back to the structural engineer to revise the drawings so that they could be welded in situ. 

Who decided beam B should go where it is?  What does it support?

Beam A/B are holding the cavity wall at the back of the house. Both beams enter the web of beam c (on the right - this was previously an internal wall, so we've created an open plan space).

This was decided by the structural engineer because of the above.

If push comes to shove I think the SE might reasonably claim the problem was with the builder not figuring out a way of assembling the steel as designed - it should be possible with some planning, even with the restricted access.

Valid point. I figured this is something that the builder probably could have resolved with a bit more attention to detail/care (something we see he lacks).

That said, the connection design should be part of the SE package.  If that was missing then I'd ask why. (in fact how did it get past BC without the connection designs?)

So - still ongoing but the updated drawings we have now include connection details as we asked the SE to update the drawings to weld in situ.

Another possible issue is with you going to the SE directly rather than through the architect.  There's an argument you've created a new contract for the additional work. Particularly with a request to redesign for site welding, rather than querying the assembly method and/or the querying the scope to split Beam B into two parts to facilitate the bolted connection approach.

Yep - I can see how this may have caused us additional problems. You'd think if that was the case we would be invoiced directly though - not via the architect. 

(it would help for further discussion if you could say which letter is used to describe the beam that A and B connect to)

Beam C.

Thanks, see above in bold for responses.

FTB_Dan

The architect had made a similar point re going directly via the structural engineer (which is fair enough). In the same response he said he wasn't aware we were in contact with the SE until he sent through the allocated hours.

I've asked what these allocated hours were, but the only response I got was "its more having to squeeze the project into the pipeline of work" and will leave it with us if we feel its acceptable for them to charge us money (to keep a happy client etc).

I obviously don't want to not pay if we need to, but that response also makes me feel they're trying their luck as well?

weeg

If it was me, (and I do this for a living) I would assume that beam B is put in place and connected to beam C, and then beam A is put in place, so the connection shouldn't be an issue. Or I'd connect A&B together, so it's a single connection at each end. (more robust design, harder for manual handling)

And I would have expected an experienced builder to do it in that order, or to raise a query about sequencing with the engineer. I'm also pretty surprised that there were no connection details at all. And not remotely surprised building control didn't pick up on it, as in my experience they pretty much don't look at SE drawings so long as they exist.

That didn't happen, so the SE did more work to make it work. 

One could argue, perhaps, that the sequencing should have been made explicit on the drawings, but the fact is that they did revise the drawings, and it's not unreasonable to want paid for that. And they have to bill via the architect as that's who they have the contract with - they probably shouldn't have agreed to the additional work without clearing it with the arch first, but we all do these things for the sake of expediency and getting the building secured. FWIW fees negotiated through an architect tend to be cut as low as possible, on the proviso that they do the client liaison, which can be way more time consuming than you imagine. Not a dig at you! Just in general.

FTB_Dan

weeg said:

If it was me, (and I do this for a living) I would assume that beam B is put in place and connected to beam C, and then beam A is put in place, so the connection shouldn't be an issue. Or I'd connect A&B together, so it's a single connection at each end. (more robust design, harder for manual handling)

And I would have expected an experienced builder to do it in that order, or to raise a query about sequencing with the engineer. I'm also pretty surprised that there were no connection details at all. And not remotely surprised building control didn't pick up on it, as in my experience they pretty much don't look at SE drawings so long as they exist.

That didn't happen, so the SE did more work to make it work. 

One could argue, perhaps, that the sequencing should have been made explicit on the drawings, but the fact is that they did revise the drawings, and it's not unreasonable to want paid for that. And they have to bill via the architect as that's who they have the contract with - they probably shouldn't have agreed to the additional work without clearing it with the arch first, but we all do these things for the sake of expediency and getting the building secured. FWIW fees negotiated through an architect tend to be cut as low as possible, on the proviso that they do the client liaison, which can be way more time consuming than you imagine. Not a dig at you! Just in general.

Hi Weeg, thanks for your insight.

To be honest - I think a lot of the blame probably sits with the builder (whether it's not checking the plans correctly/juggling jobs/lack of preparation etc) which has caused this knock on effect.