Civil Engineering July 2022 | Vol 30 No 6

Civil Engineering July 2022 17 PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY The OE is not the detail design engineer and therefore does not sign off on a design for the purpose of professional liability. Q Are team members required to be professionally registered and will their signature on any documentation at- tract professional liability? Q If not, how sure is the client that he gets value for his investment in the OE team and how will this be measured? Although our teammembers were regis- tered professionals, we agreed with the client that the OE teammembers cannot carry technical professional liability. As a supplier we did, however, declare our role clearly to our insurers, who adjusted our professional insurance (and premium) to account for the expanded role as reviewers and advisors. OE TEAM EXPERIENCE Q Are years of experience in members’ individual fields of expertise sufficient, or is experience in the client’s specific industry equally or more important? Q Is the experience of one team member, or the project manager of the client’s industry perhaps sufficient to lead a team with only experience outside of the client’s industry? In consideration of the client’s industry, we secured the services of a mechanical engineer with extensive experience in the client’s environment and specifically in the facility where we performed the service. A sizeable part of the work involved struc- tural work and although our structural engineer’s industry specific experience was limited, his structural design experience was extensive and proven. The combina- tion of skills ensured a successful outcome. REVIEW EXPECTATIONS Q Does the OE review the designs, consid- ering industry standards, client specific requirements and “fit for purpose” only? Q Or should the review be detailed, including checks on calculations and challenges of design approaches? We followed a detailed approach, which initially resulted in confrontational situa- tions with the supplier’s engineering team (“us vs them”). Intervention by the project manager and direct engagement with the supplier’s contracts manager resulted in the easing of tensions and for the second half of the project, the deliverables were a result of a team effort with early, frequent, and direct consultations. This especially limited the need for rework. We were fortunate that our client did not shy away from attending ad hoc reviews to provide clarity on some previously unclear requirements. Q Does review and formal comment on a design indicate the end of the OE’s role? Q Or should the OE ensure that each comment is satisfactorily closed? Our OE members were diligent in closing out topics, and the frequent and amicable engagement described above made this role much easier in the second part of the project. In-person engagements aided in clarifying design approaches in real time and reduced the need for back-and-forth responses on an impersonal collaboration platform. REVIEW METHOD Q When and in what format will the designer present his design to the OE for review? Q At 30% progress/basic design or other identifiable stage? Q Again, at a later stage (before the issue of Approved for Construction drawings)? Q In the form of a 3D model review, supported by 2D drawings, or merely loading design information on a collaboration portal? We started out by sharing informa- tion and comments on a collaboration platform at an estimated (subjective) 30% design progress. Initial communication was formal and rigid. Although this al- lowed for detailed recording of comments, counter comments, and explanations, it was a laborious and cumbersome process. Once the 3D model reached acceptable maturity, and with facilitation by the client, reviews became focussed on problem solving and decision making (rather than an impersonal pointing out of differences). The advent of Covid-19 limited face- to-face engagements, but it also forced the team to engage successfully on virtual platforms. When restrictions were eased, engagements continued on a virtual plat- form, with dedicated disciplines attending pre-arranged on-site engagements, while other disciplines would be able to follow via the virtual platform. All decisions, comments and minutes of review meetings were still formally captured on the collaboration platform following a review. Q When and in what format are the responses from the OE and contractor required? Q Are response time durations indicated in the contractor appointment condi- tions? Is that duration too long to support project progress? On our project, decisions and comments were formalised on the collaboration platform. We found that if the contractual terms in respect of duration were followed to the letter, decision making and reviews were slow and not in support of the pro- ject goals. In agreement with the supplier’s contract manager, shortened durations were agreed on, which was beneficial to both the client and supplier. APPOINTMENT TERMS Q Hourly based, fixed price or other terms? This is a tricky question, which I do not think has a straightforward answer. As per request, we submitted a fixed price for the service, which included an allowance for support beyond the targeted comple- tion date. Having worked on projects for over twenty years, we knew this was a judicious approach. However, as with all procurement situ- ations, a reduction in cost was pursued. We had to break down our fixed cost in terms of hours per month and subse- quently the involvement duration was pulled back to extend only to the targeted completion date (thus “saving” the hours beyond project completion). Scope changes and Covid-related de- lays resulted in the completion date being extended. Although we were, to a certain extent, able to adjust our resource al- location for Covid-related delays, this was not possible for scope changes and, in the end, we were not able to close out our service to our own satisfaction and a part of that role fell on the client’s own resources. CONCLUSION A collective understanding between client and supplier of any scope of service is always important to project success. The expectations for the role of OE can often be different for the contracting parties and should be clarified in advance. The upfront consideration of key topics may aid client and service providers to limit time-consuming discussions and possible confrontational situations later in the project. Key topics suggested are profes- sional accountability, OE team experience, review expectations, review method and appointment terms.