Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Fee sense

Letters

The Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) is taking an interesting stand in getting involved in the debate on fees.

There are two big problems in the industry at the moment.

Firms that have a good professional indemnity insurance claims record do not benet from their efforts to keep their slate clean. As things stand they are subsidising rms that are not careful enough to avoid mistakes and accidents.

There is also extensive ambiguity and confusion over the word 'design' - that is, who does what during the design stages and the contribution that the engineer and specialist designers must make.

Structural design progresses through concept, feasibility study, analysis, nal design and then detail for construction.

If the IStructE is providing guidance on working practices in the context of the overall design and detailing of a project, this would be useful.

Fee returns would hugely benet from cutting the number of inconsequential meetings, getting decisions made in time to suit the requirements of manufacture and from showing the true cost of late changes.

John Rushton (M), jrushton@pba. co. uk

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.