To add your two cents, contact articles@psdmagazine.org.

Responses to Joseph M. Smaul's letter “Value Engineering: Its Repercussions and a Solution” ( PSD May/June 2005, p. 8)

From Don Giarratano:

Just a short message to let you know that I agree with Mr. Smaul completely. I was going to write earlier, but time got the better of me. But after reading Mr. Smaul's response, I realized that he wrote exactly as I would have. Bravo, Mr. Smaul!
Anthony J. Curiale, CPD, LEED AP

After reading Mr. Smaul's piece in your May/June 2005 publication stating his dislike with design build contractors, I would like to offer yet another opinion.

I am the Owner of a commercial plumbing company and we do a substantial amount of design build and design assist work. I worked for 20 years in the field installing every imaginable type of plumbing system from residential to clean rooms. I have owned a commercial plumbing company for the last 15 years. So I think I have the expertise to comment on this subject.

Following along with Joseph's thoughts, engineers fell from grace because of 2 key factors. A prolonged downturn in the US economy in the 1980's forced down fees for all consultants and the quality of their work slid equally. Owners got used to the reduced fees and when the economy picked up fees did not. There has been a huge multinational influx in the engineering community and this created bodies in seats putting lines on paper with little or no consideration for constructability or, cost of construction.  Owners quickly got tired of hugh change orders and claims and turned to the contracting industry through their Generals and basically said “What's Up?” The Generals turned to the subcontracting community and requested help from those that were building projects in an effort to build better projects on time and on budget.

             This concept took root and blossomed to a point where now about 50% of the work that we do is design and construct. This holds pretty true for the entire commercial industry here in Southern California.

             This is not being done during the bidding process as stated. Hard bid plan and specification projects often are over budget. Consultants , some with little or no construction experience are providing Owners with unobtainable budgets. It is after the true prices are known by The Owner, that The Owner approaches the contracting community and asks, how can we get this project built for less money? This is not an attempt to devalue the project or reduce quality, it is merely an effort to simply get the project built.

             There are many consultants that are not familiar with new construction means and methods and materials. Contractors survive by making sure they know and understand how to achieve the highest quality for the least cost. This is not a covert effort by the contracting community to make the consulting community look bad. Quite the contrary. We are trying to educate them and want to make them our partners in the process. Unfortunately, some in the consulting community hold themselves in quite high esteem, and do not want to co-habitat with “Contractors”.  We are seeing this misguided thinking change rapidly.

             We are often called in by consultants during the design stage of all size of projects, to provide assistance to the engineers regarding means and methods. We are another set of eyes. A set of eyes that has quite a lot of experience in making large things fit in small bags, and at the best price.

             We are now seeing a mutual respect with our engineering partners. For a long time now the old school thought of “us against them” has been replaced by “we really do need each other.”

             Maybe things are done differently in Philadelphia, but here, we really do get along. It's not perfect, there are still a few bruised apples on both sides, but one day we will have to coexist. Those than do not, will shrink to nonexistence.

Don Giarratano
Vice President

D/K Mechanical Contractors Inc.

Anaheim, CA

Value Engineering Versus Valuable Engineering

From John Kraus:

In response to the recent columns, “Value Engineering: A Designer's Friend or Foe?,” written by Mr. Mike Smith, published in the January/February 2005 edition of PSD; and “Value Engineering: Its Repercussions and a Solution,” written by Mr. Joseph Smaul, published in the May/June edition of PSD:

As a former design engineer who recently saw the light and made the jump to the contractor's world, I have seen “value engineering” from both sides of the fence. While the term itself has been given, or even perhaps earned, a negative connotation within the designer's environment, the true intent of the process has been lost.

From my experience as a design engineer, I have seen the degradation of the engineering community. What was once a profession “held in high esteem,” architects and engineers have fallen from grace at their own accord. Over the last decade, many consulting firms have had to resort to a prostitution of services in order to keep the doors open, especially following the effects of September 11, 2001. The lower design fees meant having to find ways to cut corners, engineer less, and detail fewer systems in order to make a dime. Unfortunately, the old adage, “You get what you pay for,” echoes in stereo when the “low bid” mentality is implemented. The lack of engineering results in the abundance of requests for information (RFIs) and, eventually, change orders. As a design engineer, a change order to a project I designed hurt my credibility with the owner more than a value engineering idea submitted by a contractor.

The engineering community, in my opinion, is at a crossroad. If it continues down the path it has plowed over the last ten years, I firmly believe the consulting engineer will cease to exist as we know it today. Owner's are hiring engineers to dictate to the consultants their needs; contractors are hiring engineers to complete incomplete designs. So many former consulting colleagues comment that they have been reduced to a drafting service company with a professional stamp. The lust of starting from a clean slate and ending at an installable, operable, functional set of systems has fallen wayside to the need to compete. Granted, the “low bid” way of doing business starts with client's looking to save a dollar, but the consulting industry has done little to fight the failing process.

So where does “value engineering” fall in? In his letter, Mr. Smaul proposes a “rather simple” solution to the repercussions he's experienced in the value engineering process:

“As the bidding parties review the documents while they prepare their final pricing, they would contact the professional design team and discuss the so-called value engineered items … should the proposed items be agreed upon and approved, the design team can issue an addendum to the project documents.”

I'm assuming, from this mentality, that Mr. Smaul also believes that keeping score in youth sports is detrimental to the spirit of those who find themselves on the losing end. Where is the competition in the proposed resolution? Where does one contractor, by digging deeper, evaluating the documents, and utilizing his experience and intelligence, gain an edge over his competitors? If one contractor shares his ideas and then those ideas are issued to the competing contractors in an addendum, what reward does the diligent contractor receive? Why would he share his ideas?

As the engineer, no one should be more intimate with the systems designed. A bidding contractor cannot, in the typical timeframes given to bid a project, come to know or realize all the reasons and details behind a particular design. However, once awarded the project, no one should be more intimate with the systems installed than the contractor. This passing of the baton from the engineer to the contractor is critical if the project is to be successful. But what governs a project's success? No RFIs? No change orders? No value engineering? I'd submit, for your consideration, that a project's success should be dictated by the client's satisfaction – the primary goal any construction team should possess. With satisfied clientele, repeat work, referrals, and reputations are established.

In summary, value engineering should not pin the contractor against the engineer. It should not reduce the quality of the design. Value engineering, in its true meaning, should result in project success – a satisfied client. As an engineer, understand the client's needs and expectations, then portray those ideas in the form of a well-engineered set of documents. As a contractor, embrace the engineer's design (which should coincide with the client's expectations) and embark on the journey of understanding the system's engineering. Then, as a cohesive team working toward the same goal, check your ego's at the door and determine if there is a component of the system that might be done in a better, more efficient, more effective manner. It should be an open dialogue, not a tug-of-war of opinions.

John Kraus, PE, LEED AP

Mann Mechanical Co. Inc.

From Chuck Lott:

While I appreciated the use of our photo's in Mr. Messina's article [“Choosing and Installing Trap Primers,” PSD May/June, pp.52-53], I would like some acknowledgement that Precision Plumbing Products is located in Portland, Oregon, and Mifab is located in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.

Chuck Lott

Director of Marketing

Precision Plumbing Products

From Ranka Diklic:

I found [John Rattenbury's] article [“Are Proprietary Siphonic Roof Drainage Systems Necessary?” PSD May/June 2005, pp. 12-13] very interesting and would like to learn more about siphonic roof drainage. What is the advantage of such a system over common roof drainage?

Ranka Diklic

Plumbing Engineer

Rumsey Engineers Inc.

Author's Response

Ranka,

Thanks for your inquiry.

I'd be happy to provide you with more information about siphonic roof drainage. This technology was developed in Europe about 30 years ago and is used quite extensively there and has taken hold around the world due to its many benefits. I designed the first system installed in the United States for the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center (BCEC) in 1999. I have continued on to design several systems for a retail store chain in several different States.

The main benefit of this design method is that the piping is configured to prime full of water (kind of like a hose used to drain an aquarium by siphoning) and the driving force becomes the vertical height of the building. Because "open channel flow" is eliminated, pipe pitch does not come into play and the piping can be simply run flat without pitch. Also, because the full bore of the pipe is utilized and higher velocities are achieved, smaller pipe diameters can be selected thereby saving on materials and cost. The system works by purely passive means and no valves, controls, or mechanical devices are used.

The system is very effective and efficient. Since it can save about 40% over a conventional system, we find the savings can offset the costs of rainwater harvesting systems and gray water systems making these green techniques more economical.

Regards,

John M. Rattenbury, PE, CIPE, LEED AP

Vice President, Engineering

RMS Associates Inc.

From Elie M Baradhy:

I have read [Roy Ahlgren's] article [“Hydronic System Piping Alternatives Part 4: Advanced Applications of Primary-Secondary Pumping”] in the Plumbing Systems & Design magazine, March/April [2005, pp. 40, 53] issue and I was very interested in its content, hoping to read more and more of such articles concerning hydronic systems.

I am writing to you hoping to get some more information and help on the hydronic systems mainly Only Primary. 3 way valve control system versus the Primary/Secondary VSD, 2 way valve system.

I understand well that the Primary/Secondary VSD system is usually selected by engineers mainly for pumping energy saving technique.

Does this system have other features that would let it overcome the cheaper initial cost Only primary system??

If there are any other features favoring it on the only primary system, I would be very happy to read them from you very soon.

Elie M Baradhy

EMB & Associates

Beirut, Lebanon

Author's Response

The terminology may be getting in the way. Consider three alternatives, (there are many more ways to design a large system, but in order to answer your question, we'll consider just three.)

1. Constant volume systems. Uses three way valves to provide a constant flow through the source, it may be a chiller evaporator or a boiler system. At the coils, the three-way valve provides flow either through the coil or through the by-pass pipe. Variable speed pumps are rarely found in these systems.

2. Primary-secondary systems. A constant volume of flow is provided through the evaporator (or boiler). A variable volume of flow is provided through the system by means of two-way valves. Two-way valves have no pipe by-pass. In this kind of system, the large system pump is often provided with a variable speed drive.

3. Primary only systems. Constant flow through the evaporator is no longer required, so a single set of pumps provides flow through the evaporator AND the rest of the system. Two-way valves in the system provide a variable volume of flow through all the system components. These systems will be equipped with variable speed drives.

I hope this helps, and thanks for the comments. 

Roy C.E. Ahlgren