[Closed] Structural engineer costs - is this reasonable?

Piss take, full of if it goes wrong it's not down to us. How any engineer can make a ground judgement by not visiting site is beyond me.

Does no work and assumes no risk.

What exactly are they charging £1,440 for?

APF

I've used a Structural Engineer a few times, cost about £350 inc site visit and all plans for Builder regs approval.

the Client agrees not to pursue any claims in contract tort

If that 'professional' thinks that the clauses about limit of liability and agreeing not to sue are actually worth putting in, then he's is clearly an idiot. Not to mention the bit about the lack of site visit.

Tell you what, give me a grand and I'll do it for you this morning on my laptop. As you as you agree not to sue me when your house falls down. 😀

Too expensive and too many caveats IMO - and my experience of structural engineers is not good anyway.

As everyone else has said, that is WAY too expensive, and the contract agreements and lack of site visit would make me not use them even if they were cheapest.

I would also be asking the architect what sort of kickback he was expecting from them, in order to embarrass himself by making such a shit recommendation to his client.

Are you in Scotland ? Did a quick google of the SER and it says it only applies in Scotland and sometimes the channel islands (website was dated Aug 2015 - so may be UK wide by now)

[i]Is that about right, or is that too much? I'm quite happy to pay the going rate, but have no idea what that is. The architect is a friend of a friend and he is only charging us mates rates for the drawings, so I'm happy he's not taking the mick. But I've no idea if these SE costs are reasonable? [/I]

Surely if they're recommending the firm to use, ask them what's a 'reasonable' price?

[I]I've used a Structural Engineer a few times, cost about £350 inc site visit and all plans for Builder regs approval. [/I]

If the SE has any travelling to do to you - that £350 will barely cover travel, onsite and VAT.

That's in Scotland.

It's very expensive for England, normally I get charged about £350+vat on each project. If it needs a site visit, then you'll be looking quite a bit higher (about £400 extra)
It's completely normal to sign off on calcs without a visit.

I've used a Structural Engineer a few times, cost about £350 inc site visit and all plans for Builder regs approval.

I need this engineers number!

how much work involved?. a 'single story extension' can vary wildly. for all we know the dude is including drainage alterations and wotnot.

but I imagine he is taking the piss a bit as he has quoted through the architect.

you are a bit daft to only get one quote though. get someone else to quote for a comparible amount of work.

I am getting more! My gaffer does a lot of building so he is going to ask the architect he is mates with what the SE they use in Glasgow would charge. He reckoned that it's in the ballpark, while acknowledging that they've basically got you over a barrel. I've also spoken to a colleague who is getting a house built, and his contractor (who is certified by building control or something so can certify his own drawings) has said that, unfortunately, that's about the standard price these days.

Maybe there are different rules/procedures different in Scotland that mean the SE's do have you over a barrel? My architect has no issue with me getting other quotes, he said himself it's an awful lot for about 2hrs work, but as the others said, in his experience that's the going rate these days.

Use the http://www.findanengineer.com/ website to find a local structural engineer and get another quote

Yes to what VH says.
Even a simple one will need roof joists, wall checks and a foundation design, may also need column design, beam design, justification of increase in load to existing foundation, stability checks, detailing to avoid party wall issues etc. And then drawings to cover the designed elements.

Def worth getting additional quotes

From your text it appears you will also need to pay for the certificate on top of that price. Could be another couple of hundred

From what I read earlier, fee for the certificate is 3% of the building warrant fee which, off the top of my head, would be about 15, or 35, whichever is lower. So 35 - no great drama in the grand scheme of things.

It is being built over drainage and a sewer and the water main will be rerouted round it.

Bloody hell, just checked how much mine has cost for our downstairs extension and it stands at just over £2k this includes over £500 worth of revisions to the plans. Fairly complicated build mind, lots of steel and piled foundations + groundbeam

Ahh, the bit I was looking at must have included the warrant fee then.

[b]TimP - Member [/b]

Yes to what VH says.
Even a simple one will need roof joists, wall checks and a foundation design, may also need column design, beam design, justification of increase in load to existing foundation, stability checks, detailing to avoid party wall issues etc. And then drawings to cover the designed elements.

Def worth getting additional quotes

This is overplaying things quite a lot, OP hasn't said what the proposed extension is, in terms of size, construction type, complexity.

You don't need a SE for every job, if it's a relatively small domestic extension I'd only expect one to be employed if some form of non standard construction is used or there are specific issues, such as poor ground conditions, unusual loadings, beams or columns being required that aren't available off the shelf or fairly major alteration to the existing building.

I'm going by this https://www.ser-ltd.com/ser-scotland/about-the-scheme/certificate-fees which is for the engineers but seems quite clear on the certificate fee. The building warrant fee is around £500 for ours.

core - timber frame and rendered block, slate roof off a glulam beam, ground to be dug away for the founds (garden slopes a bit), water main rerouted, drainage/sewer to be built over to specs provided by Scottish water - off the top of my head.

I've contacted 3 others for quotes so we'll see.

I don't see anything there from what you describe that in England (is a SE cert. mandatory in Scotland?) would require a structural engineer, all standard construction and the timber frame/glulam supplier should be able to calc. the glulam for you, frame and trusses will come with calc's as standard (though all a bit pointless IMO as the frame won't go for manufacture unless it's been through structural design software/the manufacturers own engineer).

If you were going to make the timber frame up yourself (or your contractor was) I'd maybe expect calc's for it (not if it's a straight forward 4 sided single storey box) - but there are now lots of engineers who specialise in timber framing to facilitate this, at not huge money.

Rafters, joists, purlins etc can all be checked against TRADA span tables, something your architect should do anyway - perhaps they aren't confident/competent enough to specify these so are seeking reassurance of an engineer. Building control should happily advise you on these too if you can provide spans, pitches, rough idea of useage/loadings (roof covering etc).

It all sounds fairly standard stuff though. I'd happily spec. and build a job like that myself (besides blockwork, rendering and services) without any engineers input, warranties, or even building regs and be 100% confident in doing its job properly and not killing anyone.

Does it include a bit of a retaining wall design if you are having the ground dug away ?
In my experience not unusual to limit liability in contract to multiple of fees. Liability out of contract would be unlimited.
The last paragraph sounds odd, but probably implies limited liability of the individual employees / directors within the 'firm'. The 'firm' as an entity should have its own PII.

Core - the architect has said that the council will need a SE report for the plans as they are. He's got no reason to lie about that (it's a small world up here and he is well regarded by people I know well). The only way to avoid it is if the contractor is registered with the planners as able to self certify structural stuff. Nobody round here is.

marcus - no retaining wall in the plans, its pretty shallow slope and theres loads of room to have a very gentle gradient up towards the garden. Its basically scraping up some shitty tarmac!

Core - I did say "may also need" because the OP was vague. £1400 seemed steep but there was very little info to go off

Correct that you don't "need" an SE in England, but I would recommend paying for one, and a decent chartered one. Sadly we are not protected as a profession (our own fault) so anyone can submit calcs, and that doesn't do us any favours. It means that anyone can have a crack at design uninsured (or put caveats on like those shown by the OP) and there is little or no come back.

I need this engineers number!

Andrew Firebrace Partnership Limited.

Tel: 01223 811572 Fax: 01223 812719

http://afpconsult.co.uk

Cannot recommend them highly enough, most helpful when I was building my workshop as a total novice and answered all my endless questions for free!

Scotland is different to England and Wales for approval of structural details. In E and W, you submit the design to the local authority and they review it, or pay somebody to do it, and they charge you fees to that. In Scotland you hire an SE on the Register and they take responsibility for it and sign it off, all the LA then need is the certificate. The cost of the certificate itself isn't representative of the work the SE has to do before they can sign it. So SE costs between E and W and Scotland are not comparable, you get more in Scotland, which [i]should[/i] (but does it?) save you fees to the LA.

The SER scheme was brought in by the Scottish Govt because of some fatal accidents due to structural failure - it's very broadly parallel to having to get electrics certified to Part P.
[quote="TimP"]
Sadly we are not protected as a professionExcept in Scotland and Channel Isles

(our own fault)

Loving all the expert opinions on here without sight of the actual plans or site specific details.

truth is in Scotland they run a self certification scheme as they do in Jersey slightly different in Guernsey again however this all comes with additional costs in terms of registration, auditing and additional PI.

I am surprised that the engineer is not intending on visiting site as that should be a given.

Yes anybody can use span tables to size joists, beams etc but what about checking the bearing, the wall panels the foundations etc. as well as covering the work under their PI for 10 years.

Chartered Structural engineers are highly qualified individuals who have had to pass a rigorous examination process.

As with every thing you should get competitive quotes and compare them on a like for like basis.

We are in England, but what struck me on structural calcs was the variance in price.weve put in 7 beams + lintels costs quoted from 1400 - 3500 for the same work. Used a local firm who have been great

Did that include the steels ???

Greybeard - like I said, anyone can have a crack at designing, you don't need any qualification, and in my experience the local house extensions are not always thoroughly checked by BC at the calc stage but only when things are on site and as long as it looks big enough it is accepted. It is possible to submit calcs to Building Control without a signature meaning that there is no comeback on whoever did the calc if there is a failure in the future as they are done by an unknown "engineer"(this has been done by my friends but I wont do it).

I have also seen people using the institute logo and claiming to be members when they are only graduate members. If they are reported they get banned from an institute they are not members of for a couple of years, but it doesn't stop them legally carrying on as if nothing has happened as you don't need to be a member in the first place.

lesgrandepotato - The variance in fees is an issue as there is no set scale (similar to what RIBA have) meaning you charge what you want and one man bands with smaller overheads can charge less. There is a difference in quality of product. A cheaper price might get you calcs and drawings that are vague and generic which will get you through BC, but further information will be required to build it which will then incur further cost.

Generally we don't do ourselves any favours.

(PS- Good old Viccy died 115 years ago - that is plenty of time to pull together a decent argument. Maybe they could have raised it a little earlier?)

Forgetting the fee at the moment if I were the architect I would tell them to take a long walk up short pier with that liability proposal. Absolutely unbelievable.

Almost all extensions to houses I work on here in Scotland needs an engineer for some reason. A few are realistic but one firm who seem to get lots of work as they are maybe the cheapest in my view over spec , domestic garage floors 200mm deep with 8mm mesh a142 not good enough in their eyes, k9 lintols you struggle to lift rather than universal 100mm x140mm used on so many other openings, their drawings must sail through building control but for builders and joiners costs escalate and the customers wonder why. So I would ask around for an engineer word of mouth average costs but with realistic specifications

Tim P I agree on the variance of quality and you'all get what you ask for we needed no downstands and no columns so a degree of outside the box thinking was needed to achieve it but we've got there in the end. As ever needs to be someone you can work with and understand the vision

Tim - I agree with what you say about the problems, my point is that there's very little the Institution (not Institute!) can do about it unless Government gives them some legal powers, which they won't. (Except in Scotland and CIs). That's not because the Institution hasn't tried, both for a licensing scheme and minimum fees, but Govt see it as SE's trying to protect their income, rather than protecting the public from incompetence.

To those who think that clause about not being sued is unreasonable, read it carefully - what it says is that you can't sue individuals for the work they did for the firm, ie, the firm's liable not the workers. I'm talking about the tort one, not the 5 times - which does seem very low.

thegreatape - we used GJR in clydebank. Didn't bugger about and got the job done with no fuss. Only plans to knock a wall through but price was in line with other quotes.

http://www.gjr-ltd.co.uk/

Also used ATK before in Greenock who were also good (but busy when we needed the drawings done)

redmex - cheers, waiting on 3 more quotes now

squirrelking - thanks, I may drop them a line as well

redmex - Member

Almost all extensions to houses I work on here in Scotland needs an engineer for some reason. A few are realistic but one firm who seem to get lots of work as they are maybe the cheapest in my view over spec , domestic garage floors 200mm deep with 8mm mesh a142 not good enough in their eyes, k9 lintols you struggle to lift rather than universal 100mm x140mm used on so many other openings, their drawings must sail through building control but for builders and joiners costs escalate and the customers wonder why. So I would ask around for an engineer word of mouth average costs but with realistic specifications

This ^

There are a lot of people who over specify however, a good structural engineer will save you money! A lot of people don't appreciate the structure silently working around them.

My experience of a couple of structural engineers is they over spec massively to be on the safe side. One friend wated to remove a couple of walls in his flat - one load bearing - huge RSJ specified - thats fine. the other non load bearing and the structural engineer wanted an RSJ in that as well. He wouldn't budge till we ripped the ceiling down and showed him that nothing rested on top of that wall - nothing at all.

Edit - and don't start me on the ones the council used on my flat. Massive overspeccing all over the place some of which has damaged the property badly by overloading areas and adding many tonnes of weight. I'm looking forward to getting them in court to explain themselves

Can't comment on the fee per se but I am an expert in construction professional liability and that cap on their liability withhold never stand up in court. Not in a million years.

They can be used but the limit has to be such that it is of some use and offers sensible recourse to the client whilst affording some degree of protection to the firm against claims running away completely. 5 x fee is £7500 which is no use to man nor beast.

On a job like this they could get away with something along the lines of 5 x fee or £100k whichever is greater would be sufficient as £100k would be enough to remedy a house extension even if it went completely wrong but gives the engineers the comfort that they're not going to be screwed for every penny.

Impossible to judge the quote without full details of the scheme.

Get comparative quotes and ask for a written scope of work from each.

Always amazes me that Clients are so tight on professional fees when this is by far the most important part of any project. People will happily spend hundreds on naff bathtubs and lighting that they can actually see, but will argue down to the last penny on architect's and engineer's fees as they don't really understand the expertise involved and what they are actually paying for.

PS. I am not saying the OP is tight, it's just a general observation following years in the trade.

Fair enough Andy. As I said at the start , I've no reservations at all paying the market rate for work. That quote was enough to raise eyebrows, hence checking on here.

A lot of people here seem to be very excitable about a single storey domestic extension in a standard form of construction. I appreciate things are different in Scotland, but common sense and general principles of building seem to be lacking to me. Arse covering culture. You can do a lot on the back of the Approved Documents, industry guidance and standards, manufacturers data and widely published construction information. It really sounds a very simple build, I hope the BC fee is low.

Greybeard - one of the warning signs is that they felt the need to put that individual tort statement in. Why on earth would they want to unless they'd had some significant problems in the past. Agreed that the limit of liability is completely ludicrous.

Why on earth would they want to unless they'd had some significant problems in the past

Yes, of course. However, why on earth would a competent professional put in a design quotation a phrase which highlights that they've had a significant issue which has resulted in action. They can't stop anyone taking out a personal claim, it's just that a client is most unlikely to because in all cases you'd pursue the entity which carried PII, unless of course they'd limited it to 5x the fee!