Something on Scope of Works and Professionalism

Something on Scope of Works and Professionalism

 

A piece of a passing thought.

 Salam,

 All praise be to Allah SWT for inspiring me to write this piece…

 In a pumping station, the only 'mechanical' device would be the pump. Unless the Civil Engineering student also learns Fluid Mechanics as extensively as a Mechanical Engineering student does (I don't know the Civil Engg. syllabus, kindly enlighten me).

Only then we can consider that the Civil Engineering graduate to be trained or educated in Fluid Mech and therefore should have the capability of specifying a pump

Then again if the Civil Engg. graduate should be able to specify a pump - not only in terms of flowrate and head but also the difference between a horizontal-split casing and a vertical-multi-stage, and the type of impellers, shafts, bearings, mechanical seal and what have you - components of the pump.

Then, well - mechanical can do it as good as civil does.

Maybe that's not the case. That's why we have mechanical engineers specifying pumps. Instead of civil although there is no doubt in my mind that there are many civil engineers who are very good - or above average - in specifying pumps.

But professionally? This is where it gets a tad tricky...

Consider this contention :-

It's a water supply scheme. My company is a multi-disciplinary consulting firm and my mechanical engineers, who are experts in pumps and working with my civil engineers, apart from working on their own building services. 

My Mechanical Ir² can sign on the same drawing as me as a dual endorsement. 

Let’s not forget the Electrical Ir² who designs the power supply scheme to operate the pumps and I’m Civil Ir² and I designed the scheme – there you go, triple endorsements.

 With 3 statements that says 

“I’m mechanical – the pumps and associated controls are my responsibility". 

"I’m civil – the entire scheme, is of my design and I have the reasonable knowledge and skill to size the flowrate and head of the pumping system – although I know a lot about pumps than some of the vendors but I cannot sign on the pumps and associated controls – only mechanical can”.

Yeah too long.

So how about "I design the scheme and ‘scheme’ is defined in some by-law somewhere"

Electrical – the very obvious.

Same consulting firm? Okay. But different consulting firms? I haven't figured that one out yet. 

By the way, the civil engineer learned about valves in his/her university days and there’s no rocket science in gate valves, non-return valves, Tozens, pipes, bends, elbows and tees. Civil can do that and speaking of pipes, even civil can size and specify the pipes and fittings also. But civil needs a mechanical to design and sign on the pumps and associated controls.

Professionalism says so.

Something to observe here, carefully – all three Ir²s are from the same practice. The mech Ir² and the electrical Ir² are also doing building services.

Therefore, if the scope of consultancy calls for the water supply scheme, the civil designs the scheme and leave the pumps and associated controls to the mechanical. Electrical will undertake anything electrical – power supply to the pumps, associated controls and light fittings and maybe supply to some exhaust fans, socket outlets and a gantry crane.

Point being. If the scope of consultancy calls for designing for building services only then that’s it – just building services – no external water or sewerage reticulations. If the consultant is required to extend his scope to cover a mechanical system outside building services, can he refuse? Because he doesn’t have the experience nor the expertise to design such system?

Of course he can.

Take an example of an automated waste collection system or building management unit (BMU  - gondola). A mechanical building services engineer cannot sign and be responsible for systems he has no knowledge about, even if the system is of 75% mechanical – shafts, pulleys, wire rope, hydraulics, etc.

There should be another Professional Engineer signing on that but – does this Professional Engineer need to be a Professional Engineer with Practicing Certificate? He doesn’t have to as long has he has the required documents to prove that he is a mechanical engineer who specializes in such systems. Certificates, for instance.

Sometimes it gets confusing when it comes to internal plumbing and external water reticulation. Thankfully the state water utility companies and the national water commission have drawn that line between what is defined as internal plumbing and external water reticulation.

Sewerage too. Civil provides a manhole that the Mechanical discharges to from Mech’s last inspection chamber.

Let’s zoom in a bit more…

Inspection chambers are normally not located at the access road leading to a building. We may find ICs at the internal road – those 18” x 24”s.

The ones on the roads are external sewerage reticulation manholes. They connect from other manholes to other manholes where it’ll end up at the sewerage treatment plant.

Some consultants expect civil to connect from their ‘receiving manhole’ to the ‘last inspection chamber’.

To me that’s not really proper.

It’s better to have the internal plumbing plumber to connect the pipe under his contract, administered by the Mechanical Consulting Engineer – from the ‘last inspection chamber’ to the ‘receiving manhole’.

Why? If Mechy know the distance from their last IC to the Civil’s ‘first manhole’ (I’d like to call it a ‘receiving manhole’ – as in receiving from ‘internal sanitary plumbing’).. because that manhole may not be the MH 01 in their design.. It could be MH 04 but that is the closest MH that ‘internal sanitary plumbing’ can discharge to. That MH could be deep enough for internal sanitary plumbing to discharge to - via gravity. 

But contractually there’s a limit so some consultants may go for 30m because… that’s the max distance from one IC to another.

But sometimes Mechy may have to go a bit further, say 60m but Mechy doesn’t know about the soil condition which may have an adverse effect on the pipe and what ever information that the Civil has which Mechy doesn’t know about… such as traffic load on the road that may affect the pipe from ‘internal sanitary plumbing’.

Point being. Please consider bringing it close to 30m to the Mechy’s last IC. Or we can have that demarcation “By Plumber / By Others”. Mech puts in 30m max then Civil continues with the other 30m or more to the receiving manhole. Please advice Mechy on soil condition or advise Mechy so that his IC has the necessary protection against differential settlement.

And most Mechys who are doing building services internal sanitary plumbing wouldn’t want to have anything to do with any sewerage pumping station because that’s not part of building services.

Yes. Seriously.

Civil can design the entire scheme (because it’s actually a process from what I’ve googled) but when it comes to the pump – if the building services mechanical engineer who’s scope is limited to building services only is required by the client to sign on the pumps, then he opt for the additional scope but does he have the reasonable skill and knowledge to specify a pump to pump sewerage? 

If he doesn’t it’s better for him not to accept the additional scope of work.

That is what we call ‘misrepresentation’. It’s not that we don’t want to do, we just can’t.

Allah SWT knows best. 

May we all be guided by Allah SWT, insha Allah. Amin.

Peace,

Wassalam,

 FbI