Price for Engineers Fees: extension

Raoul Duke III

We are in the planning stage for a single story extension (nothing fancy, standard extension to a 1970s semi-D) + a deep retrofit. Currently our architect is finalising tender docs.

He got us a quote for engineers fees as follows:

- The design and detailing of the structural elements of the new single storey
extension and alterations to the structure of the existing house.
- A Chartered Engineers certificate of opinion on compliance with building
regulations following the satisfactory completion of the project.

Fees being €2950 + VAT.

I know nothing about what a fair price is for this service. Is this normal for engineers fees or should I shop around?

We're in Dublin if that makes a difference.

Alkers

Raoul Duke III wrote: »

We are in the planning stage for a single story extension (nothing fancy, standard extension to a 1970s semi-D) + a deep retrofit. Currently our architect is finalising tender docs.

He got us a quote for engineers fees as follows:

- The design and detailing of the structural elements of the new single storey
extension and alterations to the structure of the existing house.
- A Chartered Engineers certificate of opinion on compliance with building
regulations following the satisfactory completion of the project.

Fees being €2950 + VAT.

I know nothing about what a fair price is for this service. Is this normal for engineers fees or should I shop around?

We're in Dublin if that makes a difference.

If you're building an extra room its expensive and do shop around, if you're opening up the whole back of the house it seems maybe a little on the high side.

Raoul Duke III

Alkers wrote: »

If you're building an extra room its expensive and do shop around, if you're opening up the whole back of the house it seems maybe a little on the high side.

It is a 38 sq/m single storey extension (kitchen/living space) that goes across the full width of the rear of the house.

sydthebeat

not saying that fee is high... but you should ALWAYS shop around...

always get at least 3 quotes for everything

sprucemoose

Raoul Duke III wrote: »

- The design and detailing of the structural elements of the new single storey
extension and alterations to the structure of the existing house.
- A Chartered Engineers certificate of opinion on compliance with building
regulations following the satisfactory completion of the project.

Fees being €2950 + VAT.

it depends on how much the architect is doing (and charging).
if the proposed engineer is doing the full structural etc design of the project then that is quite reasonable

if they are just specifying steel etc and the architect is taking care of the rest of the structural design then that is a little bit high but fine all the same

Raoul Duke III

sprucemoose wrote: »

it depends on how much the architect is doing (and charging).
if the proposed engineer is doing the full structural etc design of the project then that is quite reasonable

if they are just specifying steel etc and the architect is taking care of the rest of the structural design then that is a little bit high but fine all the same

Thanks - I will ask.

Architect just took it upon himself to get us this quote which I thought was weird.

Gumbo

sprucemoose wrote: »

it depends on how much the architect is doing (and charging).
if the proposed engineer is doing the full structural etc design of the project then that is quite reasonable

if they are just specifying steel etc and the architect is taking care of the rest of the structural design then that is a little bit high but fine all the same

Architect won’t take on any of the structural works. That’s what the engineer is for. Roof timbers will be designed for the span, opes for roof lights etc

There’s a particular cert for the engineer to sign when an architect is involved. You also need a cert of compliance with planning.

I also think the price is very reasonable for Dublin project.

sprucemoose

Gumbo wrote: »

Architect won’t take on any of the structural works. That’s what the engineer is for.

not necessarily, wasnt too sure what was happening from what the op said so i explained both possibilities

Calahonda52

sprucemoose wrote: »

not necessarily, wasnt too sure what was happening from what the op said so i explained both possibilities

Yes necessarily as the architects, as badly as they want to eat our lunches, cannot sign off on the structural design.

Chris_5339762

Yup, about the same as we are paying for a large second storey extension.

And getting three quotes from builders etc is absolutely impossible. Most of them won't both to email you back or won't visit when they say they will. They largely aren't interested in small extensions and would rather build something larger and easier.

sprucemoose

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Yes necessarily as the architects, as badly as they want to eat our lunches, cannot sign off on the structural design.

not wanting to get too far into the technicalities and derail the thread, but if by 'signing off' you mean acting as the assigned certifier then a registered architect is entitled to do so .from the description of the OP the project could probably have been solely undertaken by the architect (depending on steel design needs).

Raoul Duke III

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Yup, about the same as we are paying for a large second storey extension.

And getting three quotes from builders etc is absolutely impossible. Most of them won't both to email you back or won't visit when they say they will. They largely aren't interested in small extensions and would rather build something larger and easier.

Yes, I suspect we will soon experience the same phenomenon when we send out the tender docs! Certainly based on all anecdotal tales, this might be the worst time in living memory to be tendering (costs inflated, shortage of builders, SEAI retrofit grants hard to access and not all that attractive anyway).

I won't prejudge the responses but would not be surprised at all if we just defer the project to 2024-ish...

Gumbo

sprucemoose wrote: »

not necessarily, wasnt too sure what was happening from what the op said so i explained both possibilities

sprucemoose wrote: »

not wanting to get too far into the technicalities and derail the thread, but if by 'signing off' you mean acting as the assigned certifier then a registered architect is entitled to do so .from the description of the OP the project could probably have been solely undertaken by the architect (depending on steel design needs).

Don’t worry about going too far in, most of us deal with BCAR daily.
But you stated in the first post that :

the architect is taking care of the rest of the structural design

The Architect shouldn’t be taking care of any of the structural design. This is not a question of who can act as Assigned Certifier or not, as even if the Architect is AC, they will have an ancillary cert for the structural elements from the SE.

sprucemoose

Gumbo wrote: »

Don’t worry about going too far in, most of us deal with BCAR daily.

wasnt my point, i was trying to not pull the thread away from what the op was asking

Gumbo wrote: »

The Architect shouldn’t be taking care of any of the structural design.

much as i actually agree in practice, in a legal sense i dont

Gumbo wrote: »

This is not a question of who can act as Assigned Certifier or not, as even if the Architect is AC, they will have an ancillary cert for the structural elements from the SE.

well it is and it isnt. if there is no engineer involved then they are responsible for their part to which the certifier is also responsible. if the certifier (architect in this case) is responsible then obviously no anc. certs

feel free to point out where it actually says that only an engineer can be responsible.

starbaby2003

Definitely shop around. That price seems great but our architects recommended engineer was €1250 more than the one we went with.

Gumbo

sprucemoose wrote: »

feel free to point out where it actually says that only an engineer can be responsible.

The core requirements of Technical Guidance Document Part A (Structure) are :

Loading.
A1 (1)
(2)
A building shall be designed and constructed, with due regard to the theory and practice of structural engineering, so as to ensure that the combined actions that are liable to act on it are sustained and transmitted to the ground -
(a) safely, and
(b) without causing such deflection or deformation of any part of the building, or such movement of the ground, as will impair the stability of any part of another building.
In assessing whether a building complies with sub-paragraph (1), regard shall be had to the variable actions to which it is likely to be subjected in the ordinary course of its use for the purpose for which it is intended.
Ground movement.
Disproportionate Collapse.
Definitions for this Part.
A2 A building shall be designed and constructed, with due regard to the theory and practice of structural engineering, so as to ensure that movements of the subsoil caused by subsidence, swelling, shrinkage or freezing will not impair the stability of any part of the building.
A3 (1)
A building shall be designed and constructed, with due regard to the theory and practice of structural engineering, so as to ensure that in the event of an accident the structure will not be damaged to an extent disproportionate to the cause of the damage.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), where a building is rendered structurally discontinuous by a vertical joint, the building on each side of the joint may be treated as a separate building whether or not such joint passes through the substructure.
A4 In this Part -
“actions” means a set of forces (loads) applied to the structure (direct actions) or a set of imposed deformations or accelerations (indirect actions).
“variable actions” means actions for which the variation in magnitude with time is neither negligible nor monotonic such as imposed loads on building floors, wind actions or snow loads.

Now, if someone without the knowledge and theory of Structural Engineering was to certify the structure and anything happened in the future, the judge will look for the competency, the qualification and the experience of the person that signed it off. They will not accept “sure it will be grand, we used the same size steel on another job”.

The person’s PI Insurance may also not allow them to certify structural works. In most, if not all BCAR Projects that I see where an Architect or Building Surveyor is acting into the AC role, there will always be an Engineer in the background certifying the structural works alone.

If you ask any of the Architects posting in this forum, I don’t think any will
Certify the structural stuff.

DOCARCH

Gumbo wrote: »

If you ask any of the Architects posting in this forum, I don’t think any will Certify the structural stuff.

Correct.

sprucemoose

Gumbo wrote: »

Now, if someone without the knowledge and theory of Structural Engineering was to certify the structure and anything happened in the future, the judge will look for the competency, the qualification and the experience of the person that signed it off.

so someone who is qualified as a civil engineer cant 'sign off' as you put? much as i agree that it only should be done by engineers that not technically how it works

Gumbo wrote: »

They will not accept “sure it will be grand, we used the same size steel on another job”.

from the start i have repeatedly said apart from sizing steel

Gumbo

sprucemoose wrote: »

so someone who is qualified as a civil engineer cant 'sign off' as you put? much as i agree that it only should be done by engineers that not technically how it works

from the start i have repeatedly said apart from sizing steel

Explain how it works in your world.

Sizing steel is not the only structural elements that need specific SE Input.
Reinforcement cover, timber joists outside the normal span tables, the ground floor slab and it’s associated build up is now deemed a structural design.

jmBuildExt

OP - Info is a little out of date but if its of any use, I paid 1700 incl VAT for almost identical project.
Quoted July 2017.

Full width open plan extension, and work to existing - removal of load bearing wall, removal of chimney, and steel support for future attic conversion (which ultimately we didnt implement at construction time).

Had main architect who got 3 quotes at the time for Engineering sign-off and design of certain elements and we went with the cheapest.

- sizing and cert of Steel in extension, main house, and attic.
- design/Sign off on foundations.
- Drainage design.

Just reviewed the invoices....Seems like good value now I look back. As I say it was 4 years since first contact.

Funnily enough, I mentioned above we didn't do anything with the attic at the time. Recently I contacted same guy to quote for design/signoff of attic conversion (for storage use) involving steel support, stairs, build up of gable end, and sorting out the rafters/trusses for the roof. It also involved planning application (re building up the gable end).

Its not comparing like for like for what we were going to do originally but Quote was 4k +VAT (2.5k planning, 1.5k structural design and SE9101 certification)

Decided it wasn't a great time to be building (between the reports on runaway prices and the restrictions at the time on builders)

sprucemoose

Gumbo wrote: »

Reinforcement cover, timber joists outside the normal span tables

thats true of course, but from the sounds of things in this particular project i wouldve thought steel was probably the only thing involved (shouldve mentioned foundation aswell to be fair), obviously there are countless other things that need a specialist designer/engineer involved. i dont think its too presumptuous to assume that the op is probably going for a fairly bog standard cavity wall construction with a few opes maybe, depending on how big said opes (which to be fair we have established they are large and need steel) are an architect would be fine

op im sorry this has gone so far off topic

Raoul Duke III

jmBuildExt wrote: »

OP - Info is a little out of date but if its of any use, I paid 1700 incl VAT for almost identical project.
Quoted July 2017.

Full width open plan extension, and work to existing - removal of load bearing wall, removal of chimney, and steel support for future attic conversion (which ultimately we didnt implement at construction time).

Had main architect who got 3 quotes at the time for Engineering sign-off and design of certain elements and we went with the cheapest.

- sizing and cert of Steel in extension, main house, and attic.
- design/Sign off on foundations.
- Drainage design.

Just reviewed the invoices....Seems like good value now I look back. As I say it was 4 years since first contact.

Funnily enough, I mentioned above we didn't do anything with the attic at the time. Recently I contacted same guy to quote for design/signoff of attic conversion (for storage use) involving steel support, stairs, build up of gable end, and sorting out the rafters/trusses for the roof. It also involved planning application (re building up the gable end).

Its not comparing like for like for what we were going to do originally but Quote was 4k +VAT (2.5k planning, 1.5k structural design and SE9101 certification)

Decided it wasn't a great time to be building (between the reports on runaway prices and the restrictions at the time on builders)

Thanks jm - very useful

I'll get a couple more quotes, if nothing else it will keep the architect on his toes!

Raoul Duke III

sprucemoose wrote: »

thats true of course, but from the sounds of things in this particular project i wouldve thought steel was probably the only thing involved (shouldve mentioned foundation aswell to be fair), obviously there are countless other things that need a specialist designer/engineer involved. i dont think its too presumptuous to assume that the op is probably going for a fairly bog standard cavity wall construction with a few opes maybe, depending on how big said opes (which to be fair we have established they are large and need steel) are an architect would be fine

op im sorry this has gone so far off topic

no, fine by me - I just pick out the useful stuff, so work away!

you're correct in the above. In terms of foundation, we will most likely be replacing a suspended wooden floor with concrete (at least that is the architect's recommendation)

starbaby2003

Raoul Duke III wrote: »

Thanks jm - very useful

I'll get a couple more quotes, if nothing else it will keep the architect on his toes!

Can pm you the guy we used, was the cheapest by far. Very easy to deal with.

Raoul Duke III

starbaby2003 wrote: »

Can pm you the guy we used, was the cheapest by far. Very easy to deal with.

Thanks for the offer. I want to get the tender plans and schedule finalised first with the architect and then I'll revisit this point of the engineer.

It seems surprisingly hard for the architect (who sourced the quote for these fees) to tell me precisely what the engineer does.
Latest quote being: he would be 'be on hand to address any issues that may arise from an engineer point of view, foundations, rising walls, boundary wall issues, drainage, sizing of all steels and roof timbers'.

Is this normal in people's experience? Normally when buying a good or service, the provider tells you exactly what you're going to get and how much it's going to be. Vagueness is usually the enemy of getting things done right.

BryanF

Raoul Duke III wrote: »

Thanks for the offer. I want to get the tender plans and schedule finalised first with the architect and then I'll revisit this point of the engineer.

It seems surprisingly hard for the architect (who sourced the quote for these fees) to tell me precisely what the engineer does.
Latest quote being: he would be 'be on hand to address any issues that may arise from an engineer point of view, foundations, rising walls, boundary wall issues, drainage, sizing of all steels and roof timbers'.

Is this normal in people's experience? Normally when buying a good or service, the provider tells you exactly what you're going to get and how much it's going to be. Vagueness is usually the enemy of getting things done right.

I don’t see any vagueness. The list is in your post? Any ‘vagueness’ will be removed when the design is completed by the engineer

Raoul Duke III

BryanF wrote: »

I don’t see any vagueness. The list is in your post? Any ‘vagueness’ will be removed when the design is completed by the engineer

Surely some of those do apply to our project - and some don't. That just looks like a list of 'items that might or might not need to be covered'.

Appreciate I don't have any industry knowledge so maybe that is standard wording and I should just deal with it.

Gumbo

Raoul Duke III wrote: »

Surely some of those do apply to our project - and some don't. That just looks like a list of 'items that might or might not need to be covered'.

Appreciate I don't have any industry knowledge so maybe that is standard wording and I should just deal with it.

All of them apply.

Foundations.
Rising wall.
Roof design.
Steel design.
Drainage.
Boundary input to ensure no overhang or overselling.

starbaby2003

Raoul Duke III wrote: »

Thanks for the offer. I want to get the tender plans and schedule finalised first with the architect and then I'll revisit this point of the engineer.

It seems surprisingly hard for the architect (who sourced the quote for these fees) to tell me precisely what the engineer does.
Latest quote being: he would be 'be on hand to address any issues that may arise from an engineer point of view, foundations, rising walls, boundary wall issues, drainage, sizing of all steels and roof timbers'.

Is this normal in people's experience? Normally when buying a good or service, the provider tells you exactly what you're going to get and how much it's going to be. Vagueness is usually the enemy of getting things done right.

We only got one as it’s mandatory for sign off. In fairness though, he has been excellent. Really communicative, which unfortunately can be lacking in a lot of trades people.