PDHengineer’s Post

The November Ethical Dilemma: Claim Review and Analysis Services This is the November 2024 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think? This series is comprised of case studies from NSPE archives, involving both real and hypothetical matters submitted by engineers, public officials, and members of the public. A Review of the Facts In the early stages of a project, Engineer Mike, a geophysical engineer, was retained by a construction contractor to make field compaction tests in connection with work to be performed for the city of Downstream. The job specifications stated that the contractor would be responsible for retaining the geophysical engineer with the approval of the city engineer. The frequency of the testing would be determined by the city engineer. During the course of the work, the contractor ran into financial difficulty, alleging that there was excessive testing and that the soil borings did not represent actual conditions, and asked the city for additional funds. Two years later, long after Mike’s services were completed, the city brought an arbitration action against the contractor. Mike was requested by the city to assist the city in developing a claim against the contractor. Mike agrees and provides claim review and analysis services for the city. What Do You Think? Was it unethical for Mike to provide claim services to the city? (To continue reading, click the link in the Comments section.) #EngineeringEthics #Engineering #EthicalDilemma #PDHengineer

The November Ethical Dilemma: Claim Review and Analysis Services This is the November 2024 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think? This series is comprised of case studies from NSPE archives, involving both real and hypothetical matters submitted by engineers, public officials, and members of the public. Your peers and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have reviewed the facts of the case as shown below. And, here are the results. A Review of the Facts In the early stages of a project, Engineer Mike, a geophysical engineer, was retained by a construction contractor to make field compaction tests in connection with work to be performed for the city of Downstream. The job specifications stated that the contractor would be responsible for retaining the geophysical engineer with the approval of the city engineer. The frequency of the testing would be determined by the city engineer. During the course of the work, the contractor ran into financial difficulty, alleging that there was excessive testing and that the soil borings did not represent actual conditions, and asked the city for additional funds. Two years later, long after Mike’s services were completed, the city brought an arbitration action against the contractor. Mike was requested by the city to assist the city in developing a claim against the contractor. Mike agrees and provides claim review and analysis services for the city. What Do You Think? Was it unethical for Mike to provide claim services to the city? (To continue reading, click the link in the Comments section.) #EngineeringEthics #Engineering #EthicalDilemma #NoonPi

The November Ethical Dilemma: Claim Review and Analysis Services This is the November 2024 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think? This series is comprised of case studies from NSPE archives, involving both real and hypothetical matters submitted by engineers, public officials, and members of the public. Your peers and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have reviewed the facts of the case as shown below. And, here are the results. A Review of the Facts In the early stages of a project, Engineer Mike, a geophysical engineer, was retained by a construction contractor to make field compaction tests in connection with work to be performed for the city of Downstream. The job specifications stated that the contractor would be responsible for retaining the geophysical engineer with the approval of the city engineer. The frequency of the testing would be determined by the city engineer. During the course of the work, the contractor ran into financial difficulty, alleging that there was excessive testing and that the soil borings did not represent actual conditions, and asked the city for additional funds. Two years later, long after Mike’s services were completed, the city brought an arbitration action against the contractor. Mike was requested by the city to assist the city in developing a claim against the contractor. Mike agrees and provides claim review and analysis services for the city. What Do You Think? Was it unethical for Mike to provide claim services to the city? (To continue reading, click the link in the Comments section.) #EngineeringEthics #Engineering #EthicalDilemma #NoonPi

The November Ethical Dilemma: Claim Review and Analysis Services This is the November 2024 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think? This series is comprised of case studies from NSPE archives, involving both real and hypothetical matters submitted by engineers, public officials, and members of the public. Your peers and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have reviewed the facts of the case as shown below. And, here are the results. A Review of the Facts In the early stages of a project, Engineer Mike, a geophysical engineer, was retained by a construction contractor to make field compaction tests in connection with work to be performed for the city of Downstream. The job specifications stated that the contractor would be responsible for retaining the geophysical engineer with the approval of the city engineer. The frequency of the testing would be determined by the city engineer. During the course of the work, the contractor ran into financial difficulty, alleging that there was excessive testing and that the soil borings did not represent actual conditions, and asked the city for additional funds. Two years later, long after Mike’s services were completed, the city brought an arbitration action against the contractor. Mike was requested by the city to assist the city in developing a claim against the contractor. Mike agrees and provides claim review and analysis services for the city. What Do You Think? Was it unethical for Mike to provide claim services to the city? (To continue reading, click the link in the Comments section.) #EngineeringEthics #Engineering #EthicalDilemma #NoonPi

Excellent time to join our team of innovators. We are undertaking a detailed review of asset information, reviewing large amounts of technical documentation to establish a programme of works to support the introduction of new information management toolsets. Working with an established team you will be a focal point and lead the review efforts. #marine #marinestructures #problemsolving #engineering

Contacting JHS Consulting and Development for a GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION offers numerous benefits: Expertise: A experienced geotechnical specialist you can trust us to provide accurate and reliable assessments of subsurface conditions. Comprehensive Analysis: We conduct thorough investigations using advanced techniques and equipment to assess soil properties, groundwater levels, and geological features, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the site. Tailored Solutions: Our investigations are tailored to meet the specific needs of your project, whether it's for foundation design, slope stability analysis, environmental assessments, or risk management. Regulatory Compliance: We ensure that our investigations meet regulatory requirements and standards, giving you confidence that your project will comply with local regulations. Client-Centric Approach: At JHS Consulting and Development, we prioritize client satisfaction and communication, ensuring that you receive personalized service and support throughout the investigation process. Contact JHS Consulting and Development for a geotechnical investigation that ensures you have the expertise, resources, and support needed to make informed decisions and achieve success with your project.

Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) has emerged as a means to reduce unexpected utility conflicts. SUE is an engineering process that utilizes data processing and site characterization technologies to accurately locate and depict underground utilities in the preliminary stages of a project. Employing SUE can help avoid project delays caused by unexpected utility conflicts, which are estimated to occur once every six minutes in the construction industry. Studies have shown that using subsurface utility engineering (SUE) can yield significant cost savings. A study by Louisiana State University found a return of $2.73 for every $1 spent on SUE services. Another study by Purdue University quantified a total of $4.62 in savings for every $1 spent on SUE. Other studies suggest that SUE can reduce administrative costs by 2% of the total project cost, and yield engineering cost savings of 0.5% of the total project cost. In summary, the value of subsurface utility data is quantifiable through cost and time savings, reduced project costs, and effective risk mitigation, with studies showing returns ranging from $2.73 to $4.62 for every $1 spent on SUE services. But, how? By using modern technology to acquire detailed 3D data from every trench, e.g. Pix4DCatch and RTK from Pix4D. Easy to use, easy to buy.

Just finished work as co-editor on Volume 10, edition 1 of the Construction, Engineering & Energy Law Journal of Ireland. The journal is now in its 10th year; if you are interested in contributing to later editions please contact me or Katie Lee. Send me a DM on Linkedin or email me adhussey@4-5.co.uk #constructionlaw

I am current working with CNC Project Management preparing an Environmental Protection Order response. The EPO was issued because the company has not surrendered their Environmental Authority (Petroleum ATP) … despite the fact that tenure was relinquished years ago. The area subject of the EPO includes over 2800sq/km of land so   last week, we carried out arial inspections for existing petroleum and gas disturbance. We inspected over 100 seismic lines, 43 wells and a bunch on dams, access tracks and flare-pits using High Resolution Imagery. The imagery was only 6 months old (ex NASA and US government stuff). It was so clear and a very efficient way of inspecting such a large area. The aerial imagery has allowed us to ‘narrow down’ the areas that require on ground inspection and assessment against the rehabilitation criteria.  Saving so much time! Important points. 1.  When relinquishing tenure with Department of Resources…. Don’t forget about surrounding the Environmental Authority! Ideally you would surrender the EA first so that you have access to the land to carry out the required rehabilitation. 2.  DESI are really cracking down on rehabilitation! 3.  ‘There are more ways than one to skin a cat’…..highly recommend High Resolution Imagery!

The feasibility study serves as a critical analysis of a project’s viability, aiming to determine its potential for success. There are several compelling reasons to commission a feasibility study. One such scenario arises when a client encounters a problem but lacks the expertise to formulate a solution. Alternatively, clients may possess a clear objective but require guidance in assessing the feasibility of their goals and the means to achieve them. #FeasibilityStudy #Engineering #Audit #MaterialsHandling