Hello, this is sort of part 2 of a recent post. I'm that owner/builder
who is building a house that employs a lot of commercial techniques. I
finally got a formal estimate from an engineer: 90 hrs @ $100 per hour.
I thought I was going to save a bunch of money by doing all the labor
myself, but now I'm facing a big engineering bill.

I've never employed an engineer before, hence my question. I realize
these guys have to wait for clients to come to them, and that he
probably doesn't make $100 x 40 x 52 = $208K per year, but still I want
to get a good rate.

This is a rural area in NC. I have maybe 3 engineers in the area to
choose from --many more in a city about 30 miles away. I will be
calling some of those with my story on Monday, but I want to hear from
non-engineers as well what they think.

What bothers me too is that the contract is rather open ended as far as
what can be billed. Understood --who can predict what the building
dept will require down the road. I guess being able to stomach the
risk goes with the territory.

--zeb

wrote:
Hello, this is sort of part 2 of a recent post. I'm that owner/builder
who is building a house that employs a lot of commercial techniques. I
finally got a formal estimate from an engineer: 90 hrs @ $100 per hour.
I thought I was going to save a bunch of money by doing all the labor
myself, but now I'm facing a big engineering bill.

I've never employed an engineer before, hence my question. I realize
these guys have to wait for clients to come to them, and that he
probably doesn't make $100 x 40 x 52 = $208K per year, but still I want
to get a good rate.

This is a rural area in NC. I have maybe 3 engineers in the area to
choose from --many more in a city about 30 miles away. I will be
calling some of those with my story on Monday, but I want to hear from
non-engineers as well what they think.

What bothers me too is that the contract is rather open ended as far as
what can be billed. Understood --who can predict what the building
dept will require down the road. I guess being able to stomach the
risk goes with the territory.

--zeb

Hi,
What kind of (professional?)engineers? Civil? Mechanical? Compared to
lawyers 100.00 does not seem to be out of line.
In my working days, I charged 250.00/hr. minimum two hours plus T&L.
That was in the '90s. I am an EE with digital systems back.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello, this is sort of part 2 of a recent post. I'm that owner/builder
who is building a house that employs a lot of commercial techniques. I
finally got a formal estimate from an engineer: 90 hrs @ $100 per hour.
I thought I was going to save a bunch of money by doing all the labor
myself, but now I'm facing a big engineering bill.

I've never employed an engineer before, hence my question. I realize
these guys have to wait for clients to come to them, and that he
probably doesn't make $100 x 40 x 52 = $208K per year, but still I want
to get a good rate.

This is a rural area in NC. I have maybe 3 engineers in the area to
choose from --many more in a city about 30 miles away. I will be
calling some of those with my story on Monday, but I want to hear from
non-engineers as well what they think.

What bothers me too is that the contract is rather open ended as far as
what can be billed. Understood --who can predict what the building
dept will require down the road. I guess being able to stomach the
risk goes with the territory.

--zeb


This is just an opinion. The rate sounds like a fair one for a licensed
professional. Provided he is actually and actively working on your project
for the time billed.

The open ended nature of the contract would bother me. It would also be a
good idea to discuss what constitutes billable time. If he is thinking
about your project as he drives home are you billed for the time? Don't
laugh I know lawyers who do it this way.

Colbyt

This guy is a structural engineer.

Colbyt wrote:

This is just an opinion. The rate sounds like a fair one for a licensed
professional. Provided he is actually and actively working on your project
for the time billed.

The open ended nature of the contract would bother me. It would also be a
good idea to discuss what constitutes billable time. If he is thinking
about your project as he drives home are you billed for the time? Don't
laugh I know lawyers who do it this way.

Colbyt


With a lot of lawyers they don't even have to be thinking about you to
bill you for their time...

It doesn't sound out of line to me. I'd make sure I got bill or time
statements regularly so you can see how much progress is being made and
how much you owe. You don;t want to leave the meter running and get a
bill months later for an amount you never expected.

wrote:
Hello, this is sort of part 2 of a recent post. I'm that owner/builder
who is building a house that employs a lot of commercial techniques. I
finally got a formal estimate from an engineer: 90 hrs @ $100 per hour.
I thought I was going to save a bunch of money by doing all the labor
myself, but now I'm facing a big engineering bill.

My plumber gets $100/hour. It's dependent on where you live, but the
rate is definitely not out of line, regardless.

I've never employed an engineer before, hence my question. I realize
these guys have to wait for clients to come to them, and that he
probably doesn't make $100 x 40 x 52 = $208K per year, but still I want
to get a good rate.

I think you did. The question is are the numbers of hours a realistic
estimate? That's hard to tell without seeing what you gave the guy to
work with.

BTW, a good engineer doesn't usually wait for clients to come to them.
It's the same as contractors - the good ones have a waiting list.

This is a rural area in NC. I have maybe 3 engineers in the area to
choose from --many more in a city about 30 miles away. I will be
calling some of those with my story on Monday, but I want to hear from
non-engineers as well what they think.

You will definitely need site supervision from the sound of it. Factor
that in before you build in an hour commute for each site visit.

What bothers me too is that the contract is rather open ended as far as
what can be billed. Understood --who can predict what the building
dept will require down the road. I guess being able to stomach the
risk goes with the territory.

It shouldn't be open ended as far as what can be billed. The only real
variable is time.

If you have a complex house, want it done right, and want someone to
offer some protection, it's probably not a good place to start
squeezing.

R

It shouldn't be open ended as far as what can be billed. The only real
variable is time.

I was dead wrong. I re-read the contract and what you said is the
case.

WHY WOULD ANYONE HIRE A ENGINEER TO BUILD A HOUSE, CONSULT WITH A
BUILDER IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND SAVE SOME BUCKS OR BETTER
YET, BUY LOTS OF BEER AND GET YOUR FRIENDS OVER TO HELP OUT. YOU WON'T
EVEN NEED FRIENDS IF THERES BEER THERE. HELL, PULL UP TO A HOUSE
PROJECT AND TELL'EM THE BEERS ON YOU TO HELP OUT WITH THE HOUSE. DON'T
PAY SOME NUMNUTS WHOSE NEVER HAD A HAMMER IN HIS HANDS TO TELL YOU
SOMETHING YOU'RE NOT EVEN CAPABLE OF DOING ANYWAY...GO AHEAD AND HIRE
THE DAMN BUILDER DUMMY.

It doesn't sound out of line to me, but maybe you could go to night school
and learn structural engineering. You might be able to save some money. Then
again, it might be more expensive.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello, this is sort of part 2 of a recent post. I'm that owner/builder
who is building a house that employs a lot of commercial techniques. I
finally got a formal estimate from an engineer: 90 hrs @ $100 per hour.
I thought I was going to save a bunch of money by doing all the labor
myself, but now I'm facing a big engineering bill.

I've never employed an engineer before, hence my question. I realize
these guys have to wait for clients to come to them, and that he
probably doesn't make $100 x 40 x 52 = $208K per year, but still I want
to get a good rate.

This is a rural area in NC. I have maybe 3 engineers in the area to
choose from --many more in a city about 30 miles away. I will be
calling some of those with my story on Monday, but I want to hear from
non-engineers as well what they think.

What bothers me too is that the contract is rather open ended as far as
what can be billed. Understood --who can predict what the building
dept will require down the road. I guess being able to stomach the
risk goes with the territory.

--zeb

wrote in message
ups.com...
WHY WOULD ANYONE HIRE A ENGINEER TO BUILD A HOUSE, CONSULT WITH A
BUILDER IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND SAVE SOME BUCKS

If you read what the OP wants to do, you'd know why he NEEDS an engineer,
not just a builder. Builders build, but engineers tell them what is needed
so it does not fall down. .

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello, this is sort of part 2 of a recent post. I'm that owner/builder
who is building a house that employs a lot of commercial techniques. I
finally got a formal estimate from an engineer: 90 hrs @ $100 per hour.
I thought I was going to save a bunch of money by doing all the labor
myself, but now I'm facing a big engineering bill.

It may be out of line. Around here, $150 is more likely.



I've never employed an engineer before, hence my question. I realize
these guys have to wait for clients to come to them, and that he
probably doesn't make $100 x 40 x 52 = $208K per year, but still I want
to get a good rate.

You got one, IMO.

I know plumbers and service technicians that get $100 an hour. That is very
reasonable for an engineer. Don't think all that money is going into his
pocket. Lots of costs involved in operating an engineering or any
professional business. Out of that $100 comes secretaries, office staff,
rent, heat, insurance, etc.

It takes much more than just knowledge of engineering. IIRC you can't
seal drawings in this state until you have a degree, X years of work
experience in the field, then some other engineer to vouch for you.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

WHY WOULD ANYONE HIRE A ENGINEER TO BUILD A HOUSE, CONSULT WITH A
BUILDER IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND SAVE SOME BUCKS


If you read what the OP wants to do, you'd know why he NEEDS an engineer,
not just a builder. Builders build, but engineers tell them what is needed
so it does not fall down. .


Hi,
If a good builder and he thinks he has to consult with a sutructural
enginner or soil engineer, whoever, he will go to them to get the proper
guidance to build properly.

Gee, when you consider all that, maybe you did get a good rate. Even for NC.
What do you think?
wrote in message
oups.com...
It takes much more than just knowledge of engineering. IIRC you can't
seal drawings in this state until you have a degree, X years of work
experience in the field, then some other engineer to vouch for you.

You will definitely need site supervision from the sound of it. Factor
that in before you build in an hour commute for each site visit.

Could you explain a little more about "site supervision"? I'm the
owner and doing all the labor (except the big pours, etc) and
fabrication myself. Do you mean the engineer will have to watch over
my shoulder to see that the work is being done right?

You sound just a little sarcastic but that's OK. Everyone so far
agrees with you that the rate is OK. Again, I've never done this
before. I have to be very careful since I'm unemployed and drawing
out of a nest egg.

Do you have a logical reason for "building a house that employs a lot of
commercial techniques"? Is this going to have to meet some kind of L&I code
for a home business?

wrote in message
oups.com...
You sound just a little sarcastic but that's OK. Everyone so far
agrees with you that the rate is OK. Again, I've never done this
before. I have to be very careful since I'm unemployed and drawing
out of a nest egg.

wrote in message
ups.com...
WHY WOULD ANYONE HIRE A ENGINEER TO BUILD A HOUSE, CONSULT WITH A
BUILDER IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND SAVE SOME BUCKS OR BETTER
YET, BUY LOTS OF BEER AND GET YOUR FRIENDS OVER TO HELP OUT. YOU WON'T
EVEN NEED FRIENDS IF THERES BEER THERE. HELL, PULL UP TO A HOUSE
PROJECT AND TELL'EM THE BEERS ON YOU TO HELP OUT WITH THE HOUSE. DON'T
PAY SOME NUMNUTS WHOSE NEVER HAD A HAMMER IN HIS HANDS TO TELL YOU
SOMETHING YOU'RE NOT EVEN CAPABLE OF DOING ANYWAY...GO AHEAD AND HIRE
THE DAMN BUILDER DUMMY.

Now THAT'S an intelligent answer!

Tony Hwang wrote:

If a good builder and he thinks he has to consult with a sutructural
enginner or soil engineer, whoever, he will go to them to get the proper
guidance to build properly.

You've got it backwards. You can't get a building permit without
sealed drawings. You can't get bids until you have drawings.

There are design/build firms that will do the whole thing for you, but
not every builder provides that service, nor wants to.

R

wrote:
You will definitely need site supervision from the sound of it. Factor
that in before you build in an hour commute for each site visit.

Could you explain a little more about "site supervision"? I'm the
owner and doing all the labor (except the big pours, etc) and
fabrication myself. Do you mean the engineer will have to watch over
my shoulder to see that the work is being done right?

Since you're contemplating building the whole house yourself, you must
be a pretty handy guy. The fact that you haven't dealt with engineers
means you're probably not in the business and may or may not be up on
construction techniques. If that's the case, you should have someone
"keeping you honest". There are sequencing and other concerns that
aren't necessarily obvious to even a skilled craftsman who hasn't built
a house.

The supervision doesn't have to be the engineer. It could be a builder
with experience in commercial & residential construction since yours
will be a hybrid.

R

No, it's just a small residence. I had the opportunity to design my
dream house several years ago and this is what I came up with. I
wanted the qualities of strength, security and longevity with minimal
maintenance and I didn't find that in traditional wood residences.
Everything is about the surface --looking like something better than it
really is. It is OK if the thing disintegrates in 5 years, it will
give the 2nd owner something to do.

I am by no means wealthy. I love building and working by myself. I
figured by doing most the labor myself I could offset the extra cost of
better materials and techniques.

You can build a super quality house with conventional home building methods.
You don't have to use commercial techniques and spend $9K on engineering.
For that kind of money you can hire a good contractor to do and show you how
to do a lot of things.

wrote in message
oups.com...
No, it's just a small residence. I had the opportunity to design my
dream house several years ago and this is what I came up with. I
wanted the qualities of strength, security and longevity with minimal
maintenance and I didn't find that in traditional wood residences.
Everything is about the surface --looking like something better than it
really is. It is OK if the thing disintegrates in 5 years, it will
give the 2nd owner something to do.

I am by no means wealthy. I love building and working by myself. I
figured by doing most the labor myself I could offset the extra cost of
better materials and techniques.

Ah, but where's the fun in that? One of my criteria was to use no wood
--at least for structrual purposes. This is all masonry, concrete and
steel. When I say I've never done this before I'm just talking about
the engineering. I'm plenty handy --both metal and wood.

wrote in message
oups.com...
No, it's just a small residence. I had the opportunity to design my
dream house several years ago and this is what I came up with. I
wanted the qualities of strength, security and longevity with minimal
maintenance and I didn't find that in traditional wood residences.

They don't use wood, use concrete. Check out www.integraspec.com
www.polysteel.com www.standardicf.com
Saves a bundle on energy, strong enough for a tornado (except the roof, but
the structure will stand) and very quiet inside. May options for exterior
finishes that will last for years.

RicodJour wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

If a good builder and he thinks he has to consult with a sutructural
enginner or soil engineer, whoever, he will go to them to get the proper
guidance to build properly.


You've got it backwards. You can't get a building permit without
sealed drawings. You can't get bids until you have drawings.

There are design/build firms that will do the whole thing for you, but
not every builder provides that service, nor wants to.

R

Hi,
How come? I had a plan(blue print) my builder thought he needs
structural engineer's input. He looked at it, revised it. Builder took
out a permit and we had our addition completed. Inspector passed
everything. BTW, I had original blue print for the house as well.

Tony Hwang wrote:
RicodJour wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

If a good builder and he thinks he has to consult with a sutructural
enginner or soil engineer, whoever, he will go to them to get the proper
guidance to build properly.


You've got it backwards. You can't get a building permit without
sealed drawings. You can't get bids until you have drawings.

There are design/build firms that will do the whole thing for you, but
not every builder provides that service, nor wants to.

R

Hi,
How come? I had a plan(blue print) my builder thought he needs
structural engineer's input. He looked at it, revised it. Builder took
out a permit and we had our addition completed. Inspector passed
everything. BTW, I had original blue print for the house as well.

An addition is a smaller project than a house and the engineering of it
is usually straightforward. A non-typical house such as the OP's,
utilizing commercial construction, is a different matter. There is
nothing wrong in selecting a builder before the engineer, but some
builder's would not want to be responsible for the engineering or
selection of the engineer.

Since the OP will be his own contractor, it's moot. He needs to have
drawings for the permit, so he needs an engineer sooner rather than
later.

R

On 28 Jan 2006 07:47:51 -0800, wrote:

Hello, this is sort of part 2 of a recent post. I'm that owner/builder
who is building a house that employs a lot of commercial techniques. I
finally got a formal estimate from an engineer: 90 hrs @ $100 per hour.
I thought I was going to save a bunch of money by doing all the labor
myself, but now I'm facing a big engineering bill.

I've never employed an engineer before, hence my question. I realize
these guys have to wait for clients to come to them, and that he
probably doesn't make $100 x 40 x 52 = $208K per year, but still I want
to get a good rate.

This is a rural area in NC. I have maybe 3 engineers in the area to
choose from --many more in a city about 30 miles away. I will be
calling some of those with my story on Monday, but I want to hear from
non-engineers as well what they think.

What bothers me too is that the contract is rather open ended as far as
what can be billed. Understood --who can predict what the building
dept will require down the road. I guess being able to stomach the
risk goes with the territory.

--zeb



Well back in the late 80's I worked for a structural engineer in a
small outfit and he charged $75/hour then so I'd guess the going rate
is more like $125 to $150/hour today. BTW, that was in Texas.

Tom wrote:


Well back in the late 80's I worked for a structural engineer in a
small outfit and he charged $75/hour then so I'd guess the going rate
is more like $125 to $150/hour today. BTW, that was in Texas.

Indeed. Many firms have to pay not only for engineers and their
building, but for extremely expensive software that can run tens of
thousands of dollars per seat, per program, each year.

RicodJour wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

RicodJour wrote:


Tony Hwang wrote:


If a good builder and he thinks he has to consult with a sutructural
enginner or soil engineer, whoever, he will go to them to get the proper
guidance to build properly.


You've got it backwards. You can't get a building permit without
sealed drawings. You can't get bids until you have drawings.

There are design/build firms that will do the whole thing for you, but
not every builder provides that service, nor wants to.

R


Hi,
How come? I had a plan(blue print) my builder thought he needs
structural engineer's input. He looked at it, revised it. Builder took
out a permit and we had our addition completed. Inspector passed
everything. BTW, I had original blue print for the house as well.


An addition is a smaller project than a house and the engineering of it
is usually straightforward. A non-typical house such as the OP's,
utilizing commercial construction, is a different matter. There is
nothing wrong in selecting a builder before the engineer, but some
builder's would not want to be responsible for the engineering or
selection of the engineer.

Since the OP will be his own contractor, it's moot. He needs to have
drawings for the permit, so he needs an engineer sooner rather than
later.

R

Hmmm,
The addition I was doing involved tearing down half of house vertically
and horizontally. If one wants to be own general contractor he better
know all aspects of building trades(more or less 40 different ones) from
start to finish.

Lots of people can build a whole house. It really isn't that hard if you
have the money and TIME. You can usually save money, but it's usually going
to take you A LOT longer than a professional. For the amount of time it
takes a non-professional to do something, they can usually get a real job,
hire a professional, and still come out ahead.

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
news:LXWCf.472533$ki.318107@pd7tw2no...
RicodJour wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

RicodJour wrote:


Tony Hwang wrote:


If a good builder and he thinks he has to consult with a sutructural
enginner or soil engineer, whoever, he will go to them to get the
proper
guidance to build properly.


You've got it backwards. You can't get a building permit without
sealed drawings. You can't get bids until you have drawings.

There are design/build firms that will do the whole thing for you, but
not every builder provides that service, nor wants to.

R


Hi,
How come? I had a plan(blue print) my builder thought he needs
structural engineer's input. He looked at it, revised it. Builder took
out a permit and we had our addition completed. Inspector passed
everything. BTW, I had original blue print for the house as well.


An addition is a smaller project than a house and the engineering of it
is usually straightforward. A non-typical house such as the OP's,
utilizing commercial construction, is a different matter. There is
nothing wrong in selecting a builder before the engineer, but some
builder's would not want to be responsible for the engineering or
selection of the engineer.

Since the OP will be his own contractor, it's moot. He needs to have
drawings for the permit, so he needs an engineer sooner rather than
later.

R

Hmmm,
The addition I was doing involved tearing down half of house vertically
and horizontally. If one wants to be own general contractor he better
know all aspects of building trades(more or less 40 different ones) from
start to finish.

Yeah, had a lawyer once and we asked for a detail listing of the time he had
worked for us, and found that he had charged us for his sales pitch which
was before we decided to hire him.

"George" wrote in message
...
Colbyt wrote:

This is just an opinion. The rate sounds like a fair one for a licensed
professional. Provided he is actually and actively working on your
project
for the time billed.

The open ended nature of the contract would bother me. It would also be
a
good idea to discuss what constitutes billable time. If he is thinking
about your project as he drives home are you billed for the time? Don't
laugh I know lawyers who do it this way.

Colbyt


With a lot of lawyers they don't even have to be thinking about you to
bill you for their time...

"EXT" etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM wrote in message
anews.com...
Yeah, had a lawyer once and we asked for a detail listing of the time he
had
worked for us, and found that he had charged us for his sales pitch which
was before we decided to hire him.


Last time I used a lawyer, it was to get rid of my ex wife once and for all.
He charged me $800, and did what I think amounted to two hours of work.

He was an idiot. I would have given him twice as much.

Steve

A lot of lawyers will give a "free initial consultation" and if you don't
hire them, they don't charge, but if you hire them, then they charge for
that consultation.

"EXT" etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM wrote in message
anews.com...
Yeah, had a lawyer once and we asked for a detail listing of the time he
had
worked for us, and found that he had charged us for his sales pitch which
was before we decided to hire him.

"George" wrote in message
...
Colbyt wrote:

This is just an opinion. The rate sounds like a fair one for a
licensed
professional. Provided he is actually and actively working on your
project
for the time billed.

The open ended nature of the contract would bother me. It would also
be
a
good idea to discuss what constitutes billable time. If he is
thinking
about your project as he drives home are you billed for the time?
Don't
laugh I know lawyers who do it this way.

Colbyt


With a lot of lawyers they don't even have to be thinking about you to
bill you for their time...