Peer review

By Timothy Allinson, P.E.

Murray Company, Long Beach, Calif.

It is not the critic who counts or how the strong man stumbled and fell or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and blood, who survives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion and spends himself in a worthy cause, and if he fails, at least fails while enduring greatly, so that he'll never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. -- Theodore Roosevelt

If you've been in this industry for a while, chances are you have worked on a project where another engineer was tasked to review and critique your work. This is frequently referred to as a peer review. It is very common on projects for clients that have their own in-house engineering personnel capable of evaluating engineering design, such as large universities, hospitals and the like. It is also very common on design-build projects, where an owner might want an insurance policy to guarantee that the design-build contractor is not cutting corners at the owner's expense.

The necessity for peer review, or lack thereof, comes down to the design capabilities of the engineer - be that person a consulting engineer or a design-build contractor. Of course, the greater the skill of the engineer, the less the necessity of the peer review - but the owner does not necessarily know the abilities of the engineer, hence the need for the insurance policy.

The dynamics of the peer review process and relationship can vary a great deal. Sometimes a professional bond is formed based on mutual respect, and the review process is productive and efficient. At other times the relationship can become adversarial, argumentative, extremely unproductive and inefficient, as each party tries to prove they are right.

These dynamics are at their worst when the peer reviewer is less knowledgeable and experienced than the design engineer. The peer reviewer sometimes reveals their ignorance in the nature of their comments or insults the intelligence of the design engineer with banal statements or questions, forcing the engineer to defend a design when no such defense is warranted.

I have sometimes been thrust into the position of being the peer reviewer, which is not a task that I enjoy. Playing the roll of critic is not much fun, at least for me. More frequently I am the reviewee, which is not usually a big deal, but can sometimes become complicated.

On one recent project, the owner hired a peer review engineer and then hired another engineer to do a peer review of the peer review. Call me crazy, but I can't believe that to be money well spent. Only the CIA could be less efficient, and it conjures images of the movie Burn After Reading, the popular Coen Bros.' film that I recently saw. I recommend it. It has parallels to the peer review process when it is at its worst.

So what do you do if you are thrown into the peer review process as the reviewer? The first thing is to be very clear on what you are charged to do. In some cases a peer review might only concern itself with building interface. Many building owners or facility managers want to be sure that a tenant-installed system will not create problems for the building. In that case it is not your job to comment on the quality of the drawings or even Code compliance, but you want to be sure that the tenant loads do not exceed those that were allowed in the base building design. For example, if a building was provided with 3/4" future water connections and the tenant's design includes a flush valve WC requiring at least 1 1/4 pipe, you should comment that the water closet must be the tank type.

You should also make every effort to confirm that the tenant-run piping will not have a harmful impact on another part of the building. Is there a waste pipe running through the UPS room of the tenant below? Does it cross a decorative lobby ceiling? These details are not always easy to determine, but you should try to the extent possible.

Another form of peer review is when you are hired to do a complete critique of another engineer's documents, evaluating them in every respect. These reviews are more taxing and more delicate. Typically, they start with a set of general comments, followed by specification and sheet-by-sheet comments. In the opening paragraph you should state exactly what you are reviewing, such as "The 50% construction documents for the plumbing of Project X." You should describe the drawings that were included, either by listing them or by referencing the drawing index, noting any drawings that were not included.

Next, the general comments should be as positive as possible, to avoid setting a negative tone. The first statement might be, "The quality of the drawings and specifications was quite good and much in keeping with standards and expectations for 50% CD's," if that is, in fact, the case. Or you might say, "The floor plans are well developed, but riser diagrams, calculations and details have yet to be prepared."

When making specification comments you should reference each section with each comment. You need to be sure that you understand the nature of the project - what the owner is paying for rather than what you think the project should have. You cannot tell the design engineer to specify a Cadillac if the owner has only budgeted for a Chevy. Also, comments should not be picky in nature, but substantive. This, of course, is a subjective statement, but I think most people can discern the difference.

When making drawing comments, the respective drawing number should be referenced with each comment. Again, comments should be substantive and productive in nature, not vague, general or intentionally derogatory. Don't feel compelled to make a comment if you don't have one, just to justify the review process. Rather that stating, "Missing pipe sizes," it would be more productive to say, "Pipe sizes to be added after riser diagrams and calculations are complete." However, for a 50% CD review, this comment would be more appropriate as a general comment rather than as a comment that gets repeated for every floor plan. If you are reviewing a 95% submission and certain pipe sizes are missing on certain floor plans, then be as specific as possible in stating this.

In playing the role of peer review engineer you wield a certain amount of power. And as Spiderman says, "With great power comes great responsibility." (Forgive me, I've been watching too many movies with my son.) But seriously, it is easy to play the role of the critic. Don't take advantage of that. Put yourself in the other guy's shoes and treat him or her as you would expect to be treated yourself. In this way you will maximize your professionalism and add the greatest value to the project.

Timothy Allinson is a Senior Professional Engineer with Murray Company, Mechanical Contractors, in Long Beach, Calif. Prior to entering the design--build industry he worked for Popov Engineers, Inc. in Irvine, Calif, and JB&B in New York City. Tim holds a BSME from Tufts University and an MBA from New York University. He is a professional engineer licensed in both mechanical and fire protection engineering in various states, and is a leed Accredited Professional. Tim is a past-president of ASPE, both the New York and Orange County Chapters, and sits on the board of the Society of American Military Engineers, Orange County Post.