Page 35 - Water and Wastewater Engineering Design Principles and Practice

1-6 WATER AND WASTEWATER ENGINEERING

TABLE 1-2
Common fee structures
Model Description and comments
Fixed percentage The engineering fee is a fixed percentage of the final cost of the constructed
facility. There is a negative incentive for the engineer to produce an economical
design. This fee system is outdated and rarely, if ever, used.
Fixed fee (lump sum) The engineering fee is a stated sum. There is no incentive for the engineer
to explore alternatives when it is specified as part of the work. There is an
incentive to get the work done as expeditiously as possible.
Time and materials The cost of engineering services (the amount paid for salaries, fringe benefits,
(T&M) or time and retirement allowances, and operating costs) plus a percentage for overhead
expenses (T&E) and a fee for profit. In this procedure, the client will pay the “true” cost of the
engineering. However, without a scope of work and deadline, there is an no
incentive for the engineer to expedite the work.
Time and materials, Same as T&M above but a maximum fee is specified. This provides the
not to exceed engineer some incentive to expedite the work but only so as not to exceed
the ceiling fee. On the other hand, the owner has an incentive to expand the
scope. Both parties need to be alert to these possibilities and make appropriate
adjustments.

be explicitly defined. For example, structural engineers that specialize in building design may not
be appropriate for designing structures subject to aggressive wastewater.
Billing schedules and expectations of payment are also included in the scope meeting.
Typical fee structures are outlined in Table 1-2 .
Economic analysis of alternatives, selection of lowest responsible bidder, and diligent
inspection of the work in progress will be discussed in the context of the design/construction
process described below.
Turning to the issue of “happiness” or more formally “How is trust and reliance on the profes-
sional justified?”, three elements are to be considered:
• The engineer’s view of the client.

• The client’s view of the project.
• Minimal versus appropriate standards.
For all but the very largest municipal systems, the first two models of the professional–client
relationship, Agency and Contract, do not apply. That leaves us with the latter two models. “Al-
though a professional and a client are not equals, sufficient client competence exists to undermine
the paternalistic model as appropriate for their usual relationship. Clients can exercise judgement
over many aspects of professional services. If they lack information to make decisions, profession-
als can provide it.” (Bayles, 1991) This is not meant to suggest that the public needs to be taught
environmental engineering. Rather, it suggests that educated members of our modern society are
capable of understanding alternatives and making reasonable choices based on their values. They
should be provided enough information to make choices that accomplish their purposes—not
those of the professional.