I will preface my rant by saying that I worked in Municipal/MUA Engineering design, subdivision, site plan and as-built plan review for a number of years and never felt the need to bilk an applicant's escrow account generating a novel regurgitating information in the zoning/construction ordnances, check lists and a ton of completely irrelevant comments.?ÿ My approach to asking for revisions or more information was to pick up the phone and call the Surveyor or Engineer asking for revisions instead of writing a phone book that is billed to their client's escrow account.
Just 20 minutes ago I got a review letter prepared by an EIT and signed by a PE, six pages long, asking for information already included on my as-built plan for a project.?ÿ The plan involved a local MUA as-built reviewed by consultants that often even have a PE review my subdivision plans (note: the same consultant represents the Planning/Zoning Boards and the MUA).
On this particular submission it took multiple pages to the letter asking for information clearly shown on the plan, SNAFU with this particular firm, with one valid point, just one.?ÿ After I reviewed the plan and signed the paper copies, the admin forgot to seal them.
I tend not to reply to these thieves but hand it off to my C.O.O. who runs Engineering for our firm and always enjoy listening to him go off on them.?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
You can identify kids as young as Third Grade who are clearly destined to become reviewers of some sort someday.?ÿ Makes you want to find their parents and do vile things to them for unleashing such misguided nitwits on the unsuspecting world.
@holy-cow it all comes down to the American Dollar with respect or the Consultant's escrow billings.?ÿ My 40 years in responding to somebody with wet ears will prevail, no matter how long it takes and my clients will not pay a dime for my time spent beating off the flies.?ÿ Good morals, ethics and professional respect still do come into play, some just need to learn that by others not just laying down silent.?ÿ
Employees should not need to be trained by the clients/customers/citizens.?ÿ They should be properly trained prior to putting them in a position of authority.?ÿ But, decades of experience tells me I have many more poorly trained people to endure yet.
@holy-cow "putting them in a position of authority" being the key words.?ÿ The first step is teaching the younguns how to read a plan, the second if having a PE teach them how to and more importantly is smacking down a PE reviewing anything to do with subdivision plans, as that is out of the scope of their authority.
Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky, but not too old to put the offenders in the corner.
COCTS.
New club here at Beerleg.com
?ÿ
????
... I got a review letter prepared by an EIT and signed by a PE, six pages long, asking for information already included on my as-built plan for a project.?ÿ The plan involved a local MUA as-built reviewed by consultants that often even have a PE review my subdivision plans (note: the same consultant represents the Planning/Zoning Boards and the MUA)...
A certain engineering firm with offices in many locations always sends detailed redlines (RFI's) nitpicking every aspect of every topographic survey they get. 99.99% of the time it is a matter of form or preference, and is irrelevant to the project.
I remember the first time I saw one of their RFI's. I was dumbfounded. The amount of billable hours they wasted would have been unbelievable if I had not been looking at it.
Every one of the projects that firm works on is over budget and behind schedule. Every. Single. One.?ÿ
