IPENZ/EngNZ CPEng review system  

I read with interest the reflections of Barry Davidson in the September 2018 issue of the SESOC journal and am in total agreement. Part of my current work is assisting a BCA in assessing structural engineering elements of more complex projects and these vary from residential to large commercial buildings. The standard of engineering that is presented as acceptable by the “professionals” in our industry is extremely varied and there are those engineers that consistently submit woefully inadequate designs that have at times been dangerous, expecting that the BCA will effectively peer review the design for them. I believe, as noted by Mr Davidson, that this is undertaken to provide the client with a low fee at the project outset and then to apportion the majority of the blame on to the BCA for the escalating cost and time frame, when the consent continuously goes back and forth until the design is adequate, safe and meets with the NZ BC. Some of the submissions have been returned as we cannot read the calculations. This is totally unacceptable in this day and age and as a representative of a professional body and I believe demonstrates that the IPENZ/EngNZ CPEng review system is inadequate at best.

 

Reading Mr Davidson’s reflections reminded me that from whence I hail, in Scotland, the system was changed more than 10 years ago to an independent certification body and the BCA was effectively the document controller. Random audits were undertaken of all engineers consent submissions, since this I believe is where we would be better measured, and those not meeting the required design and or QA standards would be provided with the requisite punishment, either a warning with further training recommended and their consent submissons more closely monitored, or for more serious cases being removed from the engineering body register so they could no longer submit consents. The process cost the client more from the engineering perspective, as the engineers have additional process and fees to pay to be part of the independent registration/audit body, but on the positive side the BCA fees are reduced and the time frame for consents is more manageable as this is now down to the engineer providing the documentation, not waiting for the BCA to review and approve the documents. Perhaps some learning from the Scottish system could be undertaken so as not to reinvent the wheel. I strongly believe that the system in NZ needs to change to raise the level of professionalism and confidence in our industry.