Checking an Engineer’s Design: What Owners Must Know

01Why owners ask for a check

Circular 010 notes that as works grow more complex, calls for checking or reviewing come from authorities and from owners (para 1.5). It is written mainly for civil engineering safety of buildings and slopes, but applies where appropriate to other disciplines (para 1.4).

Paragraph 2.1 says statutory checks under the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133) focus on safety and stability, while owners may also want a second look at other aspects. An independent check can increase confidence for a comparatively small additional cost. By default the Checker/Reviewer covers permanent works deliverables only, unless the client extends scope to temporary works or supervision (para 1.6).

02Checking, reviewing and inspection

Paragraph 3.2 of Circular 010 defines three different activities:

Inspection of as-built structures after occupation is treated separately in para 4.6. It may include recommending remedial design. It can only be performed by a PEPC who has no professional, financial or conflict of interest in the building. The inspector need not obtain the First Engineer’s consent, but may request information, and the First Engineer should not unreasonably withhold information needed to study defective works (para 4.6).

Financial and insurance organisations may also require due diligence or independent design checking on major projects (para 4.7).

03Three check categories (A, B and C)

Circular 010, para 3.2, sets out three categories so that the client and First Engineer can agree the depth of work:

Paragraph 3.3 says the scope of Checker or Reviewer can be interchangeable and must be set in the Terms of Reference and appointment letter. The category should be agreed by all parties so that responsibilities, reporting and certification are clear.

On scope limits, para 5.10 adds that checking is restricted to the items indicated in Table A; checkers must not suggest alternative designs. Reviewers assess the First Engineer’s design based on Table A unless the owner’s terms of reference allow alternatives. If a Reviewer suggests an alternative, the merits must be justified and the First Engineer must be given a chance to comment.

Note: the category A/B/C summary above is taken from the para 3.2 narrative in Circular 010. The detailed Table A grid in the PDF extract used for this draft was not legible cell-by-cell, so individual Table A cells are not quoted.

04Who may check, review or inspect

For checking at design stage, para 5.5.1 says it should be carried out by an Accredited Checker or a PEPC with equivalent experience and of the appropriate discipline, other than where Act 133 already stipulates otherwise.

Paragraph 5.6 stresses that an engineer who accepts appointment as Checker, Reviewer or Inspector automatically assumes liabilities to the extent indicated in Table A.

Working principles in para 4.5 say an Accredited Checker or PEPC may check or review another engineer’s work only if invited without canvassing; the First Engineer has been informed in writing; the work stays within competence; integrity and decorum are maintained; the First Engineer’s reputation is not maliciously injured; scope is clear in the terms of reference; suggestions stay within applicable standards and by-laws; and the checker takes full responsibility for the integrity of the report.

05How to appoint without breaching Regulation 31

Circular 010, para 4.1, warns that checking or reviewing must not become intervening or taking over another engineer’s work within the meaning of Regulation 31 of the Registration of Engineers Regulations 1990 (Revised 2015).

Regulation 31 (Appendix II to the circular) prohibits a registered Engineer or Engineering Consultancy Practice from, directly or indirectly:

• (a) supplanting or attempting to supplant another;
• (b) intervening in work already entrusted to another; or
• (c) taking over that work for the same client unless consent is obtained, or the client has formally notified that the other engineer’s services have been terminated in accordance with the contract (with a Board-stakeholder route for fee disputes).

Paragraph 4.2 is the owner’s practical safeguard. The client’s right to call for a check must not be exploited to obtain an assignment under the pretext of “value engineering”. If the check is undertaken at the client’s invitation, without canvassing or touting, and with the First Engineer’s prior knowledge, Regulation 31 is not deemed contravened.

In practice: put the request in writing, tell the First Engineer who is appointed and on what scope, keep the terms of reference, and do not ask a second engineer to redesign the scheme behind the First Engineer’s back.

06Responsibility when recommendations conflict

Paragraph 4.3 says the exact line between checker/reviewer and First Engineer is hard to draw, but the guiding principle is that the checker/reviewer is responsible for the professional integrity, thoroughness and competence of his own work within the engagement.

Paragraph 4.4 then sets decision paths after discussion with all parties:

• 4.4.1 – Client implements recommendations with the First Engineer’s agreement. The First Engineer incorporates amendments, submits for approval, endorses them and bears full responsibility; if he also supervises construction, he remains responsible for works to approved plans.
• 4.4.2 – Client insists over the First Engineer’s objections and may omit that portion of the works. The First Engineer should obtain a client omission/indemnity letter, recover fees for work done, and the engineer taking over follows Circular No. 008. If recommendations are unacceptable and unsafe, the First Engineer may withdraw as Submitting Engineer.
• 4.4.3 – Client rejects the Checker/Reviewer’s recommendations on the First Engineer’s objection, which imposes higher liability on the First Engineer for defects pointed out by the checker.
• 4.4.4 – Client may engage a second checker acceptable to both; those findings feed back into 4.4.1–4.4.3.

07Statutory triggers owners should know

Circular 010 points to Act 133 provisions that already force a second pair of eyes in defined cases (Appendix I):

• Section 70(2)(c) – for erection involving a slope steeper than 25 degrees and total vertical height more than 10 metres, a geotechnical report must be submitted and verified by an Accredited Checker registered with BEM.
• Section 70B – if the local authority reasonably suspects a defect, deformation or deterioration in a building under erection that may result in failure, it may order the owner to review safety and stability of the building, foundation and surroundings. Under section 70B(3), that review must be by a qualified person other than the person who prepared and certified the original plans and calculations.

These are statutory routes. Owners can still commission a voluntary review under Circular 010 for other reasons, using the appointment rules above.

08Common mistakes we see

1. Appointing a checker without telling the First Engineer. That risks looking like intervention under Regulation 31. Circular 010 expects documentary evidence that the First Engineer has been informed (para 4.5(b)).
2. Leaving the check category undefined. Without an agreed A/B/C category and terms of reference, disputes later turn on what the checker was supposed to do (para 3.3).
3. Treating a Category B review as a full independent redesign. Category B does not require separate independent design (para 3.2).
4. Assuming the checker automatically takes design liability for the whole project. The First Engineer who adopts amendments under para 4.4.1 endorses and bears full responsibility for what he submits.
5. Using “value engineering” approaches that canvassed the client. Paragraph 4.2 warns against exploiting the client’s prerogative to obtain work by canvassing or touting.

Frequently asked questions