Second Engineering Opinion: When It Helps, When It Hurts

01What Circular 5/2005 is about

BEM issued Circular 5/2005 after noticing that engineers sometimes offer project owners unsolicited suggestions or proposals on designs already being carried out by the appointed consulting engineer. Those suggestions often concern the choice of engineering system or so-called value engineering (para 1).

The Board was concerned with the ethical aspect of that practice. It pointed to Regulation 27 of the Registration of Engineers Regulations, which provides that a Registered Engineer shall not:

• (a) canvass or solicit professional employment;
• (b) offer to make payment for introduction of professional employment; or
• (c) except as permitted by the Board, advertise in connection with his profession (para 2).

Paragraph 2 notes that subsections (a) and (b) are unequivocal on actively seeking employment with specific potential employers. Subsection (c) is governed by BEM’s advertising guidelines (then Circular 2/2003). The Board warned that some parties might try to offer a second opinion under the guise of advertising.

02When a second opinion helps

Circular 5/2005, para 3, is clear that BEM does not intend to stop project owners from seeking other views. It is the owner’s prerogative. Situations where a structured second opinion is commonly useful include:

• a local authority order under Act 133 section 70B to review safety and stability during construction (Circular 010, para 1.2 and Appendix I);
• slope works needing an Accredited Checker’s verification of a geotechnical report under section 70(2)(c);
• an owner-requested review of design or construction deliverables under Circular 010 para 3.2;
• post-occupation inspection of defects by an independent PEPC (Circular 010 para 4.6);
• lender or insurer due diligence on major projects (Circular 010 para 4.7).

Paragraph 4 of Circular 5/2005 states that an engineering design covers four aspects: function, safety, cost and aesthetics. A second opinion can relate to any one or all of them. It can involve correction, modification or even total replacement of the First Engineer’s work in those aspects.

03When a second opinion hurts

A second opinion hurts the project, and may breach BEM rules, when:

1. It is unsolicited. Circular 5/2005 para 1 targets unsolicited suggestions while another engineer is already appointed.
2. It is used to canvass work. Regulation 27(a)–(b) forbid canvassing and paying for introductions (para 2).
3. The First Engineer is kept in the dark. Circular 010 paras 4.2 and 4.5 require invitation without canvassing, and documentary evidence that the First Engineer has been informed.
4. It becomes a takeover without Regulation 31 compliance. Taking over entrusted work without consent or formal termination notice engages Regulation 31 (Circular 010 Appendix II).
5. Scope is vague. Without clear terms of reference, the second engineer and First Engineer later dispute who was responsible for what (Circular 010 paras 3.3 and 4.3).

In short: the owner’s right to a second view is protected; an engineer’s right to push that view onto an already-appointed project is not.

04What BEM expects of the second engineer

Circular 5/2005 paras 5–6 state that BEM’s checking/reviewing guidelines (then Circular 1/2003) also apply to checking or reviewing any other aspect of the First Engineer’s work, not only safety. As long as a registered Engineer is already engaged, any other registered Engineer wishing to offer a second opinion must follow those guidelines.

Those guidelines have since been updated as Circular No. 010 (Rev 2, 1.4.2021), which expressly supersedes Circular 1/2003. The practical expectations carried forward include:

• be invited; do not canvass or tout (Circular 010 para 4.5(a));
• hold evidence that the client has informed the First Engineer (para 4.5(b));
• stay within competence (para 4.5(c));
• specify subject and scope in the terms of reference (para 4.5(f));
• take full responsibility for the integrity of your own report (para 4.5(h));
• do not maliciously injure the First Engineer’s reputation (para 4.5(e)).

05How Circular 010 fits with Circular 5/2005

Owners and second engineers should read Circular 5/2005 together with Circular 010 and Regulation 31, not in isolation.

06Owner checklist before you appoint

1. Confirm whether you already have a registered Engineer engaged for the project (Circular 5/2005 para 3).
2. Decide whether you need a check, a review or an inspection, using Circular 010 para 3.2 definitions.
3. Agree Category A, B or C depth in writing (Circular 010 paras 3.2–3.3).
4. Inform the First Engineer in writing who is being appointed and on what scope (para 4.5(b)).
5. Appoint someone competent in the discipline, and for design-stage checking prefer an Accredited Checker or PEPC as indicated in para 5.5.1.
6. Plan how disagreements will be resolved using paras 4.4.1–4.4.4 before site instructions change.

07Where condition assessment and expert evidence sit

Circular 010 para 4.6 describes owner-requested checking or reviewing of as-built structures after occupation, including recommending remedial design. That work must be done by a PEPC with no conflict of interest in the building.

Independent condition assessment and expert-report work sits in that inspection / as-built space when a PEPC is engaged for it. It is not a substitute for the First Engineer’s design appointment, and it is not an unsolicited redesign proposal of the kind Circular 5/2005 warns against. Any such engagement should still be scoped in writing and based on observed facts.

08Common mistakes we see

1. Asking a friendly contractor’s engineer for an informal redesign while the consultant is still appointed, without telling that consultant.
2. Second engineers sending unsolicited value-engineering letters to owners of live projects (Circular 5/2005 para 1).
3. Owners treating a second opinion as automatic replacement of the First Engineer without Circular 008 takeover steps (Circular 010 para 4.4.2).
4. No terms of reference. The second report then drifts into areas outside competence or outside the agreed scope.
5. Confusing advertising with canvassing. Circular 5/2005 para 2 warns against using advertising rules as cover for offering a second opinion on a live appointment.

Frequently asked questions