When Bigger Isn't Always Better

Smaller consulting firms can offer a lot of advantages in the construction marketplace, especially with regard to experience and service.

by Robert Alperstein

Many owners, developers, and contractors will choose their specialty engineering consultants using firm size as one of several selection criteria. Often they assume that bigger is better, and the small or individual consultant loses the assignment. But when is bigger really better?

To answer the question using geotechnical engineering as an example, we need to examine the dynamic of the typical assignments in the New York metropolitan area. The large project that requires many staff members and other resources is usually the large firm's domain. However, individual consultants or small firms with highly experienced principals who have specialty expertise can provide a useful review function and insightful technical input on large projects as well.

For the sake of discussion, it's fair to say that most private development projects in our region's urban areas involve building sites of two acres or less, and frequently the site will occupy an area of 20,000 sq. ft. or less.

Under these circumstances, the typical project will require about six to eight exploratory borings, and perhaps up to 13 if pile foundations are anticipated. These borings will vary in depth for the typical job from about 40 to 100 ft., a statistic that depends on the type of construction and actual subsurface conditions. Project schedule and anticipated boring depths will in turn determine if the project will require mobilization of one or two drill rigs.

Usually, the geotechnical firm will provide a single observer for a project. He or she serves as the eyes and ears of the consultant's project engineer, a role sometimes called "project manager" at the large firms. They are the two key players in the geotechnical engineering project.

The observer identifies and classifies the soil and rock samples and verifies that the driller has used proper procedures. In some cases, the observer may have authority to modify the sampling program based on the soil conditions the boring unearths.

The large firm's observer could be an experienced engineer or geologist, but more often is a junior person with limited experience, because it is usually an entry-level position.

While a small firm may also have entry-level observers, these firms do not have a long ladder for personnel to climb in order to gain experience. Consequently, smaller firms are more likely to retain well-trained and experienced individuals in field observer positions for longer time periods.

Meanwhile, the individual consultant may have no staff on payroll to provide as observer. However, usually, this type of professional tends to rely on long-term personal relationships with highly experienced senior individuals who serve as observer under contract to the consultant.

The project engineer evaluates the field data reported by the observer and can take various actions. This project leader typically modifies the program in response to actual conditions, decides on the appropriate laboratory tests, analyzes all the data, performs required engineering analyses, writes an engineering report containing recommendations relating to foundations, and meets with the client and design team to present and explain all of this information. The large firm's project engineer may delegate some of these functions to junior personnel.

The project engineer has the major responsibility for the success of the project. This individual must be knowledgeable, experienced, and able to communicate effectively orally and in writing.

In smaller firms, the engineer will be a principal in the firm with the authority to make technical decisions. But in a larger firm, the engineer is not infrequently below this level, in which case a principal will review and authorize the decisions. This chain of command can slow response time on a project, especially during the construction phase.

In addition, sometimes at a large firm, higher-ups may reverse a project engineer's initial recommendations, creating the potential for project delays, cost increases, and other difficulties.

Generally, the project engineer in the small, and especially the individual size, firm is the person whose reputation and experience built the business. That knowledge and experience can translate into sound, timely, and economical recommendations for foundation construction that ultimately flow to the client's bottom line.

Robert Alperstein is president of RA Consultants, a geotechnical engineering firm based in Wayne, N.J.