naval architects & professional conduct

Wow...I'm impressed, analysed it all in one, all the while completely mireading the post, understanding the situation and...and taking time out for a few personal whacks as well at someone you never meet, know nothing about or a shipyard you have never dealt with. You must be at the very top of your little heap being so clever an all wherever that is, and I guess you probably have hundreds of adoring fans and clients kneeling at your feet in rapt admiration...could I have your autograph too Mister.

 

watchkeeper, since you seem to want to get this back on topic, may I ask if you personally signed on to a particular ethics/ professional behavior doctine, and if so could you post it? It would help to put things in perpective. In case some here aren't familiar with this- here is an example of one. Reading your posts, I'm guessing the answer is yes. Last post notwithstanding.

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/undergraduate/pdf/NSPECodeofEthics.pdf

 

Not a matter of getting back to the topic, this post was about the topic and and very simple situation that seems to be beyond the ability of a few to comprehend.

The issue not about my professionalism but that of a naval architect that has failed to meet his obligation to his client irrespective of the shipyard the same client selects to build his vessel.

To put it in simpler/easier contex: if you paid at full market rates an architect to design (full package structural, style andd fit out) your new office building then hired a principle contractor to build the office bldg, but then your architect states he will only deliver his preliminary sketches of the project without details of the roof and exterior cladding....what are you going to say, Its okay, that you shouldn't expect to receive package because your peers might think your getting above yourself or something.

 

Yep, that's what I get paid the big bucks for, lol. Really, it doesn't matter wether you belive or not, but in contracts it's all about should/shall, can/will, may/must, required/goal, and the spec RTVM. I'm fighting the good fight right now in a $35M buy, and I lowball estimate I've seen ~$3Bil ($3,000,000,000.00) poorly spent in my time because of poor contract wording. I was once called in to fix a problem on a system that was $200M over budget and spending a $300,000/day because they didn't specify "sea state" with enough exactitude.

Truthfully, commerical yards spend pocket change compared to government spending where a drydocking is multiple millions and a lifetime system buy is billions. Just look at the recent SCOTUS case (General Dynamics vs US) where a contractor failed to deliver, but still held on to $1.35Bil they said they would pay back for almost a decade. I, and my office, pay very close attention to the difference between what is said and what is written. Everyone has ethics, and all ethics have a price, and I know how I pay for my morals, but I sleep well at night because I trust I did the right thing for the sailors who have to take these systems to sea. <<shrug>>

The sword of Law is blind as well as sharp...and a wise man arms himself. It is written words, like the comma that hanged Roger Casement, that we should pay attention to. Kurt Mix may have deleted emails to clear up space on his phone, but they are going to hang him in any case. I try to save the "decision" emails I get, but for the grace of God, there go any number of us.

EDIT BTW, do you actualy have the NA's contract in hand?

 

John, I think you have pinned it down rather well. We have an obvious set of routes that can be taken, to exercise and/or address the relief desired, if the situational description is accurate by the original poster (doubtful). If the contract is worth the paper it's printed on, it'll be quite clear, though possably subject to interpretation. This interpretation aspect could be intentional or simply the lack of familiarity on the clients part, at least in regard to this particular commission. A copy of the contract to the clients attorney for review, will quickly resolve the issue, though resolution is always dependent on cooperative parties.

I suspect there's a lot more in play in this situation, most of which we're not privy to in this discussion, plus the possible lack of integrity in the various disciplines involved, with little to no recourse, so a B&B session here is the result. The builder's attorney, likely always on retainer, will quickly determine the "value" of these claims. Personally, it seems silly to bring this type of discussion here, when (again) the obvious paths to reasonable and quick resolution are apparent.

 

Either you guys live in a commercial bubble as you seem to invent irrational interpretations of a straight fwd situ in defense of what is a very simple case of very unprofessional conduct by a fellow 'professional' at his client's expense (again not the shipyard) or I've have I raised a subject that you prefer not see light of day.

I regret to say there is no conspiracy, no hidden agenda, no fictional issue, just a NA with a bizare reality and unfortunately no solution for the guy who invested a lot of money

 

Maybe it's time to call the person in a position to make the decisions, that will lead to a resolution. There's two sides to every debate and you've provided one side. Do you honestly expect folks to accept your side of this discussion as the only valid one? The NA is just wrong and you're just right? You are clearly the inappropriate person to be handling this issue, as it seems you've taken a personal affront to the situation, not to mention a serious lack of understanding, in how these types of things get worked out. Reasonable people can make reasonable decisions, on the most difficult of issues. You on the other hand have walked onto the world stage and attempted to air, what you perceive as someone else dirty laundry. This alone suggests, you are the one personally bitten by this issue. I don't have a dog in the fight and frankly could care less one way or the other, though am curious of the outcome, particularly the NA's position.

In your country, I can understand this statement coming from a frustrated employee. Your recourse is limited if nonexistent, so you open the window and yell. In this country, we have legal "avenues of pursuit" to exercise, which don't entail someone getting beheaded at the end of the day. I sympathize with your frustration, but it's now time to call a lawyer.

 

Attached is a standard newcons/newbuild shipbuilding contract as a guide. Pay particular notice to page 25. This can be stated in two ways.
1. If the contractor is a qualified shipbuilding and engineering, then they own the plans and everything that they produce to build the ship.
2. If the contractor is to build the ship based on furnished plans, the owner has the rights to the plans but can be lent to the builder during the duration of the build. The list of plans needed to build the ship will be stated in the build contract.
a. In the event, a certain phase of construction is needed but not specified, the contractor may wish to request for the plan or grab the opportunity to do the engineering and drawing generation and charge the client for it (amendment to the contract).

In the caseof 2a, the owner has the leverage to ask his NA to produce the plan based on NA/Owner contract or pay the shipyard for the plans. His call.

The specifications needed to build the ship is rather lengthy and may be copyrighted, hence I am not going to post it.

 

Thanks rxcomposite, much appreciate the constructive support, I'll fwd the info to the owner with suggestion he use it to either empower himself to sort out the issue of getting dwgs or get a lawyer.

 

For further reading on how a design progresses into a spiral. Ship Construction by DJ Eyres

The following are more or less standard practice.

In a relationship with the Owner/NA, the NA sells the stock plans he has developed for a “one off construction” but retains the right to the original plans to be able to sell it to somebody else. The one off right belongs to the buyer. If the NA is commissioned to do a design not in his stock plans, the commissioning party retains the right to the design. It is a paid for design, not an intellectual property.

Note that on the preliminary design stage, the plans are not complete but enough for a Tender Bid.

In the Contract Build, more plans are needed. It is that at this stage where the Owner has to fork more money. If the NA has an engineering firm, he may proceed to work on the plans generation needing at least several draftsman, mechanical, electrical, marine engineers and a full staff. If he commits to making all the plans by himself, he may be spreading himself too thinly, as some of the work aspects are beyond his expertise or not worthwhile to do. The plans generated belong to the commissioning party, which in this case is the paying party/Owner. If the NA does not have the engineering facility, he may opt to subcontract it to another firm, remaining as a consultant.

At this point, the Owner may elect to choose the shipyard/contractor to do the “fill in the blanks engineering”, The shipyard/contractor retains the ownership of the plans for future references and shipyard practice but charges are “hidden” in the tender bids under “engineering”.

The Owner may choose an Owners Representative or retain the original NA to oversee the build regardless of who is making the detailed plans.

Conflict arises because the owner does not realize what is the difference between a Preliminary Design and a Contract Build with the NA not being explicitly clear on what he is selling.

 

Wow - I can see some traps in there.

The last big project I was involved in, ( Govt Warship build ) - the quote was based on preliminary plans also - and after the contract was won, some very expensive building details came to light.

It may be a case that a canny manager refuses to commit to costs till he can see the whole picture, not just an overview.

As an example - the bill of materials may say "200 metres of xxxxxx cable encased in xxxxx conduit", but fails to reveal that the conduit travel has to go through 10 x 15mm stainless steel brackets that hold gear to the wall.

So costs for the materials is X, but the cost of the manufacture is X time 5 due to special machining, plan changes for subcontractors etc.

I would never bid on preliminary plans, but then I don't have a rabid company board holding my pay cheque at arms length.

 

That is the difference between a pen pushing accounting administrator and a proper trained estimator.

In the commercial sector, this is the norm, and, we often bid on even less information.

 

In effect, when estimating production costs (not just in shipbuilding field) it is absolutely necessary for the estimator to have a good knowledge of all the production steps. In the example of piping, it is clear that piping needs a fastening system and it has to be included in the cost estimates, together with various smallware and consumables, the swarf (or production waste, don't know the correct english term), eventually the insulation and an anti-corosion coating and/or varnish. I have learned that and other lessons the hard way in the first few years of my work as engineer and have earned some grey hair due to that. Since then, I'm always trying to spend as much time in the yards as I can, trying to see and learn whatever I can about how things are done down in the trenches by experienced craftsman and specialized workers. Even today the errors are possible, but are significantly less probable.

 

I take the same approach, 70% of my quotes are for concepts drafted up for an owner that I treat as a starting point for comment and fine tuning.

Hence all such quotes have a rider - 'all prices stated herein shall be considered budget only to be confirmed on review of final design revision and technical specifications' - something I learnt to include after having owned a marine engineering and architectural metalworks business for 14yrs in Australia.

 

Well - without the detailed drawings, the best estimator in the world wouldn't be able to cost that.

I am not surprised. The number of jobs that blow out badly is not getting smaller. The only 'cure' is to wait till the customer finds out they forgot something, and the contractor stings them with a big 'gotcha' in an attempt to catch up to the break even point.