Is the Engineer’s Right to Choose in Danger?

It takes years to become a professional engineer, and even more years to acquire the experience in the field of choice that’s necessary. Years of core studies — including chemistry, physics, advanced mathematics, computer-aided design (CAD), statistics and basic engineering are followed by deeper dives into thermodynamics and structural analysis. Before qualifying, students will often have to complete lab courses in subjects such as the properties of materials, for instance. Once the candidate completes these rigorous course requirements, the civil engineer must complete Professional Engineer (PE) state licensing requirements. Many state licensing boards require that PEs maintain and improve their skills through continuing education courses and other opportunities for professional development throughout the duration of their career.

We get an idea of how difficult it is to become a professional engineer by looking at the dropout rate. Sixty percent of freshman engineering students will drop out before completing their degrees, and more than forty percent don’t even make it to their sophomore year. Not only is the subject matter itself daunting, but accredited schools have to maintain a high level of academic rigor if their engineering candidates are to be successful later on in their careers. 

Politicians and procurement officers, on the other hand, require no dedicated engineering training whatsoever. Of course, many of them may be qualified in other fields of endeavor, but what qualifies them to open up the bidding process for the purchase of key infrastructural materials to products that may not meet basic engineering standards or product specification? How can the choice of key infrastructural materials be handed off to anyone other than the design engineer who will ultimately be held responsible for the future safety and performance of the materials in question, and has analyzed the total life-cycle costs?

Despite this, we’re now seeing a concerted effort to have lawmakers include language in new infrastructure legislation that broadens the purchasing consideration set to include pipe materials that may not be in the long-term interests of the community. This is being done under the mantle of “open competition.”

Open competition sounds great, but is it?

Traditionally, it was always the job of the design engineer — a qualified and state-accredited PE — to guide the purchase of materials used for infrastructure projects. It’s their experience that factors in safety, maintenance costs and overall life-cycle costs, as well as liability. Recently, however, organizations representing certain materials manufacturers have lobbied local and federal bodies to encourage placing responsibility for material selection in the hands of bodies other than the design engineers; for example, political entities or procurement departments. 

The trend that I refer to here concerns water pipe. The plastic pipe industry has been engaging in a campaign aimed specifically at promoting so-called “open competition” in the process for procurement of water pipelines. For example, the PVC Pipe Association has lobbied the federal government to include so-called “open competition” language in any upcoming infrastructure legislation. A letter was sent to this effect to every member of Congress last year. The reasoning goes that such a move improves value for money, reduces the “monopoly” of traditional materials, etc. The claim is made that decision-makers try to preserve the status quo because they’re wary of change. The cure, this line of reasoning continues, is to throw open the bidding to other materials — in this case, plastic pipe. Claims have even been made that some decision-makers may be guilty of cronyism, simply including their friends in the bidding process to the exclusion of others.

It all sounds very plausible, doesn’t it? Let’s introduce a gust of fresh air into the musty halls of government, waking these nervous, hidebound traditionalists up, and saving the taxpayer money. Not content with lobbying the federal government in this way, the plastics proponents are also busy promoting their “open competition” message on the state government level, too. 

A Trojan horse

So what’s wrong with open competition? Are engineers conspiring to fool the American taxpayer by putting their collective thumbs on the scale and shut the plastic pipe industry out of the bidding equation? 

In fact, there are no “closed competition” laws. Materials used in infrastructure projects, like all products purchased by the public sector, are in almost all cases chosen in an open bidding process. However, the products that are included in the bid must comply with required specifications in order to be considered. These specifications, in the case of water pipelines, are defined by qualified engineers.

Plastic is much cheaper than precast concrete, but, of course, you wouldn’t want a highway overpass to be made of plastic. Standards and specifications protect those of us who will use the infrastructure as well as the dollars invested by taxpayers. The effort to convince lawmakers of the benefits of “open competition” is, in my view, a Trojan horse. The goal is to have plastic pipe included in every pipe bidding process, including drainage pipe, sewage pipe and other applications. Since purchasing officers or political entities may be responsible for evaluating all bids, plastic pipe has a reasonably good chance of winning a specific bid, as plastic pipe is often cheaper than the other options because overall life-cycle costs and future liabilities are not factored into the bid.

What problem would “open competition” solve?

In my view, none at all. Instead, what happens is that Professional Engineers may be forced into settling for a pipe material that wasn’t their first choice. In some cases, these experts will be forced by non-engineers into accepting a material selection that runs counter to their professional recommendation. This is a serious matter. What would happen if political considerations were allowed to contradict a diagnosis made by your doctor? Would you feel comfortable allowing a surgeon’s medical decisions to be made by a lay group appointed by the city council?  

When things go wrong, the design engineer may be partly responsible — even be judged legally liable — for failures that result from bad material choices. And despite the claims of the plastic proponents, things can sometimes go badly wrong. I live in California in an area that was seriously damaged in last year’s wildfires. I remember reading reports from our fire departments of instances where vital water pressure was lost because of melted plastic water lines. Also, damage to plastic drainage pipes increased the risk of delaying first responder operations and public evacuation routes, as well as the likelihood of mudslides once the fires had abated and the rainy season began. 

Local authorities — and the federal government — are subjected to regular procurement oversight, which is specifically designed to expose cronyism. The “open competition” legislation that lobbyists are pressing for, both at the federal and the state levels, is simply trying to address a problem that doesn’t exist. Instead, the goal of the lobbyists is to further the interests of the companies they represent: the manufacturers of PVC and HDPE/PP pipe. 

Full disclosure here: I’m an engineer and manager working for a company that manufactures pipe of many sorts: steel, concrete, reinforced polymer and fiberglass reinforced pipe. I’ve been in the business for many years, both as a contractor and manufacturer, and I’ve been professionally involved in many, many pipe installations of different types. I’ve worked with pipe specifications and assisted local utilities and others in providing the right pipe for the right application, based on the appropriate engineering specification. I have no real problem with plastic pipe as such. I believe that there are applications where plastic pipe is probably the best option. However, I firmly believe that it’s the responsibility of the design engineer to choose the right pipe based on their own professional opinion, not the job of local politicians or procurement officials.  

Let Professional Engineers do their jobs

Sadly, some federal and state legislators have proposed taking away the engineer’s right to choose the right pipe for the right application. Such legislation would make engineers put their professional judgment aside and consider plastic pipe as an appropriate material for taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects. This would risk placing political and commercial considerations above engineering science. Congress has previously included a provision requiring “open competition” for culvert pipe in the 2005 surface transportation re-authorization, SAFETEAU-LU. This provision caused so much confusion that Congress reversed its decision in the next re-authorization bill, MAP-21. The 2012 MAP-21 law ensures that state engineers have the RIGHT TO CHOOSE the type of pipe material to be used for federally funded culverts within their borders.

The opponents of “open competition” often cite life-cycle cost as an important consideration when choosing pipe. To my way of thinking, there’s nothing wrong with this. However, it’s important to bear in mind that plastic pipe, because it’s not a load-bearing structure, will incur additional installation and maintenance costs that far exceed those of rigid pipe materials that are structures in their own right. When these additional costs are included in the equation, the apparent procurement benefit of lower initial costs becomes less attractive. There are cases here in the U.S. of rigid concrete pipe systems that are more than 100 years old and still in service. 

Regardless of these factors, I firmly believe that design engineers must be allowed to exercise the expertise and experience they have so painstakingly acquired and serve their communities in the way they know best, by taking full responsibility for pipe material selection. By allowing political bias and commercial considerations to affect engineering decisions, we risk allowing high-priced lobbyists and other interests to endanger the integrity of our infrastructure and the long-term fiscal well-being of our public sector.  

In this matter of pipeline material selection, this “open competition,” while sounding like an improvement, is in fact a chimera. Are we opening Pandora’s Box?

Branimir Kovac, VP, Thompson Pipe Group

P.S. If you’re interested in learning more about how to choose the right pipe for the right application, you won’t want to miss the May 22 webinar “Pipe Survival in a Hostile Environment.” You can register here.