With a collaborative approach, we customize our role to meet clients’ needs.

As experienced peer reviewers, we know that the role of the reviewer may require as much flexibility as that of the designer. We pride ourselves on our ability to adapt to the needs of each client on a case-by-case basis while maintaining a high level of thorough review. We know that with a pragmatic attitude, we assist the owner and design team in the implementation of peer review concepts.

With schedule-critical projects, we become a key part of the team and the solution, rather than simply operating strictly from a third-party perspective. Our experience as engineer of record for major architectural projects has helped us evolve an interactive approach to peer review. For some projects an “over the shoulder” method may be necessary, in order to provide critical feedback on a real-time basis, while others may require a more removed, “hands-off” approach. We always manage our peer review team to stay focused on the most critical elements of the design and analysis, and to provide timely reconciliation amongst peer reviewers towards resolution with the design team.

Our standard structural peer review scope generally includes the following tasks. However, the tasks will be tailored more specifically to each project type:

• Check structural engineering concepts
• Potential behavioral or value improvement suggestions
• Constructability review
• Presentation of peer review findings and peer review report writing
• Review and confirmation of the owner’s seismic performance objectives
• Meeting(s) with the design team to review the project assumptions and the project approach
• Review structural design criteria and analysis/design methodology
• Review available geotechnical and site seismicity reports
• Review all available relevant documents as the design progresses, including drawings, and specifications
• Review of analysis results. This may require implementation of one or more parallel verification models for comparison purposes
• Technical review of the design and details of the proposed structural system
• Preparation of peer review report and comment list
• Meeting(s) with the design team to review and reconcile the peer review comments