webinar yesterday

[ClemsonEngr]

Some interesting information came out of the webinar yesterday.

They gave how many problems per subject, and they also gave a long list of stuff that would be considered acceptable experience.... Here are some of the items:

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Design of Equipment Fleet Operations and Productivity[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Design of temporary support systems[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Design of formwork systems[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Design and optimization of project schedule[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Economic analysis of construction equipment replacement and maintenance alternatives[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Quality Control[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Materials testing and review of test results[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Review of Shop Drawings[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Design and inspection of safety systems[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Establishing and implementing horizontal and vertical control for location[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Design, control, and safety of blasting operations[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Design of tunneling systems[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Design of safe demolition systems for constructed facilities[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Estimating and budgeting construction costs[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Review and processing change orders[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Constructability reviews[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Specification review and interpretation[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Value engineering analyses[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Modeling installation procedures[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Analysis of construction failures[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Coordination among professional disciplines[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Feasibility analysis[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Inspection of construction[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Review and evaluation of vendor submissions[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Design and control of construction operations for environmental hazards[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Review of operations for conformance with specifications[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Design of Rigging and conveying systems[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Feasibility studies for engineered projects[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Design-Build coordination[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Design and inspection of site drainage and sedimentation control[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Design of storage and lay-down facilities[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Haul road design[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Contract Review[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]·[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Progress reports and project Communications[/SIZE]

 

[ClemsonEngr]

They are going to post the webinar on NSPE's website. I will put up a link as soon as it comes available for anyone interested.

 

[ClemsonEngr]

Here is the subject area break-down, since they are going to post the webinar on NSPE's website, I think it is ok to share:

Earthwork and Contruction layout 4 problems

Estimating Quantities and Costs 7 problems

Construction operation and methods 6 problems

scheduling 7 problems

material quality control 4 problems

temporary structures 5 problems

OSHA 3 problems

Other topics 4 problems.

There is also a good pamphlet that you can get mailed to you from the guy that put on the webinar. To get it, send an email to Mr. David Johnston:

johnston(*no spam*)@eos.ncsu.edu

delete the (*no spam*)

put in subject line: construction PE Guide

Then, in the body of the email put (LEFT JUSTIFIED!!!!!!!):

Name

Address

Address (2)

city, state, zip

 

[ClemsonEngr]

one more thing.....

"the other board" will be updating CERM to include the new construction questions starting AFTER the April exam. Damn, I feel sorry for the April folks.

 

[Mike in Gastonia]

Here is the subject area break-down, since they are going to post the webinar on NSPE's website, I think it is ok to share:
Earthwork and Contruction layout 4 problems

Estimating Quantities and Costs 7 problems

Construction operation and methods 6 problems

scheduling 7 problems

material quality control 4 problems

temporary structures 5 problems

OSHA 3 problems

Other topics 4 problems.

That information is already on NCEES' website. It's in % though instead of # of problems.

 

[IlPadrino]

Some interesting information came out of the webinar yesterday.
They gave how many problems per subject, and they also gave a long list of stuff that would be considered acceptable experience.... Here are some of the items:

Let's remember that acceptable experience is a STATE BOARD determination... not NCEES or others. Granted, the model rules are pretty friendly, but the States don't have to follow them.

I'm curious how easy it will be for pure Construction Engineers (I still rather just lump them in with the rest of the Civils!) to get qualifying experience. There aren't a lot of PEs walking around a construction site! And I'd think most of the office work is already being done by the run-of-the-mill Civils.

 

[IlPadrino]

I was surprised to learn that originally they wanted Construction Engineering to be it's own discipline. They claim NCEES explained it was too hard to support. I think this speaks volumes about the mindset of the developers! I just don't see how someone could think Construction Engineering isn't a subset of Civil Engineering.

 

[ClemsonEngr]

^^^^ That is very true. However.Remember all the state boards are members of NCEES..... And at the very least, you will have a pretty good ground for appeals.

 

[chaosiscash]

There aren't a lot of PEs walking around a construction site!

Easy now. There are more than you think. In fact, we've got at least a dozen here. Of course, its a destruction site, and none of us ever actually stamp anything, but qualified none the less.

 

[ClemsonEngr]

Mike,

Your right. I didn't notice....

 

[IlPadrino]

Easy now. There are more than you think. In fact, we've got at least a dozen here. Of course, its a destruction site, and none of us ever actually stamp anything, but qualified none the less.

OK... but I don't think that's the norm. Still, my experiences are limited to DOD construction sites so maybe that explains it.

Anyone else have any observations?

 

[bigray76]

Let's remember that acceptable experience is a STATE BOARD determination... not NCEES or others. Granted, the model rules are pretty friendly, but the States don't have to follow them.
I'm curious how easy it will be for pure Construction Engineers (I still rather just lump them in with the rest of the Civils!) to get qualifying experience. There aren't a lot of PEs walking around a construction site! And I'd think most of the office work is already being done by the run-of-the-mill Civils.

I took a look at my company's staffing after thinking about this... we are a GC/CM. In our preconstruction group (estimating, purchasing) we have two estimators and two purchasers in our department who are PE's (total department less secretaries is 14 strong). Our Management Services group is one out of three; our field staffing (project engineers, supers, PM's, and project executives) is a much smaller grouping... maybe a total of about 5 out of the 100 field staff are PE's. We do have a few registered architects in the company as well.

My last thought on the webinar - they didn't tell us anything we didn't already know from the NCEES site and the sheets they emailed us (available on the NCEES site)... only benefit would be if you need PDH's, those 1.5 units were free!

-Ray

 

[ClemsonEngr]

My last thought on the webinar - they didn't tell us anything we didn't already know from the NCEES site and the sheets they emailed us (available on the NCEES site)... only benefit would be if you need PDH's, those 1.5 units were free!
-Ray

I have 2 constructive critisisms of NCEES:

1. They should have offered an entire PM sample examination to help show the scope of this new area

2. They should have made the module outline available earlier. My state had already closed the start of exam registration by the time the module outline was posted.

Although this is not NCEES's fault, it is a big shame that CERM will not be ready for this exam.

 

[bigray76]

I have to believe the the NCEES and "the other board" had talked prior to this release in regards to content, standards, etc. and that some sort of updated CERM or Appendix to the CERM should have been ready at the time of the module change. Just another way that "the other board" will end up f'ing us in the end.

-Ray

 

[IlPadrino]

1. They should have offered an entire PM sample examination to help show the scope of this new area

I thought they just updated the regular sample examination by adding four more ConE morning problems and 20 ConE afternoon problems - just like any other depth.