Peer Review: Effective, Efficient, and Educational

3 2 n d RC I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h ow • Ma rc h 1 6 – 2 1 , 2 0 1 7 B a ir d e t a l . • 4 1
Peer Review:
Effective, Efficient, and Educational
Andrea L. Baird, NCARB, PE, CCCA, BECxP,
CxA+BE, LEED AP BD+C;
Robert J. Kudder, PhD, SE, FASTM;
and
Carole M. Ceja, RRC, NCARB
Raths, Raths & Johnson, Inc.
33 N. Dearborn St., Ste. 1110, Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 630-325-6160 • E-mail: albaird@rrj.com, rjkudder@rrj.com, and cmceja@rrj.com
Abstract
The authors of this paper will discuss the three “Es” of peer review and provide tips for
the professional consultant for performing effective, efficient peer reviews, and useful tools in
the education of both the designer and expert alike. Drawing from their combined 45 years
of peer review experience, as well as from direct interviews with leading architectural designers,
they will explore peer review contracting, the exchange of complex yet minute ideas and
concepts, the pace of modern design, deliverables, and final construction phase follow-up.
Speaker
Andrea L. Baird, NCARB, PE, CCCA, BECxP, CxA+BE, LEED AP BD+C – Raths, Raths & Johnson, Inc.,
Chicago, IL
Andrea Baird has over ten years of architectural and engineering experience. She
specializes in the evaluation and repair of building enclosure components and systems, field
testing of air/water infiltration, and architectural and structural design for new and existing
buildings. Her building enclosure expertise includes architectural peer review, remedial
design, performance testing, and construction quality assurance programs. Baird has extensive
knowledge in THERM, WUFI, and other types of computer simulations to perform the
analysis of building enclosure performance.She has provided litigation support services in
the areas of investigation, depositions, and document review on related failures.
Nonpresenting Coauthors
Robert Kudder, PhD, SE, FASTM – Raths, Raths & Johnson, Inc., Chicago, IL
Dr. Robert Kudder is a principal with his firm. During his 43-year forensic engineering
career, he has specialized in structural forensics and investigation, testing, and repair
design of building wall systems and enclosures. Kudder is a nationally recognized expert
on exterior wall leakage and condensation performance problems. He was chairman of the
ASTM E06.55.15 task group that developed the E2128 standard for evaluation of building
wall leakage, and chaired ASTM international symposia on building wall performance issues.
Carole Ceja, RRC, NCARB – Raths, Raths & Johnson, Inc., Chicago, IL
Carole Ceja has been investigating and repairing building enclosures for more than
ten years. She works closely with owners, design architects, and contractors to provide optimal
designs with real-world value. Her understanding of construction documents, and more
importantly, how construction documents are interpreted in the field, shapes her practice
and influences others through peer design work.
4 2 • B a ir d e t a l . 3 2 n d RC I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h ow • Ma rc h 1 6 – 2 1 , 2 0 1 7
WHAT PEER REVIEW IS AND IS NOT
The peer review process discussed in
this paper is separate and distinct from
the consulting, review, checking, internal
audit, and approval inherent in normal
design procedures that are integral to services
of the designer-of-record (DOR). The
“peer” implied in a peer review is a person
with status, experience, and ability comparable
to the original designer. That person
provides a “review” ancillary to normal
design processes, which means performing
a formal assessment of something with the
possibility or intention of instituting change
if necessary.1
Preferably, the person or team performing
the peer review (Reviewer) was not a
part of the original design team and is often
not even employed by the same firm as the
DOR. This distance from original design
is purposeful to gain fresh perspective
and to overcome the concept of “inattentional
blindness,” which will be described
in greater detail later. Intention of change
is an important point to consider, as well. A
peer review is intended to change the design
for the better by identifying inconsistencies,
missing or conflicting information, unclear
direction, and conceptual errors. An example
of a description of a peer review from a
federal manual of public works provides a
clear idea of what the concept of peer review
is intended to be:
A peer review is a technical quality
assurance/quality control process
performed by a professional who is
independent of the work performed.
It emphasizes a review of the basis of
the technical approach, procedures
used, and the validity and suitability
of the design. The peer review does
not normally include a check of calculations,
tests, and methods, but it
does verify that review and checking
have been completed by others and
are adequately documented. The
peer reviewer must possess technical
qualifications, practical experience,
and professional judgment to
properly conduct a peer review and
must be an experienced practitioner
in the relevant discipline with recognized
and verifiable credentials.2
A thoughtful discussion of conducting
a peer review specifically tailored to
engineering projects has been published
by Professional Engineers Ontario3 and contains
discussion on several key exchanges,
such as tone of comments, communication
between parties, and detailed limitations
of review.
There are situations in which internal
senior staff or independent third parties
under the direction of the DOR are engaged
to generate, review, and comment on design
documents that are part of basic design
services and not a peer review. Supervisory
or management reviews occur when senior
staff oversees the work of less experienced
staff as part of a formal mentoring or internal
managerial or quality assurance protocol.
These types of reviews are excellent
to help teach young designers and propel
them on the path to career success, as well
as serving as appropriate in-house quality
assurance measures, but they are not peer
reviews.
Peer review is also not a substitute for
expert review or consulting on specific components
or aspects of a design. For example,
if a designer intends to use a complex and
sophisticated curtainwall system or a structural
system that is technically beyond his
or her in-house design capabilities and
expertise, it is prudent to engage an expert
to consult on the design and integration
with other building components. In this
situation, the level of expertise of the DOR
and the consultant are disproportionate,
and, as it concerns a specific component or
aspect of a design, they are not true peers.
The success of the project relies on collaboration
and exchange between the DOR and
consultant throughout the design rather
than review and comment at static points
during design.
Peer reviews, by definition, involve one
professional evaluating and reporting on the
work of another professional. In some cases,
the Reviewer might be directly engaged by
the owner or the contractor rather than
by the DOR. In the interest of objectivity
and independence, it may be considered
desirable not to have the Reviewer engaged
by and under contract to the DOR. A peer
review has the potential for conflict and
resentment between parties unless handled
in an ethical and professional manner.
For peer reviews to be of benefit to a project
and worth the effort and cost, they
must be conducted by the Reviewer with
absolute integrity and without prejudice,
self-promotion, the imposition of personal
preferences, or attempts at pirating of client
or staff. The results must be received by the
DOR without defensiveness, resentment, or
denial. The code of ethics of most professional
societies, such as those published by
the American Institute of Architects (AIA)4
and the National Society of Professional
Engineers,5 contain clauses prescribing
how one professional should evaluate and
report on the work of another professional,
and compliance with ethical constraints
and guidelines is essential for an effective
peer review.
Any discussion of peer review should
include a response to this question: Why
peer review at all? How can an outside
party be of service to the project when they
are not privy to all the day-to-day details,
decisions, and coordination by the DOR?
Besides the generally accepted fact that no
individual designer is perfect and no design
is flawless, there are very practical reasons
to pursue peer review.
To really answer why peer reviews
are helpful, one must think beyond the
construction industry and learn from the
world of behavioral psychology. Christopher
Chabris and Daniel Simons published The
Invisible Gorilla,6 in which they explore the
illusory nature of human attention. Their
research demonstrated that humans can
do a very good job of watching for one set of
circumstances and completely miss another
set of circumstances extremely out of place
and unexpected but immediately adjacent to
and concurrent with the first set. The classic
experiment involves watching a movie
where teams of players pass each other bas-
Peer Review:
Effective, Efficient, and Educational
3 2 n d RC I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h ow • Ma rc h 1 6 – 2 1 , 2 0 1 7 B a ir d e t a l . • 4 3
ketballs. If an observer focuses intently to
count the number of passes made by each
team, the observer is likely to entirely miss
the fact that a man dressed in a gorilla suit
enters the frame, waves to the audience,
and walks off. Inattentional blindness is the
technical term for this phenomenon, where
focus on one aspect of a task blinds you to
the items outside of that narrow task.
Perhaps a more relatable example may
be the feeling one gets when, safely in the
driveway after just ending a (albeit handsfree)
cell phone call or listening to a favorite
piece of music, one cannot recall the details
of the drive home. It is not clear if a yellow
Camaro sped by or if children were selling
lemonade in the front yard six blocks away.
Attention to the phone call or music rendered
the attention to the other conditions
as suboptimal.
Peer reviews are an excellent tool to
counteract inattentional blindness. While
the DOR is concentrating on the complicated
geometry, LEED points, and award-winning
aesthetics, some fundamental design considerations
such as continuity of the air barrier,
proper termination of flashing, or the correct
location of the vapor retarder may succumb
to inattentional blindness. In the authors’
experience, errors such as these and other
unintended omissions or missed design concepts
are the result of inattentional blindness
and not the result of a lack of knowledge
or skill. Far from the stereotypical egocentric
designer, these catches are often met
with gratitude by the DOR when presented
in a professional manner. Being aware of
the kinds of missed information that occur
due to inattentional blindness can aid the
Reviewer the next time they are the DOR
producing a set of documents.
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Systems for quality control continue
to be critical to the design process. In the
context of building design and construction,
the objective of a peer review is to avoid
unintended problems or catastrophes, as
well as contribute to an optimal construction
process and outcome.
Peer reviews can be initiated by and
contracted through a variety of interested
parties. The DOR can engage a Reviewer to
supplement an internal audit and quality
assurance program. The owner can mandate
a peer review to crosscheck and validate
the work of the DOR. Municipalities,
governmental owners, and other regulatory
bodies can have the legal right and may
even have a mandatory requirement to
initiate peer reviews, which are often seen
as part of their fiduciary duty in the expenditure
of public money. Contractors can
engage peer review services to evaluate construction
documents as they prepare bids
or while they are actively constructing a
building. For the purpose of this paper, the
term “Initiator” will be used to represent the
party whom the Reviewer will contract with
and report to, which may be different from
the party that mandated the peer review.
Regardless of who initiates the review,
it is generally accepted that early participation
in the design process yields the best
results for the project as a whole. Having a
peer review team in place—even as early as
schematic design—can identify easily corrected
issues and areas that require more
thought and development before problems
are compounded with the detail clutter of
the complete design. AIA recommends at
least three phases to a peer review program,
including review at the end of schematic
design, the end of design development, and
at 75% or 90% construction documents.7
The American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) also promotes peer reviews to provide
additional evaluation of design concepts
early in the design process.8 As a
peer review is intended to reveal items
that require change, an initial review at
the completion of construction documents
may necessitate change orders, construction
directives, or addenda to act on the
comments of the Reviewer.
Once a peer review has been initiated
by a member of a project team, potential
Reviewers are located and vetted. The credibility
of the peer review depends directly
on the credibility and integrity of the peer
reviewer and the acceptance and recognition
of the reviewer by all of the project parties.
The peer review process can be fraught
with challenges when the scope is not clear
or deliverable requirements are ambiguous
or are not produced in a timely way. Several
items should be clearly defined in the peer
review contract and spelled out in the scope
of work:
1. The entity that will directly receive
the peer review deliverables must be
identified. Generally this will be the
Initiator, who may, in turn, distribute
it to other parties. This may be
different than the party who will be
responsible for paying the Reviewer’s
fees, which also must be identified.
2. The frequency of review rounds,
such as the three suggested by AIA,
as well as a general schedule when
these reviews should be established
(especially if the progress of the project
is contingent on the results of
the peer review by legal regulation)
must be established.
3. The specific deliverables and time
allowances for deliverables at each
step in design should be clearly
described.
4. Any face-to-face or remote meetings
that will be required between the
Reviewer and the DOR should be
quantified and roughly scheduled, if
possible. A note of caution should be
raised if there are to be mandatory
face-to-face meetings between the
DOR and Reviewer. Even the most
professional members of the team
can respond defensively to direct,
in-person criticism. However, the
benefits of quickly resolving misunderstandings
or clarifying details
can outweigh the challenges in the
right situation.
5. Peer review comments can reduce
errors and the impact of revisions
if received by the DOR in a timely
manner. However, the time and fees
required by the DOR to address
peer review comments should be
addressed up front. The cost and time
expended by the DOR in response to
peer review comments should be
comparable to, and no more onerous
than, responding to comments from
their own in-house quality assurance
reviews. The only difference is the
source of the comments.
6. Assumptions by the Reviewer or
additional information that must be
provided by the DOR as it becomes
available during the course of the
project should be enumerated.
7. Finally, and most importantly, a
statement on the limitation of design
responsibility for the Reviewer must
be included. It is essential that all
parties recognize that the Reviewer
does not have design responsibility
and that the DOR has final
authority and responsibility on the
action or inaction in response to
any comment or observation of the
Reviewer. Specific language to this
4 4 • B a ir d e t a l . 3 2 n d RC I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h ow • Ma rc h 1 6 – 2 1 , 2 0 1 7
point could look like, “The services
offered by Reviewer as outlined here
should not be construed as replacing
or otherwise altering the contractual
responsibilities of the design and construction
team members. As such,
the DOR shall remain solely responsible
for final review, approval, and
coordination of all the Reviewer’s
recommendations accepted by the
Owner for incorporation into the
contract documents for this project.”
Documenting these relationships and
responsibilities up front will help to avoid
future confusion, misunderstandings,
resentments, and will hopefully limit disputes.
Reviewers’ design review comments
should be considered advisory only. All
final design decisions should always be
made by the DOR. The Reviewer should not
assume any responsibility for the design or
construction of the project through a peer
review contract or through their actions.
When it comes to the nuts and bolts
process and products of peer review, each
professional will develop personal strategies
to effectively review the documents. A good
first step is to understand what phase of
development has been completed. The principles
for reviewing schematic design will
look slightly different than those at a 90%
construction document (CD) set. At every
stage of review, there are some basic principles
that should guide the review process.
Is the information clear and complete? Is it
presented in logical progression? Are code
requirements adequately addressed? Are
the concepts presented technically accurate?
These are all questions that should
steer a review, regardless of the phase of
design. A more specific, but not exhaustive,
list of questions to consider for different
steps along the way during review includes
the following9:
Schematic Design
1. Have the main points of the program
been incorporated?
2. Are design intentions clear?
3. Will the project include special regulatory
or aspirational considerations,
such as LEED? Have coordination
efforts begun to meet these requirements?
4. Are the materials and assemblies
selected appropriate for the climate
of the site and each other?
Design Development
1. Is there sufficient information provided
on adjacent sites, structures,
and utilities to connect to the new
facility, or does the design exist as if
on an island?
2. Where are the challenging interfaces
between materials?
3. Are adjacent materials chemically
compatible?
4. Have all appropriate specification
sections been identified?
5. Is there sufficient language within
the specification to ensure desired
warranties, testing, and quality control
procedures?
6. Are there unique structural loading
conditions to consider due to use,
geometry, or location?
7. Are predictable volume changes
and movements due to thermal or
material properties addressed and
accommodated?
a. Are moisture, vapor, and air
infiltration and migration paths
addressed? Is condensation
potential a design consideration,
and has it been addressed?
b. Have energy performance criteria
been addressed in a rational and
achievable manner?
Construction Documents
1. Do the plan, section, and detail
views of components relate to each
other in a logical sequence? Are
drawing callouts present and accurate?
Do detail references point to
missing work?
2. Are there enough details of sufficient
scale to capture the work at challenging
interfaces, especially those
involving more than one construction
trade?
3. Are the components reasonably constructible?
Construction means and
methods as well as sequence will be
the responsibility of the contractor,
but consideration should be given
to generally understood sequence
of installations. Critical substrates
should be identified as such for
coordination by the DOR.
4. Is the mundane still clear? A simple
brick building wall should still
have expansion joints shown and tie
backs to structure defined.
5. Do the consultant drawings integrate
with the set as a whole? Are the
structural and architectural drawings
consistent? Does grade match
between the landscape plans and the
architectural wall sections? If a note
includes “see structural,” can you find
additional information on the structural
drawings and vice versa?
6. Do materials identified on the drawings
match the specifications?
7. Do materials not specifically identified
on the drawings have a relevant
specification section provided with
sufficient written description provided?
8. Is there sufficient information provided
so that contractors and suppliers
can understand and respond to the
requirements of the project?
9. Are quality assurance testing and
inspections adequately integrated
into the project?
The job of the Reviewer is to look
with a critical eye to see what was otherwise
missed by the design team. The peer
reviewer must always keep in mind that just
because they would do something differently
does not necessarily mean that the DOR
way is wrong. A Reviewer is analyzing the
design of the DOR, not issuing a redesign.
When omissions or errors are located, they
can be called out as such, but recommended
deviations from original design based on
the experience of the Reviewer are opinions
for the consideration of the DOR and should
be presented as such if mentioned at all
(Figure 1). As all codes of ethics mandate,
peer reviewer comments on another professional’s
work must be offered in an objective
and constructive manner without personal
disparagement or ignominy.
Also, when pointing out an error or
something that will not function properly,
it can be helpful to suggest a concept for a
solution rather than simply identifying the
problem, while at the same time being careful
not to assume design responsibility.
TOOLS
While the effectiveness of a red felt-tip
pen against real paper printouts should
not be underestimated, recent advances in
digital technology have created new tools
that are ideally suited for peer reviews.
Commercially available software suites
have rendered construction documents digitized
and searchable in many useful ways.
3 2 n d RC I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h ow • Ma rc h 1 6 – 2 1 , 2 0 1 7 B a ir d e t a l . • 4 5
This capability is a powerful asset for evaluating a large volume of
information, for tracking information through a set of documents,
for managing comments and recommendations, and for presenting
findings.
When drawings were created by hand, there was no need to
consider the pros and cons of vector- or raster-based processes, editable
and secure file formats, or cloud-based file sharing. There were
also delays as one party waited for physical copies to be made and
distributed. It also took more time for the DOR to process the review
comments and incorporate changes as necessary. Today, the DOR
and Reviewer must navigate a continuously evolving network of digital
tools. The tools may be frustrating and aggravating until they are
understood and mastered, but they are so effective and useful that
even steep learning curves are worth the effort. A short list of digital
terms that are helpful to understand when attempting to benefit from
a digital approach to peer review work can be found in Figure 2.
Examples of how some of these terms can be put to use in an
expanded digital review tool box are ever growing. Optical character
recognition (OCR) within some portable document format (PDF) programs,
such as Bluebeam® Revu, can be utilized to “read” a set of
drawings for callouts and page titles, and further internal software
code can take those newly identified pieces of text and hyperlink
between pages. This creates a new document where the Reviewer
need only click on a callout bubble and be instantly taken to the corresponding
page in the set. No more flipping through full-size sets,
endless scrolling, or recalling digital page numbers. If the Reviewer
has concerns over a particular product selection for example, OCR
can also be used to search for the product name and jump to its
reference(s) within a large specification (Figure 3), rather than moving
page by page or section by section. Cloud collaboration in platforms,
such as OneDrive, can allow for real-time edits by multiple
parties on a single document. A single spreadsheet can have six
authors and editors all working simultaneously (Figure 4). “Track
Changes” as implemented within the Microsoft Office suite can be
an effective means of adding comments directly to a digital document,
such as a specification, but it is limited to word processor files
(Figure 5) and is not very secure because the base file can be easily
altered without an obvious fingerprint. If a vector file format—rather
than a raster file—is provided to the Reviewer, certain programs can
perform additional calculations based on area take-offs or digital
measurements that may assist the Reviewer in a complete analysis
of the design. The tools selected should match the abilities and comfort
levels of the Initiator and Reviewer alike. They should also be
selected with the final deliverable in mind.
DELIVERABLES
The type and format of the peer review deliverable should be
clearly described in the engagement letter. Examples include letters
with written descriptive lists of review items, hand or digital
mark-ups of design documents, or spreadsheets of review items. The
resulting peer review, its creation, and distribution must be trackable
and identified by date on the continuum of documents created
and modified for a project. During the course of a project, the type of
peer review deliverable may change, or a combination of deliverables
may be needed.
While often better suited for the earliest stages of design, a summary
letter can be a clear method of transmitting the findings of a
peer review. Descriptive language can address inconsistencies in the
Figure 1 – Example of peer review mark-ups differentiating
between missing fastener information required for design
clarity and an item for the consideration of the DOR to
increase durability and watertightness.
Figure 2 – Definitions for digital tools.
4 6 • B a ir d e t a l . 3 2 n d RC I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h ow • Ma rc h 1 6 – 2 1 , 2 0 1 7
basic concepts shown to date—even when
there may not be actual graphics associated
with these ideas yet. It is difficult to
comment on missing information in any
way other than prose. This method also
may be more suitable when the Initiator is a
building owner who does not deal daily with
construction details and specifications. For
this audience, additional graphics may only
lead to additional confusion.
Flattened, PDF type, annotated, digital
documents are an excellent way to transfer
the results of a peer review. A page-by-page
analysis is easily understood and has the
advantage of closely linking the actual
product reviewed to the comments of the
Reviewer.
A spreadsheet approach to peer review
deliverables provides flexibility to document
action on the comments provided in the
peer review. Spreadsheets of peer review
results can become living documents shared
and edited by multiple parties. Columns
dedicated to the DOR’s response to Reviewer
comments can be added to provide pointby-
point responses. Meta data or tags can
be built into the spreadsheet entries so the
Initiator or DOR can sort and distribute the
comments as needed to the design team or
assign relative values of importance (Figure
6). Certain software tools, such as Bluebeam®
mentioned earlier, include subroutines that
generate these spreadsheets simultaneously
as the reviewer’s comments are made on the
digital drawing files. A sophisticated owner’s
representative may have peer review spreadsheet
formats developed and contractually
bind the DOR to at least provide a response,
if not a definite action to, each point from the
peer review process within given time frames.
There should be a formal process wherein
review comments are accepted, rebutted, or
withdrawn and confirmation that action has
been completed on those comments that are
accepted. As these documents can evolve
over time, the Reviewer must take care to
preserve key snapshots to document their
work product at certain stages in the review
process for their internal files, as well as the
project record.
CASE STUDIES
What begins as a peer review can grow
into something else entirely. While it is
important to understand the differences
between peer review and expert consulting
described earlier, one can lead to the
other. During the peer review process for a
new hospital research facility in Maywood,
Illinois, the Reviewer noted inconsistencies
between owner expectations for belowgrade
waterproofing warranties and the language
provided in the specification. As the
peer review commenced during schematic
design, there was an open exchange of ideas
and comments between the DOR and the
Figure 3 – Example of OCR software in use to locate all instances of the word “comparable” within a specification section.
Individual instances can be quickly navigated to and highlighted on the screen.
Figure 4 – Example of cloud-based sharing and comments to a spreadsheet by
multiple users.
3 2 n d RC I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h ow • Ma rc h 1 6 – 2 1 , 2 0 1 7 B a ir d e t a l . • 4 7
Reviewer in large meetings with several
branches of the design team present early
in the process. This inconsistency was highlighted
while there was ample time to receive
more clear direction from the owner and
adjust the construction documents to match.
However, this was not the end of the process
for the Reviewer. The Reviewer was further
engaged with an additional scope of services
under a new contract to act as an expert
consultant to the DOR. Coordination with
manufacturers and additional presence onsite
during the construction phase became
new responsibilities for the Reviewer-turnedconsultant.
The results were a project that
met the ultimate expectations of the DOR.
The DOR was able to accept the criticism of
his initial design and act on the comments
and, ultimately, benefit from the expertise
of the Reviewer prior to bidding so that no
change orders were needed and the owner’s
needs were met.
Unfortunately, peer review does not
always result in such positive outcomes for
a project, as was the case for a low-rise office
building in North Dakota. In this instance,
the Initiator was the owner’s representative,
and the peer review was solicited after
documents were out for bid. Due to access
on the cloud-based project file sharing system,
the Reviewer was able to determine
that shop drawings for several components
of the exterior envelope had been generated
and approved by the architect before peer
review comments were even returned to the
Initiator. This conflict between the timing
of the peer review and the construction
schedule left little to no room for action by
the DOR to improve the design. The peer
review in this case was not initiated in a
timely manner and the potential benefits
were never realized by the project.
In another example, a modern hospital
was designed for the harsh Minnesota
climate. The insulation and vapor controls
were adequate for the designer’s home state
in the south but could never have been executed
to perform properly in the north. The
contractor initiated a peer review specifically
to address thermal and condensation
issues. Information provided in the peer
review process, together with case studies
and references to published building
science technical literature, lead to appropriate
reconsideration of the design concept
of the building envelope suited to the
Minnesota climate. The originally designed
batt insulation between metal studs and a
sheet material vapor retarder fit between
and around the stud framing, braces, columns,
slab edges, and other obstructions,
could not have been executed with the
perfection needed to function properly. The
DOR changed to a continuous insulation
and vapor control concept on the exterior
of the sheathing to the great benefit of the
project’s long-term function.
PEER REVIEW IN A
FORENSIC CONTEXT
A potentially overlooked benefit of the
peer review process is in the forensic context
of dispute resolution and litigation. In
a forensic context, there are critical constraints
on the work of designers, which are
Figure 5 – Example of track changes in a wood processing document. Deletions,
additions, and comments can be added by several users to create a final
document.
Figure 6 – Example of peer review spreadsheet style deliverable with the actual comments redacted. Important are the
included columns to link to locations in the construction documents, a system for DOR response and the status of resolution
to the comments, and a method to categorize items as critical to design or simply best practices.
4 8 • B a ir d e t a l . 3 2 n d RC I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h ow • Ma rc h 1 6 – 2 1 , 2 0 1 7
distinct from a new construction context.
Most importantly, there must be no real or
perceived conflict of interest, only objective
findings; no confusion or mixing of preferences
with principles; and no recommendations
that are enhancements or are extraneous
to correcting the deficiencies at issue. If
any of these constraints are breached, it will
be immediately identified and challenged by
other parties during dispute resolution or
litigation, and the credibility and legitimacy
of an engineer’s or architect’s work is, rightly
or wrongly, attacked.
The real problem, of course, is to objectively
establish the necessity and reasonableness
of a repair. Litigation or dispute
resolution puts a spotlight on the repair
process. Attorneys may attempt to impeach
a repair approach, including unfairly
asserting a conflict of interest by essentially
accusing the design professional of
designing unnecessary repairs for financial
benefit. There is a school of thought10 that
suggests that one forensic entity should
investigate a problem and recommend a
repair approach and that another entity
should then design the repairs. This necessarily
creates a kind of peer review process
because both professional entities must
agree on the core elements of all significant
findings. The concern is that if the investigation
and the repair design are undertaken
by the same professional, there can
be an accusation of a conflict of interest
that could result in more extensive repairs
than necessary in order to benefit the repair
designer and inflate the cost of resolution.
I n t he w riters’ e xperience, t his p otential
conflict is rare and has never gone
unnoticed or unchallenged. In a forensic
context, repair designs are under constant
and intense scrutiny. For competent and
responsible professionals with integrity, the
incentives to be objective far outweigh the
incentives to be excessive. Repair designs
proposed by a plaintiff’s consultant are
usually rebutted by the defendant’s consultants.
A rebuttal review is not the same
as a peer review because the objectives are
not necessarily the same, and therefore, the
criteria used are not necessarily the same.
One way to objectively establish the necessity
and reasonableness of a repair design,
as well as eliminate the appearance of a
conflict of interest, and ensure concordance
between the repair and rebuttal designs, is
to undertake an independent third-party
peer review of the proposed repair.
All of the standards and tools for a
peer review discussed earlier in this paper
apply. However, there are two features of a
peer review in a forensic context that can
differ from the new design/construction
context. First, the peer review can be beneficially
applied to the conceptual design
phase rather than delayed until the actual
schematic or design development phase of a
project. The architectural program is by definition
a repair to correct a problem for the
resolution of a dispute, with the additional
goal of returning the building to its original
intended appearance and functionality.
Anything beyond this program is remodeling,
and anything less is not a repair. If the
concept for a repair is peer reviewed and
established as necessary and reasonable,
then detailed design can be transparent
and easily evaluated against the repair concept.
Second, the criteria applied in the peer
review are governed by the dispute resolution
and not by the owner’s or the repair
designer’s predilections. The peer reviewer
must not only understand the building but
also the necessary and reasonable scope of
the dispute resolution. Constraints on the
execution of the repair established by the
owner, such as access, working hours, use
of site, occupancy and occupant protection,
staging, noise, security, etc., are also part of
the repair design and the peer review.
CONCLUSIONS
The peer review process has proven to
be an effective and efficient quality assurance
measure for construction projects.
Avoiding a design problem and benefitting
from the independent knowledge and
experience of others is always preferable
to repairing a problem or designing in an
intellectual bubble. The peer review process
supplements but does not substitute
for normal in-house quality assurance and
auditing measures. It provides an opportunity
to learn, refine, optimize, and verify
design decisions and avoid the pitfalls of
“inattentional blindness.” The tools utilized
are adaptations of commonly available
design software and procedures. The success
of the process depends on the professionalism
and integrity of the reviewer and
the commitment of all parties of a project to
a quality outcome.
References
1. “Peer” and “review.” Oxford University
Press, 29 Sept. 2016.
<http://www.oxforddictionaries.
com/definition/english/definition>.
2. An example of peer review requirements
for publicly financed construction
is contained in Article
6.G.2.e.i of the Federal Bureau of
Reclamation, Reclamation Manual
FAC 03-03. Federal Bureau of
Reclamation, Web. <www.usbr.gov/
recman/fac/fac03-03.pdf>.
3. Bernard Ennis, PEng. “Guideline:
Professional Engineers Conducting
Peer or Technical Reviews.” Professional
Engineers Ontario (2009
Draft).
4. 2012 Codes of Ethics. American
Institute of Architects.
5. “Code of Ethics.” National Society
of Professional Engineers. National
Society of Professional Engineers,
July 2007. Web. <http://www.nspe.
org/resources/ethics/code-ethics>.
6. Christopher F. Chabis and Daniel
J. Simons. The Invisible Gorilla.
Crown Publishers, 2010. Web.
h t t p s : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m /
watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY
7. Michale J. Lough, AIA. “A Program:
Document Audits/Peer Reviews.”
AIA Best Practices (BP 12.01.04)
8. Quality in the Constructed Project:
A Guide for Owners, Designers, and
Constructors. 3rd ed., Chapter 22.
American Society of Civil Engineers
/ ASCE, 2012.
9. Loosely adapted from Albert R.
Russell. “Technical Peer Review.”
Albert R Russell Architect. Web. 18
July 2016. <http://www.alrussellarchitect.
com/peer-review>.
10. Jeffrey S. Youngerman. (April 14,
2013). “Building Leakage from
the Owner’s Perspective.” Tutorial
at Symposium. Building Walls
Subjected to Water Intrusion and
Accumulation: Lessons from the Past
and Recommendations for the Future.
J.L. Erdly and P.G. Johnson, ed.
American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, presented April 14,
2013, Indianapolis, Indiana.
3 2 n d RC I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h ow • Ma rc h 1 6 – 2 1 , 2 0 1 7 B a ir d e t a l . • 4 9