Practice Note 2:

Peer Review

July 2017 – Draft

Contents

1. About this Practice Note 1

1.1 Purpose 1

1.2 Development 1

2. Peer review 3

2.1 The value of peer review 3

2.2 Reviews considered to be peer reviews 3

2.3 Who can undertake a peer review? 4

3. Guidance for peer reviewers 5

3.1 Establishing the scope and objectives 5

3.2 Liability and insurance for peer reviewers 5

3.3 Ethical obligations of peer reviewers 5

3.4 Peer review and confidentiality 6

3.5 Informing the design engineer their work is being reviewed 6

3.6 Engineering judgement 6

4. Types of Peer Review 7

4.1 Concept or Strategic Peer Review 7

4.2 Regulatory Peer Review 7

4.3 Specific Peer Reviews 8

4.4 Forensic Peer Review 8

5. Conducting a Peer Review 9

6. References 11

7. Legal information 11

26 July 2017 Version 2 Draft 1

1. About this Practice Note

1.1 Purpose

A peer review is an independent assessment of an engineered asset or an engineer’s design, design process, materials

choice or assessment against set criteria. Whether as the design or assessing engineer or the peer reviewer, engineers

in any field may find themselves being part of a peer review.

Peer review plays an increasingly important role in the engineering design process, as a means of managing risk,

maintaining design quality and ensuring compliance. Peer reviews may also be requested on assessments made on

existing structures or engineered assets. Some fields of engineering, such as those involved with construction, have

well developed peer review requirements and processes. Other fields of engineering use peer reviews to a lesser

extent.

This Practice Note provides guidance to engineers, clients and other interested parties on what a peer review is and

how to undertake one. Differentiating a peer review from other types of review is important, as is differentiating

between types of peer review. The Practice Note sets out the various kinds of peer review used in New Zealand with

the aim of creating common understanding of the terms used. This guidance is generally applicable to all fields of

engineering where peer reviews are undertaken, but it does not attempt to reflect details in every circumstance.

This Practice Note differentiates between the following types of peer reviews:

Concept (or strategic) Peer Review – a preliminary stage review, which takes place before detailed design or

engineering work begins

Regulatory Peer Review –to confirm compliance of a complex or unique aspect of a design with a statutory code or

standard

Specific Peer Review – to confirm the suitability of specific aspects of a completed or partially completed design or

to review an assessment of a specific aspect of an existing structure or asset

Forensic Peer Review – usually required as a result of a failure of a completed design.

This Practice Note does not extend to:

in-house review processes that may be part of an engineering firm’s quality assurance processes

compliance reviews that may be undertaken by staff from a Building Consent Authority (BCA) to review aspects of

a design solely for compliance with the Building Code

second opinions, where an alternative design is required without review of another engineer’s work

competence reviews, where an engineer’s competence is reviewed

expert reviews required as part of a legal or disciplinary process1.

1.2 Development

The Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) has facilitated the development of this Practice Note.

This version supersedes Practice Note 02 (ISSN 1176-0907), which was published in 2003.

1 An IPENZ Practice Note on the Role of the Expert Witness is being developed.

Jul 2017 Version 2 Draft 2

The Practice Note has been prepared in accordance with standard IPENZ Practice Note procedures, which include

reporting on progress to the Engineering Practice Advisory Committee, peer review and general membership review.

This review and reporting process ensures the delivery of a robust good practice document.

Documents referred to or drawn on during the development of this Practice Note are summarised on page 11.

Jul 2017 Version 2 Draft 3

2. Peer review

A peer review is an independent assessment of an engineered asset or an engineer’s design, design process, materials

choice or assessment against set criteria. It is carried out by another engineer competent in the subject of the review

criteria. It is a professional opinion based on sound engineering analysis and assumptions, good practice, appropriate

codes and unbiased judgement. A peer review is often desirable in the design process for complex or unique aspects

of the design or where the impact of the design will be significant. It is not intended as a process for resolving design

issues, although the output can be a key source for such resolution.

Many engineers in certain industry areas, such as construction, are finding they are increasingly engaged to carry out

peer reviews. This increasing need originates from regulators who do not have the necessary in-house technical

expertise, and from clients who seek verification of compliance and their own quality assurance procedures.

For the purposes of this Practice Note we refer to:

the person who undertook the original design or assessment as the “design or assessing engineer”

the person undertaking the peer review as the “peer reviewer”

the person or organisation commissioning the peer review as the “client”.

(In many cases the client will commission the peer review for submission to a regulator. The client will also often be

the party who commissioned the original work or design.)

2.1 The value of peer review

Peer review is a powerful tool in maintaining and enhancing design quality and is an important feature of a self-

regulating profession such as engineering. Peer review helps ensure suitable processes, assumptions, decisions and

designs have been taken or made. This helps strengthen the quality of work engineers do and gives New Zealanders

confidence in the work of engineers.

A peer review will mean an engineer’s work will be scrutinised by another. When design and assessing engineers

willingly and actively participate in the process, the quality of the profession’s overall output remains at a high

standard. Wider benefits, including reduced conflicts and quicker completion, can be achieved if the peer review is

regarded as a collaboration between designer or assessor and reviewer.

In some cases a peer review may identify situations where design decisions could have been made differently. The

design or assessing engineer, and most likely their engineering firm, has the chance to hear and understand

alternative approaches to particular design challenges, making peer review an opportunity for ongoing professional

development.

When a peer reviewer is engaged early in the design of larger and more complex projects the value of a peer review is

significantly increased. Inadequate or incorrect decisions or assumptions picked up early by the peer reviewer can

save significant re-design effort.

2.2 Reviews considered to be peer reviews

This Practice Note differentiates between the following types of peer reviews:

Concept or Strategic Peer Review

Regulatory Peer Review

Specific Peer Review

Forensic Peer Review.

Each type of review is discussed in section 4.

Jul 2017 Version 2 Draft 4

In-house review processes that may be part of an engineering firm’s quality assurance processes, second opinions and

competence reviews are not considered to be peer reviews.

2.3 Who can undertake a peer review?

Before agreeing to undertake a peer review, an engineer may need to confirm their competence to the client who

wishes to engage them. This confirmation can include a CV, references, assessments made by a professional

engineering body, or a portfolio of relevant experience.

Ideally there should be no form of dependent relationship between the peer reviewer and the design or assessing

engineer. The peer reviewer should declare they are independent of the design or assessing engineer and the design

or assessing engineer’s organisation, and have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the peer review.

In some practice fields or disciplines where there are small numbers of engineers but a significant demand for peer

reviews, independence can be difficult. Design or assessing engineers may end up being the peer reviewer for other

design or assessing engineers who, in turn, peer review their work. The same situation may occur in certain locations

where local knowledge is required, or preferred, but the pool of suitable engineers is small. In these cases, the peer

reviewer should clearly identify any potential conflicts of interest prior to being engaged and consider their ethical

obligations to maintain honesty, objectivity and integrity. In some niche areas where the necessary expertise is not

available in New Zealand the client may need to engage an overseas peer reviewer.

For regulatory peer reviews, it is important that the peer reviewer is considered acceptable by the Regulator. For

Building Consent, it is advisable that the peer reviewer is approved by the relevant Building Consent Authority before

carrying out review work.

Jul 2017 Version 2 Draft 5

3. Guidance for peer reviewers

This section sets out the matters engineers in particular should consider when they are appointed to the role of peer

reviewer. Besides technical expertise, peer review relies on parties effectively agreeing the scope and objectives of the

work, acting ethically and being aware of their liability.

3.1 Establishing the scope and objectives

Peer reviews may be limited to parts of a design or may relate to an entire design or design process. Equally, if a post-

design assessment or a review of such an assessment is to be carried out then this may be limited to certain criteria

related to the built structure or asset.

The objectives and scope of a peer review need to be clearly determined and agreed by the client and peer reviewer

before the peer reviewer begins their work. There should be a contract in place between the peer reviewer and the

client, supported by a brief setting out what is and is not to be covered in the peer review. The scope should ideally be

focused on complex and unusual aspects of the design. Keeping the scope focused on key aspects where possible is

the most effective choice, especially when demand for peer reviewers is high.

For regulatory reviews, peer reviewers should be engaged, in particular, to consider alternative solutions used to show

compliance to the Building Code.

It is at the discretion of the peer reviewer to add relevant comments over and above the brief supplied by the client.

The peer reviewer may think it appropriate to provide additional comments on both positive and negative aspects of

the design. However, it is not considered appropriate for peer reviewers to comment on personal design or material

preferences.

3.2 Liability and insurance for peer reviewers

Engineers engaged as peer reviewers should consider limiting their level of liability in contract or in tort and make this

clear in the contract with the client. It is recommended that engineers limit their liabilities in accordance with industry

guidelines and by discussing appropriate levels of liability for certain high cost projects with their insurer. Under the

Consumer Guarantees Act, engineers need to be aware that there is no limit of liability where the work relates to

personal, domestic or household use.

In the event of an upheld claim related to the design work or other aspects of the design process, the peer reviewer

will be liable for relative damages apportioned by the court.

For regulatory peer reviews carried out to verify Building Code compliance, peer reviewers will have to complete a

Producer Statement (PS2 Design Review). The IPENZ/ACENZ/NZIA PS2 form states a maximum amount of damages

payable to the BCA in relation to the work done by the peer review firm. This amount can be altered but should only

be altered for certain high cost projects.

3.3 Ethical obligations of peer reviewers

Ethical considerations can arise during peer review, particularly as the design or assessing engineer’s information is

being shared with the peer reviewer and there is the potential for differences of opinion between the design or

assessing engineer and the peer reviewer.

Every rule in the CPEng and IPENZ Codes of Ethical Conduct is relevant to all stages of peer review, including accepting

peer review work.

The IPENZ Practice Note Engineers and Ethical Obligations (2016) provides guidance to IPENZ members and Chartered

Professional engineers on how to interpret the relevant Code of Ethical Conduct.

Jul 2017 Version 2 Draft 6

Engineers concerned about their ethical obligations as the peer reviewer (including concerns about health and safety

and competence) can contact IPENZ.

3.4 Peer review and confidentiality

When reviewing another engineer’s work the peer reviewer must agree to maintain confidentiality of that design

work or any information relating to it that may be available as part of the review process. When considering disclosure

of information obtained during a peer review, peer reviewers must take account of their ethical obligations to

maintain confidentiality under the Chartered Professional Engineers’ Code of Ethical Conduct as well as any additional

clauses on confidentiality set out in the contract.

3.5 Informing the design engineer their work is being reviewed

It is no longer considered an ethical obligation under the 2016 Chartered Professional Engineers’ and IPENZ Codes of

Ethical Conduct for the peer reviewer to inform the design or assessing engineer they are reviewing their work.

However, it is strongly recommended that peer reviewers inform the design or assessing engineer they are reviewing

their work as a professional courtesy, provided that confidentiality obligations are maintained.

3.6 Engineering judgement

All engineering design and engineering assessment includes elements of engineering judgement – a unique personal

perspective on what is appropriate or acceptable derived from personal and professional experiences and skills.

Judgements will vary from engineer to engineer just as personal and professional experiences vary.

Codes and standards used for compliance purposes determine the minimum criteria a design must satisfy. In some

circumstances, for example, when showing compliance to the Building Code using an Alternative Solution, guidelines

are used as a basis for showing compliance. Similarly, engineering assessments may be based on guidelines where

standards or codes don’t exist. Minimum criteria set out in these standards or guidelines may not be sufficient to

meet the client’s broader requirements for the entire building or process as judged by design or assessing engineers

and peer reviewers.

Design or assessment engineers and peer reviewers may differ on the point at which those broader requirements are

met. A peer reviewer may feel their role is to err on the side of caution to a greater extent compared to the design or

assessment engineer. However, peer reviewers are encouraged to maintain a fair and reasonable approach when

judging the design, process or assessment choices made by the design or assessment engineer.

Jul 2017 Version 2 Draft 7

4. Types of Peer Review

The following reviews are widely recognised and understood as peer reviews within the design community. Some

reviews may be required at specific checkpoints in the design process of certain projects, while others can be called

for when needed irrespective of the stage of the project. It is important that there is a common understanding and

shared expectations between the client and the peer reviewer of the output, the process and the end use of the

review.

4.1 Concept or Strategic Peer Review

A confirmation of direction or concept peer review typically occurs relatively early in the design process. It may be

requested by the client or another engineer to confirm the proposed design or direction is appropriate. This is more

likely to be required when the design problem has complex elements. This review may be a lengthy process as there

may be significant social, cultural or environmental impacts to be analysed.

The purpose of a Concept Review is to check the overall concept is well conceived and understood. It will also provide

an opinion on design option identification and evaluation, risks and the conclusions drawn by the design engineer (or

team of design engineers). The review will include comments on the proposed design methods and how compliance

with pertinent regulations and laws and design codes will be achieved.

As a general guide, a Concept or Strategic Review could cover:

client objectives

social, cultural and environmental impacts

relevant regulatory framework and standards

design inputs and assumptions considered in concept drawings and a preliminary Design Features Report

load paths or processes

proposed analytical methods

proposed QA processes

Risk Register

health and safety considerations

aspects of the design that should be subject to further review.

4.2 Regulatory Peer Review

A Regulatory Peer Review is an opinion based on reasonable grounds on whether certain aspects of the design

submitted by the design engineer comply with the pertinent regulations, codes and standards. It is important to

differentiate between a formal Regulatory Peer Review and an in-house compliance check, undertaken by a BCA, for

example.

A Regulatory Peer Review is not intended to be, and ought not to be used as, an independent verification of the

details of every calculation. It should also not be used as a means to verify that design documents, such as Producer

Statements, satisfy contractual obligations.

Regulatory reviews may be requested or triggered by the regulator for several reasons including:

complexity, unusual form, use of new technology or material, or unusual risk of project (including compliance via

an alternative solution that is not well understood)

the design engineer not meeting the regulatory body’s required level of knowledge or skills criteria in the relevant

area of design

concerns about aspects of the design or design methodology.

Jul 2017 Version 2 Draft 8

A Regulatory Peer Review may also be requested by the client as a matter of course prior to applying for consent in a

complex or higher risk project.

For building consents, Regulatory Peer Reviews may be required for a number of Building Code clauses.

In addition to what is covered in a Concept Peer Review, a Regulatory Peer Review may cover:

load assessments

modelling assumptions

software model inputs and outputs

design of primary and selected secondary elements

drawings and specifications

performance specifications.

4.3 Specific Peer Reviews

A Specific Peer Review is a technical review that can be undertaken at any part of the design process to review the

suitability of one or more aspects of a completed or part-complete design, or a review of an assessment on an already

as-built structure or engineered asset. The criteria triggering a specific peer review can include cost effectiveness,

‘buildability’ or complexity of an assessment

Within the design process, a Specific Peer Review is usually requested by the client in the event of some concern

about the design or a new factor, such as a change in legislation or a physical (geological) event that has arisen since

the original design was undertaken. The scope of the review will usually be limited to certain elements or aspects of

the design. A Specific Peer Review of an assessment of an already built structure or engineered asset can be requested

by the client if the structure is complex or there have been differences in opinion in previous assessments.

The methodology of a Specific Peer Review is similar to a Regulatory Peer Review except it is not necessarily being

undertaken for compliance purposes. In addition to what is covered in a Regulatory Review, a Specific Peer Review

may cover:

economic viability

buildability

environmental impact

innovation risk

seismic capacity.

4.4 Forensic Peer Review

A Forensic Peer Review may be part of an investigation and is typically requested when an examination of the

performance of a completed or as-built project is needed following an engineering failure or dispute. A Forensic Peer

Review could be requested by a client, a third party, a regulatory body or a professional body and can be carried out

by either a single engineering “expert” or a panel of experts to examine the failure of the structure or built asset.

The focus of this type of peer review is more on the likely performance and compliance of the completed work rather

than the design analysis and calculation. It may consider a repeated design that occurs in several existing structures or

built assets.

The peer reviewer(s) in this type of review will not be determining culpability for the failure or dispute, but the review

they produce may be used as a basis for litigation or disciplinary action.

Jul 2017 Version 2 Draft 9

5. Conducting a Peer Review

This section outlines the sequential steps for establishing, undertaking and completing a peer review.

1. The client identifies the need for a peer review and the broad scope of the review. The client then identifies a

competent peer reviewer, ensuring the peer reviewer is acceptable to the Regulator where a Regulatory Peer

Review is being undertaken.

2. The peer reviewer makes the client aware of any potential conflicts of interest.

3. The client and peer reviewer agree on a brief that sets out:

o the purpose of the peer review

o objectives for the work (those given to the design or assessing engineer)

o scope of the peer review

o cost and expected timeframes for the peer review

o lines of communication between the peer reviewer and the client

o reporting schedule (where interim reviews are expected)

o any barriers that may prevent aspects of the peer review being carried out, such as known

limitations in obtaining necessary documentation

o the limit of the peer reviewer’s liability

o recipients of the review.

4. The client and peer reviewer enter into a contractual agreement, which includes the agreed brief.

The Short Form IPENZ/ACENZ contract should be suitable unless the peer review is complex. Other

agreements such as the American Society of Civil Engineers’ E-581 Agreement between owner, design

engineer and peer reviewers for peer review of design may be appropriate where the IPENZ/ACENZ SFA is not

sufficient.

5. The peer reviewer undertakes the peer review in accordance with the brief agreed with the client. As a

professional courtesy, it is recommended that the peer reviewer informs the design engineer at this stage

that they have been contracted to undertake a peer review of the engineer’s work. The peer reviewer may

also want to ask the design or assessing engineer for relevant documentation and agree how further requests

for information and feedback of matters should be managed between them.

6. During a Concept or Strategic Peer Review, Regulatory Peer Review or a Specific Peer Review it is common for

there to be considerable communication between the Peer reviewer and the design engineer. There may be

little or no communication for a Forensic Peer Review depending on any specific directives, such as legal

constraints.

It is recommended that the peer reviewer maintain a log of queries and responses between themselves and

the design or assessing engineer. Maintaining a log may be a requirement for some regulatory bodies. The log

should be maintained until each matter raised has been resolved and retained according to the engineer’s

internal QA procedures.

7. Upon completion of the peer review, the peer reviewer reports to the client and should send a courtesy copy

of their report to the design or assessing engineer having obtained the client's consent. (Providing a courtesy

copy to the design engineer may not be possible for a Forensic Peer Review due to legal constraints.) The

review report should:

o specify who is entitled to rely on the report and under what circumstances

o state the scope and purpose of the report

o describe what has and hasn’t been reviewed

Jul 2017 Version 2 Draft 10

o provide key findings

o include disclaimers and qualifying statements for

work not undertaken

matters requiring further investigation

reliance on information provided by others

assumptions made.

8. A Producer Statement (PS2 Design Review) should also be completed where a regulatory review has been

undertaken. Care must be taken to clearly define the scope of the design review when completing the PS2.

Jul 2017 Version 2 Draft 11

6. References

The following resources were used in preparation of this Practice Note, or referred to in it:

American Society of Civil Engineers (2011). E-581 Agreement between Owner, Design engineer, and Peer reviewers for

Peer Review of Design. Available at http://www.asce.org/templates/contract-document-product-detail.aspx?id=6672.

Coleman, J (2016). Govt initiated inquiry into Havelock North water: Beehive. Available at:

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/govt-initiated-inquiry-havelock-north-water

Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (2016). Code of Ethical Conduct: What you need to know. Available

at: https://ipenz.nz/home/professional-standards/ethical-conduct/code-of-ethical-conduct

Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (2014) and Association of Consulting Engineers New Zealand.

Practice Note 1: Guidelines on Producer Statements. Available at: https://www.ipenz.nz/home/news-and-

publications/news-article/practice-note-guidelines-on-producer-statements-2014

Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand and Association of Consulting Engineers New Zealand (2016). Short

Form Agreement for Consultant Engagement. Available at: https://ipenzproduction.blob.core.windows.net/cms-

library/docs/default-source/news-publication/engineering-practice/short-form-agrmt-apr-

2016a8a300e1c0486f9aa31eff00000785bd.docx?sfvrsn=4

Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand, Association of Consulting Engineers New Zealand and New Zealand

Institute of Architects (2013). Producer Statement – PS2 – Design Review. Available at:

https://ipenzproduction.blob.core.windows.net/cms-library/docs/default-source/news-publication/engineering-

practice/ps2-producer-statement-2013-revised70af00e1c0486f9aa31eff00000785bd.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Registration Authority for Chartered Professional Engineers (2016). Code of Ethical Conduct. Available at:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2002/0389/latest/DLM6896801.html (Part 3 of Chartered

Professional Engineers of New Zealand Rules (No 2) 2002)

Smith, N. (2016). MBIE investigation into building performance: Beehive. Available at

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/mbie-investigation-building-performance

Wellington City Council (n.d.). Building control and peer review Wellington City Council Guidance Document.

Wellington: Wellington City Council.

7. Legal information

Practice Notes offer guidance to practising engineers by exploring issues of importance to the profession and setting

out good-practice methodologies. They are written by practitioners and subject to peer review by IPENZ members.

While every care is taken in their preparation, these documents are not intended to be exhaustive and are not offered

as formal advice. Practices, systems and advice may vary depending on individual circumstances, and practitioners

must exercise their own professional skill and judgement. IPENZ accepts no liability arising from their use and nothing

in the Practice Note binds IPENZ in determining the outcome of any future complaint.

Practice Notes are copyright to IPENZ and cannot be reprinted without permission.

© The Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand Inc.