Engineering Peer Review

What an engineering peer review is

An engineering peer review is an independent examination of civil engineering work prepared by someone else. RSP Engineers reviews civil site and land development plan sets, and stormwater and drainage models, then reports what is wrong, missing or unsupported, citing the document and the page for every finding. The review raises items for a licensed engineer to resolve. It does not approve, certify or seal the work it examines, and the engineer of record keeps the design and the seal.

Two ways a review is commissioned

An agency reviewing a submittal

A city, county, district or authority receives a development submittal and needs it examined against the code, the local land development regulations and the agency’s own requirements. The reviewing department often has the jurisdiction knowledge and not the hours, or the submittal is larger or more specialised than the work it usually sees. RSP reads the set the way the agency would and returns findings a reviewer can act on or pass straight to the applicant, each one tied to the sheet and the provision it comes from.

An owner, developer or lender checking a design

A design is about to be submitted, relied on in a transaction, or built, and the party carrying the consequence wants it read by an engineer who did not draw it. A review at that point is cheaper than a resubmittal and far cheaper than a change order. This is the same question asked from the other side of the counter, and it is answered the same way.

What we review

• Civil site and land development plan sets — grading and drainage, paving and geometry, water, sewer and site utilities, and the internal consistency between them: whether the sheets agree with each other, with the calculations, and with what the reviewing agency asks for.
• Stormwater and drainage models — every model input cross-checked against the corresponding detail on the plans, so that basin areas, pipe sizes, lengths, slopes, invert elevations, outlet structures and tailwater conditions describe the project that is actually drawn.

Those two categories are the service. If what you have is something else, tell us what it is and we will say plainly whether we are the right reviewer for it.

What comes back

A marked-up set, with each issue marked on the sheet and listed in a comment table carrying the required action and the engineer’s response, so no item is closed without an answer. Findings are graded from critical to informational and each cites the source document and page. Anything that cannot be verified from the submitted set is recorded as unverifiable rather than assumed — a reviewer who guesses at a missing calculation produces a comment nobody can act on.

Where responsibility stays

A peer review does not approve, certify or seal the work it examines, and it does not make RSP the engineer of record. Engineering judgement, the design and the seal remain with the licensed engineer responsible for it.

Professional licensure is jurisdiction-specific. A review is issued under seal only in states where RSP holds licensure; everywhere else it is issued as findings for the engineer of record and for whoever commissioned it. Tell us where the project is and we will confirm how the work would be covered before any scope is agreed.

Why RSP is asked to do this

Because it is what RSP already does to its own work. Every package RSP issues is peer-reviewed before it leaves the office, with findings graded critical to informational, each citing document and page; the review is technology-enabled and overseen by licensed professional engineers, who resolve the findings and seal the work. The service offered here is that same practice, pointed at a set somebody else drew. It is part of RSP Advantage, how every RSP project is delivered.