Proposed 2015 Draft ECSA Guideline Fees 2015 – Call for comments

Dear SAICE Member

You are invited to comment on the attached Proposed Draft ECSA Guideline Fees for 2015.


1. Background:

The Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) is statutory body, acting in terms of section 34 of the Engineering Profession Act, 46 of 2000 (EPA).

ECSA has a Fees Committee, comprising of voluntary associations, representatives of service providers and clients in the private and the public sectors, mandated to recommend updates of the Guideline Fees to Council annually.

The determination of the Guideline Fees must be done after consultation with voluntary associations, representatives of service providers and of clients in the public and private sectors.


2. ECSA Call for Comment:

An invitation is made to ECSA stakeholders to submit comments on the recommended Guidelines Fees by no later than the 27 October 2014, in writing to ECSA (Attention: Ms T Singh) at


3. Alternative SAICE Collated Response:

SAICE members wishing to participate in our collated response, are requested submit their comments via this  Blog before end of business on 22 October 2014, which will allow SAICE two days to collate these responses and submit them to ECSA before their deadline of 27 October 2014.

Comments received after this date will not be included in the SAICE collated response.


Steven Kaplan
Chief Operating Officer
South African Institution of Civil Engineering
Cell:    +27 (0) 83 441 4982
Tel:     +27 (0) 11 805 5947
Fax:    +27 (0) 11 805 5971

Posted under: ECSA

7 Responses to “Proposed 2015 Draft ECSA Guideline Fees 2015 – Call for comments”

  1. Ryan Abrey


    The Guidelines fall do not take into account marine and coastal engineering. What would be a normal structure now requires more consideration due to excessive loading as well as a harsh environment. Also dredging, reclamation and modeling works are not included.


  2. Louw Venter

    Under paragraph “4.3.4 Adjustment for Cost of works”, include the formula for percentage fee as follows:

    PERCENTAGE FEE = -0.0099887731*LN(ZAR) + 0.1610000007+(PERCENTAGE)

    PERCENTAGE FEE = fee as a decimal of the cost of works
    ZAR = cost of works in Rand value
    PERCENTAGE = percentage of fee range for project categories (Table 4-5) as a decimal

  3. AN Oelofse

    Any system involving negotiation of fees, based on complexity / input, can work only if both parties have an understanding of the input pertaining to a project. When a municipality is the Employer, the lack ot technical skills result (almost without exception) in a scenario where “procurement people” get involved in nogotiations of which they know nothing of. This is the reason why almost all engineers still prefer to use the 2012 fee scales.

  4. Renette van Wyk

    I believe that the fees are exorbitant, my fees for ecza and SAICE (appr. R 4300-00).
    The large corporations might be able to pay their employees fees for them, however for the small companies or for individual who pays themselves this is a BURDEN!

  5. Sundran Naicker

    As a Statutory body ECSA has powers to restrict the discount professionals offer based on the guideline fee scales. ECSA should add a clause (or something similar) which states that “discounts in excess of ###% pose server risk to the clients and public at large and is therefore discouraged.”

  6. Clive Crawford

    I have read that Electrical Engineers and Civil Engineers are the two most scarce skills in the country at the moment. One of the main ways of rectifying this is to ensure that the professions are paid attractive salaries. ECSA should acknowledge this in their guideline fees that they issue annually. One way they can do this is to recommend a scarce skill percentage for the various engineering disciplines which should be added on to the fees.
    If government bodies require PSPs to tender by offering discounts on ECSA Guideline rates this should be done only on Guideline rates plus ‘scarce skill allowance’.

  7. Johan Gerber

    I get the impression that most of us are simply too busy to comment, because we are trying to break even at cut-throat fees. As a result very few have time to mobilise Civil Engineers and collectively get us out of this fees-fiasco. The irony of the situation is telling.


Leave a Reply