Round up or down in Engineering Design: Facing the Audit Objections

Theme: Tendering to Execution; Module: Engineering & Site

Author: Dr. Pradeep Reddy Sarvareddy

Published Date: 21 Jan 2026

The Department says that your work is “non-compliant” or you face an Audit Objection, which means that your work is not approved, your payments are delayed and you may have to redo the work by spending more money.  Understand that Engineering is not always “strict” because the Design Engineers usually adopt “rounding” their design.  So, when you face a problem related to quality, may be the answer lies in the Contract or Drawings or Specifications.  You may need an Engineer and an Advocate, working jointly, to help you understand the concept of rounding to protect you.  Let us understand this topic better.

In law, we have a test of “application of mind”.  In engineering, we have the equivalent of this known as “Engineering judgement”.  For example, based on engineering analysis, the number of steel bars are calculated as 22.5.  Since, half a bar cannot be used as per Code, then should the Engineer propose 22 bars or 23 bars?

The correct answer “depends” on the Engineering Judgement.  It may be likely that “most” Engineers prefer round-up, but an experienced Engineer would most likely perform other kinds of analysis and then suggest the better option.  Sometimes, more is good while at other times, less is good.  So, let us leave the judgement to Engineers and just understand the concept.

Rounding means adjusting a measured or calculated value to the nearest practical number so it can be implemented and does not result in hyper-technical absurdities.  Rounding can be up or down, i.e., you increase or decrease.  In the above example, an Engineer may decide to go with 20 bars or 25 bars, and not necessarily just eliminating the decimal. 

There is a difference between rounding and tolerances (which is covered as a separate Article).  Rounding deals with the minimum and maximum requirements.  Rounding issues arise before tolerances even come into play. 

The general phrases used by Engineers are as follows:

  • Minimum of or not less than
  • Maximum of or not more than
  • Plus or Minus some value

Engineering judgment influences how rounding is understood, but contract wording decides how rounding is enforced.  Then, the aspect of compliance or non-compliance with the design arises, which may lead to accepting or rejecting a work done by a Contractor. 

To protect yourself legally, the Contractor may consider the following:

  • Involve an Advocate when things get serious
  • Check all drawings, specifications and Codes for inconsistencies. Then, ask for a written clarification from the Designer.
  • Follow strict Quality Assurance and Quality Check process during construction.
  • Even then, if for some reason after construction it is noticed that the work is “non-compliant”, do not panic. Maybe the Designer could be called in to clarify the situation based on Engineering Judgement, rather than just following what was written on Paper.  Courts have held that minor deviations, if structurally safe, may not amount to breach.

If an Advocate is involved in this non-compliance dispute, the Advocate should:

  • Involve an Engineer
  • Read all drawings and documents
  • Question why such a “non-compliance” was not informed by the Department at an earlier stage when there was a reasonable chance to rectify the “non-compliance”
  • Seek an independent opinion from another Design Engineer to analyse the design and see if there was a “paper based” non-compliance or “safety or functional level” non-compliance.
  • If the non-compliance has no significant impact on the safety or functionality of a structure, there may be nothing to worry.

Sometimes, two of the sharpest disciplines need to work together to solve the problem.