We have the same argument here (Ontario) and it's an ongoing debate within our regulatory body, & I'm not sure which side I come down on. The license argument is "I've qualified to do the work so leave me alone", but the C of A argument is that it ensures a level playing field for everyone providing services and keeps track of who is doing so. The fee here is really only nominal ($300? if I remember right) and most of the paper work can be completed by saying "same as last year" so it isn't onerous, but is it necessary? I don't know yet but I'm going to register in a couple more provinces so I might agree with wek99 then.
Sorry for the delay in response. The issues with the additional COA requirements are two-fold. One, the additional costs and paperwork and record-keeping. The second is that there is no real justifications for it. How does requiring a firm registration and/or COA ensures "public safety"? It's more relevant that the engineers are licensed in the state. The firm is not the one who seals the calcs or drawings. If anyone is to be held accountable for the work, it is the engineer him/herself.
In the case of a small engineering firm, the additional costs/requirements are enough to deter the engineer from wanting to practice in that state, and oftentimes, the chances of doing projects in certain states are very slim, so it is hard to justify the costs and additional requirements when it may be years before a project comes along in that particular state.
You guys miss the point. A COA is a license for a P.E. to practice engineering under a company name, rather than an individual. In my case, I'm a corporation, and my liability insurance is for the corporation. By having a COA, nobody can sue me as an individual, they can only sue my corporation, and my corporation is insured. This separates all liability from me as an individual, since the drawings bear the company name, not mine as an individual. I personally have a lot more at stake than the assets of my corporation.
Spats - Irregardless of the liability issue, having a PE license certifies that you are qualified to practice in that state, why should it matter what form of business you wish to practice as? Why should a corporation pay additional fees and complete additional filing requirements that sole proprietors do not have to fulfill?
The State needs the money, they want to buy softer/reclining chairs for the law makers and Gov. That you practice as a Corp. does offer some level of protection from the liability standpoint, but it doesn’t make you immune personally. You hardly ever sign and stamp the plans as Mr. XYZ Corp., P.E. The same money making thinking sets the fees for you P.E. license. You don’t get twice as much P.E. from the State that charges you twice as much for your license.
I'm not aware that a COA makes one iota of difference in regards to who can sue who for what. Drawings normally have a corporate title block whether a state has a COA requirement or not, and there's usually not a COA seal requirement.
Spats....I hate to break this news to you, but you can be sued along with your corporation. You live and practice in a state that allows this. Your COA does nothing to protect you personally.
The primary reason for having a COA is to bring corporations under the same umbrella of the law that the individual engineers must comply with. It treats the corporation or business entity in much the same manner as an individual and holds the entity to the same requirements as an individual...with one exception in our state....
When practicing as an individual, only those projects submitted for record must be signed and sealed. When representing a business entity, ALL reports and documents must be signed and sealed by an engineer authorized by the entity.
Mea Culpa, Ron. You are correct. I checked with my insurance agent and actually my companies liability insurance does cover me personally as well. A policy in the name of a corporation would cover any employees who are signing and sealing for the company they work for, as long as the work they are signing and sealing is done for the covered corporation’s projects and not professional services rendered independently.
Also, intestingly, my insurance agent pointed out that "companies should always be mindful of the employees who are signing and sealing the work they are doing for their employer, as the company is ultimately liable for the work their employees are doing for them. This is also why companies should make sure that anyone they hire as a freelance architect or engineer or any independent subcontractors or subconsultants have their own Professional Liability in place, otherwise, the company who hired them is liable for the work that was done for them in that case as well."
What about having to register with the Department of Commerce/Secretary of State as part of the COA requirements? The registration involves filing annual tax reports and locating, designating, and paying a registered agent residing in the state to receive mail from the Department of Commerce. Do other out-of-state engineers do this? And how do other engineers interpret the term "practicing" in a state? If you do not advertise or seek projects in a state, are you still classified as "practicing" if an existing client bring you a project in that state? Does practicing in a state mean that you have an office in that state?
come on guys, you can't have it both ways. on the one hand we all want the state licensing board to crack down on shoddy engineers but on the other hand you want them to volunteer for the job? A measly $300 per year for each engineering firm barely keeps the lights on. A better arguement would be why can't we dump all the state board agencies and move to a national one and pay just one fee per year?
CVG - I agree with you. Each states have their own rules and regulations regarding COA's and some requires additional registration with the SOS, but there is no uniformity in the system. And if you are licensed in multiple states, all requiring COAs and other filings, you are talking closer to $1,000 per state!!
I'm not a fan of the additional red tape and fee's associated with the COA. I imagine it can get pretty onerous if you want to work in multiple states/provinces.
One or two points I have seen tho in favor of the COA...my experience is with the FL rules.
First, it forces corporations to secure a more long-term relationship with an engineer. Believe it or not there are many engineering companies out there that are not owned/operated by engineers or who regularly hire/fire lowly project engineer's or who hire one or two engineers and have no continuity of policy or understanding of engineering concerns. The COA rules put an engineer into upper management since the actual named position of the engineer qualifying the company must be named in the bylaws of the company.
Second, there will be a permanent engineering position over the professional engineering policies/standards/procedures of the company. Again try to imagine a large company with nothing but project engineer's or a large manufacturing or steel fabricating company who hires only ONE engineer...these engineer's have no or little say over company marketing, client selection, client commitments, contract development, PLI selection, engineering standards, etc. They have no peer group or mentors in the company and the good intentions of a green engineer in such a company can be easily swept aside.
If a company wants a new lowly project engineer to qualify their entire company then there should be resources, a title, a pay raise, and authority, to say nothing of an understanding of professional concerns, that goes with the burden of responsibility and accountability.
All the CAs that I'm aware of (about 5 states) require the qualifying P.E. to be a principal, or similar, of the company.
Junior engineers cannot be used to qualify a company for a CA.
