Client Requesting PE Stamps on Documents (Not for Jurisdictional Reasons)

[AWDMIKE]

At my company, we do a lot of work for the oil and gas industry. Recently, I have been made aware of two instances where a client (different client on each occasion) specifically requested a PE stamp on a particular document for the reason that they "felt" it was an important component of a bigger system.

To my knowledge, neither of these two components require a stamp from a licensed engineer to satisfy the requirements for a particular jurisdiction. I can only guess that the client feels better about the design if it is stamped by a licensed professional engineer.

Has anyone been in this situation before? What did you do? Would you consider stamping but not signing, if that even makes a difference legally? I have read some posts (in this forum, I believe) that state that if you are not legally required to stamp a document, that you should avoid stamping it altogether.

I'm looking to hear from other people with any experience or guidance that they may offer. Thanks.

 

[dik]

Make sure it's clear that the seal is for one particular project and not for multiple uses.

Dik

 

[JStephen]

Read your state PE rules and see what you should be signing. That's not always based on local jurisdictions requiring it. And, you can apply a seal to items that don't actually require one, for that matter, no big deal. Sign and date per normal practice.

 

[tickle]

One Australian client required that all calculations were "stamped" by a suitable chartered / registered engineer (ie same discipline) even though only one state in Australia requires registration (do not quote me on this wrt structural engineers that may require registration in more states / territories). To me it was quite clear, get the work and stamp it, or do not get the work. As a professional (chartered) engineer the requirements / ethics of stamping or not stamping are unchanged.

 

[hokie66]

Tickle,
Australian engineers don't "stamp" drawings or their work product, but the absence of a stamp does not lessen the responsibility they have.

 

[havesealwilltravel]

I have seen the same situation. Many clients want drawings stamped for insurance purposes. By stamping a drawing, you are accepting financial responsibility for everything on the drawing no matter what. If there are errors, the engineer has financial responsibility. The fact that he/she is an employee also makes the company responsible. The liability for a P.E. stamp is much longer than the typical warranty a company gives in their contract. Even if the company goes out of business, they can still recover from the engineer's personal assets.

Be VERY judicious in using your seal.

In other professions (if you consider engineering a profession), a practitioner is only responsible for his/her own actions and does not accept professional responsibility for the whole operation.

 

[JAE]

By stamping a drawing, you are accepting financial responsibility for everything on the drawing no matter what.

Well, in the 24 states I am licensed in a stamp does no such thing. The stamp, by law, in most US states, ONLY designates that you are the licensed engineer who performed the design that is indicated on that specific document. You are not accepting financial responsibility for everything on the drawing "no matter what". That is just not true.

What you are doing is taking responsible charge for the work as designed, usually in a fully completed constructed state, and always based on the given building code and loads required by it.

Now that may mean that if you are sued, and a court finds you liable, that you could be responsible for financial penalties. But there is no automatic or implied acceptance of financial responsibility just by sealing something.





Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[msquared48]

Sealing the plan does not imply that the project was constructed according to those plans, unless you are stamping "as built" drawings.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[IRstuff]

"But there is no automatic or implied acceptance of financial responsibility just by sealing something."

This is what NSPE says:
Further:

> An engineer in "responsible charge" should be capable of answering questions relevant to the engineering decisions made as part of the engineer's professional services with such answers being in sufficient detail to demonstrate reasonable knowledge of and proficiency with those engineering issues related to the services provided.
> An engineer in "responsible charge" should be completely in charge of, and satisfied with, the work product of the engineering services rendered. Additionally, an engineer in "responsible charge" should have and exercise the authority to review and to reject or approve both the engineering work in progress and the final work product.
> An engineer in "responsible charge" should also have personal knowledge of the technical abilities of personnel doing the work and be satisfied the technical credentials of such personnel are suitable for the performance of the work.
> By affixing one's engineering seal to the product of one's professional services, the engineer in "responsible charge" should be deemed to have exercised that degree of control and supervision described above and should accept full responsibility for the work product content.

Seems to me that "full responsibility" is acceptance of liability, which is why PEs ought to have insurance.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[JAE]

IRstuff - yes, the last sentence suggests that the PE is accepting full responsibility for the work product content.
That is a totally different thing that "accepting financial responsibility for everything on the drawing no matter what".

Maybe we are parsing the language here but my seal doesn't "accept" anything. It simply identifies the engineer in responsible charge of the work specifically shown on that drawing.

That identification does indeed put me in the position of responsible charge and my design better be to the level of correctness to ensure public safety and welfare.

However, my design is also subject in the US to a standard of care.
That means that if an event happens, beyond my control, beyond the standard of what another reasonable engineer would do, then I am certainly NOT liable for "anything" and the financial liability is simply not automatic as suggested above.

The post that I was responding to was painting a picture that if I seal a drawing I am somehow legally "accepting" any and all liability for "anything" that can happen to a structure.
In a strictly legal sense, I'm only stating that I am the engineer by sealing something. The liability is always worked out in legal proceedings and my acceptance of financial liability only occurs after a judgement, mediation or arbitration.

havesealwilltravel is correct, though, in their assertion that one should be careful about sealing something. But I would also re-word that to say: "Be careful with your designs and detailing before you seal something".

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[IRstuff]

OK, so perhaps you accept the liability RISK. The test is whether you'd seal ANYTHING if you had no insurance.

So, sealing something that doesn't require sealing carries a direct liability risk that would not be there if you didn't seal it. You might have had an associated risk otherwise, but your seal puts the mil dot squarely on you.

Besides, taking responsibility means that you accept the notion that if there are errors in the design or analysis, they're yours. That's where the liability resides.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[JAE]

OK, so perhaps you accept the liability RISK. The test is whether you'd seal ANYTHING if you had no insurance.
[red]Yes - agree - risk is a much better term to use. I've always had insurance so agree with having it[/red]

So, sealing something that doesn't require sealing carries a direct liability risk that would not be there if you didn't seal it. You might have had an associated risk otherwise, but your seal puts the mil dot squarely on you.
[red]Sealing something does make the statement that "I did this work and was the responsible engineer behind it." So it does add to the risk by directly identifying you as the designer behind the design [/red]

Besides, taking responsibility means that you accept the notion that if there are errors in the design or analysis, they're yours. That's where the liability resides.
[red]Agree - my errors expose me to risk and I need to fess up to my errors as a professional and do all I can to ensure public safety and welfare by providing immediate remedies to those conditions.[/red]



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[JStephen]

The assumption here is that as an engineer, you can throw caution to the winds and design however you like willy-nilly and as long as you don't put your seal on it, you're not liable. That's simply not the case.

But to the original question, some quotes from the Texas rules:

"(b) A plan, specification, plat, or report issued by a license holder for a project to be constructed or used in this state must include the license holder’s seal placed on the document. A license holder is not required to use a seal required by this section if the project is to be constructed or used in another state or country.
...
"§137.33 Sealing Procedures
(a) The purpose of the engineer’s seal is to assure the user of the engineering product that the work has been performed or directly supervised by the professional engineer named and to delineate the scope of the engineer’s work.
(b) License holders shall only seal work done by them, performed under their direct supervision as defined in §131.81 of this title, relating to Definitions, or shall be standards or general guideline specifications that they have reviewed and selected. Upon sealing, engineers take full professional responsibility for that work.
...
"(3) All other engineering work, including but not limited to research reports, opinions, recommendations, evaluations, addenda, documents produced for litigation, and engineering software shall bear the engineer's printed name, date, signature and the designation "P.E." or other terms as described in §137.1 of this chapter (relating to License Holder Designations). A seal may be added on such work if required or at the engineer's discretion.
...
"(m)A license holder is not required to use a seal for a project for which the license holder is not required to hold a license under an exemption set forth under the Act, Texas Occupation Code §§1001.051 - 1001.066..."

 

[sundale]

All the states where I am licensed require that all final drawings, reports, specifications, etc. constituting the practice of engineering to be PE sealed. The industrial exemption typically gives a pass on that, but a consulting engineer does not get that pass, even though their O&G client is typically under the industrial exemption.

Design vs. engineering gets blurry in O&G, but my litmus test is to see if the consultant billed out their employee as an "engineer". If they did, then they were probably practicing engineering. If the drawings are IFC then they are "final" and thus need to be PE sealed per law.

 

[IRstuff]

California's industrial exemption seems to include both employees and consultants

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529