Coast Guard v NSPE

[lacajun]

NSPE Opposes Proposal to Weaken PE Role



On April 21, NSPE submitted a public comment in fervent opposition to a proposed rule that would weaken certain requirements for a professional engineer as part of the licensing process of deepwater ports.

The proposed regulation, issued on April 9 by the US Coast Guard of the Department of Homeland Security, includes two provisions that gravely concern NSPE given their tremendous impact on the public health, safety, and welfare: a change to allow unlicensed engineers from within the US, as well as foreign engineers, to perform engineering services that only a licensed PE can perform and a change to allow these unlicensed engineers to submit design and construction plans on behalf of the licensee.

In its response to the Coast Guard, NSPE urged that the final rule reflect the important role of the professional engineer "…by maintaining the requirements for a professional engineer and not 'providing an alternative…(through) the use of foreign engineers who may not be registered professional engineers.' "

To take action and comment on the rule, please visit:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCG-2012-0061-0001.

NSPE's public comment

Comments welcome...



Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[KENAT]

So, is the issue that fundamentally it should be PE's doing the work for safety reasons or is it job protection for US Professional Engineers or is more xenophobic than that?

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[CheckerHater]

Yes

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

 

[cvg]

[ul]
[li]Provide an alternative to the use of a professional engineer [/li]
[li]Provide additional regulatory flexibility [/li]
[li]Delay in securing the services of a professional engineer has “stopped the clock” in at least one instance. We would allow the use of others with equivalent professional competency.[/li]
[/ul]


51 (current 615) Provide for use of foreign engineers
Provide additional regulatory flexibility
We would amend paragraph (b) to allow the use of foreign engineers who may not be registered professional engineers, if they possess equivalent qualifications.



Allows a foreign national engineer, possessing qualifications equivalent to those required in the United States for a professional engineer, to submit design and construction plans on behalf of the licensee
Qualifications: Allows equivalent qualifications for foreign national engineer
Potential cost savings due to flexibility.


§ 149.51 What construction drawings and specifications are required?
Allows a foreign national engineer, possessing qualifications equivalent to those required in the United States for a professional engineer, to submit design and construction plans on behalf of the licensee
Potential cost savings due to flexibility by allowing equivalent qualifications for foreign national engineer thereby avoiding potential delays.




engineering licensing serves an important purpose in the US, it sets a minimum bar so that design and construction that may have an impact on public safety is done by engineers with at least a minimum level of education and experience. Without that licensing process, it is really difficult to evaluate the competence of a foreign engineer.

 

[hokie66]

If the US loses the required capability to do something, as has happened in some cases, there is no choice but to seek help elsewhere. This may be what has happened...?

 

[dvd]

Xenophobia?!?

 

[lacajun]

Could be hokie66. I don't follow the stats here enough to have an informed, accurate thought about it. Depending on who you discuss this with, the answer will be we have an oversupply or we have a shortage. I think many dynamics are at play in the US most of which I am unaware of.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[cvg]

coastal and marine engineering requires a lot of different disciplines and experience, some of which is more common than others in the US. I would expect that for some of the specialties, there are a small number world wide and with recognized expertise, these experts should be able to contribute to design of a project in the US. Many of the standards are international.

In general federal agencies are not subject to state laws and there is no federal engineering certification or licensing process. So it is up to procurement and contracting departments to try and evaluate the experience level and capabilities of the engineering consultants that are hired to do the work. So there lies the problem.

geotechnical
structural
wave and current hydraulics
sediment transport
dredging
underwater construction
piling, caissons
breakwaters, jetties, navigation channels, underwater pipelines, quays, dolphins, seawalls and bulkheads etc. are all somewhat specialized

 

[zdas04]

So a Corps project in the Houston Ship Channel could be done without a P.E., and if that project ties into the onshore road and/or rail systems then the interface must be done by a P.E. Pardon me if I see a perfect confluence of opportunity to harm the public with no one held accountable.

Federal agencies are required to give full faith and credence to state and local regulations. If the Army builds a new barracks, the structural and geotech stuff have to be stamped by someone licensed in the state. How is this any different? The federal government has chosen not to provide a national registration, so they don't have anything to supersede state law.

If the Corps goes ahead with this, you can be certain that the NSPE will sue and absent some irrational decision (which is far from out of the question) the NSPE will win. The Corps cannot show objective evidence that the minimum wage engineer from New Delhi or Shanghai will provide equivalent results and (more importantly) equivalent accountability as a P.E. Courts have not been very receptive to "it is cheaper and I don't care about protection of the public, just my budget" arguments.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[cranky108]

The PE stamp in most cases allows an engineer to purchase insurance. A non-licenced engineer typically dos not have insurance. From an engineers perspective, not having insurance is not a problem, because we trpically don't have a lot of assets to be sewed over. From a business owners perspective, having or requiring an engineer to have insurance is almost a requirement.

So what I see is they are dropping the requirement for an insured person to complete the design. Am I missing something?

The PE is nothing more than being able to pass a state test that makes a statement of knowing something (although I would argue that some of them don't know anything).

However, when does the federal government ever care about insurance? And in this age of engineers shortage cost is important (jab intended).

 

[cvg]

this is the Coast Guard, not the USACE. Although the USACE does not always require licensure either. It depends on the project.

federal contracts require E&O insurance, no way around that.

 

[urgross]

The wording of this appears to be really squirrely. An EA is not conducted for every project, but a REC is. For a dep water port, I feel fairly certain that an EIS would be needed, and not an EA. The EIS typically takes 18-24 months, minimal, just for federal agency coodination outside of public comment. If the availability of satisfactory PE cannot be met in 2 years, then I would say DHS is not doing their job.

Repeatedly stating that this could be a "cost savings" appears to be a bald-faced end run on the Brooks Act. The "clock stoppage" appears to apply more to the NEPA planniong document, which does not require a PE, and which must be completed prior to execution of design or any other irretrievable loss of resources. As the "clock stoppage" applies to planning and not a PE activity, the argument appears to be made of feces and no more than a Brooks Act evasion.

A foreign expert can certainly be hired under the aegis of a PE, and should be easily accommodated by the 2-3 years typically required for the NEPA approval. Host nation/US JV's have been formed for large projects overseas for decades, whether under the Corpse of Engineers, ROIC, SETAF, or other agency recognized by international agreement. I know, I've worked on them in several countires on the Med (while with SETAF).

The Corps would certainly be involved for permits, as well as any other State implementation agency, such as for 404 permits, CZMA, Chesapeake Bay protection, etc. As COE, NAVFAC or DHS must comply with State and local requirements based on the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, I find it hard to beleive that foreign sources would have better knowledge of those requirements. Just as with the COE, NAVFAC, or SETAF working port projects overseas, knowing how to get the permits generally requires a Host Nation partner just to be able to comply with US and Hoist Nation laws. If yo are not familiar with Anti-Mafia Screening requirements in one country, that can cost 10's of millions. In Greece, national law has (or had since I haven't worked there in 20 years) a mandatory government gratuities law; US law forbids gratuities to foreign government officials and at the same time requires complaince with Host Nation laws.

In all, if the Coast Guard cannot get an A-E acquisition together in 2-3 years, and cannot get its NEPA documentation together to avoid a "cloxk stopper", no basis is yet given for eliminating the Brooks Act. Why not just call it what it is, the DHS trying to eliminate the Brooks Act.

 

[lacajun]

urgross, I don't work in that field but I look forward to reading about some of what you posted, as well as others.

I see no point in attacking the credibility of any engineer, licensed or non-licensed. I also see no positive impact of negative comments about a nation or its inhabitants. Think about it, please.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[gendna2]

Gentlemen,

1. By USCG definition, deep water ports are outside of state waters, so I do not believe a PE license is required for this work, since licenses are state-controlled.

2. The federal government, on its land, does not need to have stamped drawings. USACE and NAVFAC can make their own plans, and not stamp them. It's just like a railroad bridge, if it doesn't cross a public highway, it does not require a PE stamp.

That being said.

1. I know that USACE and NAVFAC, in their own internal business rules, absolutely require a PE license for all designs. That license may not always be in the state, territory, or country in which the project is being built, but a license is required.

2. Having administered government contracts, I know that contractors must provide stamped drawings for USACE and NAVFAC.

Conclusion.

USCG is out of line with this requirement, and I agree with NSPE.

1. Yes, heck yes, it hurts American Engineers, it even hurts foreign engineers, who came to America, got their PE and played by the rules. So I will be xenophobic on this one because we're hemorrhaging jobs as it is.

2. Agreed that this is a slippery slope, how about when the facility ties into a land based facility?

3. Quality and a modicum of personnel quality control is needed here. The PE is not the end all be all; you can have bad design with a PE, but at least it's a minimum. Having administered government contracts, I know what a nightmare statements like "having adequate knowledge in the field off #####" is. How do you prove this knowledge?

With a statement like that you can get a CAD tech. who was a steel worker on oil rigs, church his resume up a little, and now he "has adequate knowledge in the field of deep water port design".

4. USCG policy does not jive with USACE and NAVFAC. For that matter, why is the USCG in charge of this regulation to begin with? USCG should just patrol coastal waterways with a limited facilities management role, i.e. their facilities. USACE, which already has all the waterwork permitting should be in charge of deepwater ports...makes more sense to me.

5. Finally, I like NSPE, because they have some of the most common sense views compared to other engineering societies. They oppose the SE license, for instance, and that lets me know that they're not all about making the public safer while bankrupting our economy, i.e. they're not regulation zealots.

 

[Panther140]

No modern firm that does projects of this magnitude is going to recklessly have some average guy submit a plan that could risk catastrophe, if done improperly.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

 

[lacajun]

I attended an NSPE-CO meeting recently and heard licensure philosophy stated that at least it provides some level of assurance of knowledge, experience, and competence.

I'm sure we all have employed the services of doctors that run the gamut of knowledge, experience, and competence. I'm sure attorneys are the same in that levels of knowledge, experience, and competence vary greatly. IQ is not a constant across humanity.

Panther140, you would be surprised at what modern firms will do. One of my NSPE pals is an engineer turned attorney, who has the most interesting stories.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[urgross]

A PE does not necessarily imply any related or relevant experience. As this would be a federal contract, Brooks Act would allow, and make mandatory, selection based solely on qualifications. Having a PE would be the minimum level to enter into putting your presentation before the Pre-Selection Board. Going around the Brooks Act is a step in making professional engineering a commodity, suitable for low bid. The government already gets enough horror show designs without reducing quality standards. I would not want to have low bid for a biological weapons receiver lab, or even allow someone to do the design solely based on having a PE.

 

[Panther140]

Its okay guys. I know a PE at work who is GREAT with engines. Ill just ask him to build your deepwater ports. Dont let those silly unlicensed civil engineers build those ports, that would clearly result in mass casualty because just look at what their papers say!



"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

 

[hawkaz]

I would love to hear how the projects (not the E&O) insurance feels about this. I would suspect that without a PE, this project is uninsurable.

 

[BUGGAR]

Most Navy construction projects are managed by a ROICC, Reserve Officer in Charge of Construction. It is their job to make decisions during construction which frequently involves engineering judgement for life safety issues. Most ROICC's are not registered and many are not (trained) engineers.

I worked for Lockheed at a Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant processing weapons up in the Santa Cruz Mountains (cluster munitions at that). I designed a bunch of buildings used by civilian Navy workers and I had neither a degree or a license. Although we applied for building permits, Santa Cruz City approved everything without review because it was "Navy".

Then there is the fault that was discovered passing below the corner of the intersection of two carrier wharves just built in Coronado. The "engineering" decision was to just lower the safety factor a little.