Dealing With Professional Complaint 10

[MyCupboard]

In Short: I wrote a site observation report for a site in a state that i'm not licensed in (but my boss is), my boss approved the report, we sent it out to the builder, and the homeowner submitted a complaint that i was practicing engineering without a license. my boss's name and my name are both on the report under "prepared by", no one signed or sealed the report. Anyone have experience with this? Any insight is helpful.

In Long:
I've been a licensed PE in one state for a couple years. At the firm that I used to work at, we did a lot of site observation reports for builders. Essentially when a homeowner complained about quality of work or structural integrity, the builder would call us to check it out and recommend repair specifications or state why we believe things are okay. The firm had 3 engineers - the owner (licensed in many states), my direct boss (licensed in one or two states) and myself (licensed in one state). All of our reports would have "prepared by" with the person who wrote the report as well as the owner's name (who checked the report and approved it).

The company wrote a report in a state that the owner is licensed in, but I am not licensed in. I have seen engineers work on millions of projects in states that they are not licensed in, as long as the principal/boss was licensed and checking the work (and ultimately the one signing and sealing). At no point did I sign or seal any documents for this project (since i'm not licensed in the state). In fact, my boss also did not sign and seal the report (since it was not requested by the municipality, builder, etc.). On the report my boss consistently requested that we put our credentials at the end of our name for the comfort of the client (EIT when we were that, and PE when we passed our exam). So my name had PE at the end of it, since I am a PE. Again, no sign and seal or signature of any sort - just a line that said who wrote the report. Our company name and address was also on the report, which is located in the same state that i'm licensed in.

The homeowner submitted a formal complain to the state licensing board stating that I was practicing engineering without a license. I submitted my formal response as requested but I really thought this would be an open and shut case - which it is not. It has been over a month and the investigation is ongoing.

My question:
Does anyone know if this is normal? I have since left the company and am not working at a firm that writes reports anymore (or does work in states other than what i'm licensed in) - so i'm not worried about future instances. I would appreciate any insight.

 

[CWB1]

Never doubt the slow pace of bureaucracy.

From the info given the board shouldn't find you faulty of anything. The report was prepared under the boss' supervision who is licensed in that state, therefore you were not practicing without a license. Failing to seal a document is not practicing without a license. Identifying yourself as a licensed professional in a state in which you are not licensed is not practicing without a license. To prove you guilty the board has to show that you performed engineering activities without a PE's supervision in a state in which you are not personally licensed. If the board claims otherwise then I would take the charge to court, be found not-guilty, sue board members personally and the state for defamation, and demand both board members' positions and licenses be revoked. Its unfortunate but there is a large subset of this profession guilty of guildism who are constantly trying to expand the law through illegal means.

 

[AZPete]

Professional engineering never ceases to amaze with its propensity to eat its young.

How many NSPE members have been rung up because they published an article with a PE byline? How about Machine Design? How about a letter to the Op Ed?

Sure, the various Boards can investigate, challenge, and penalize given the various readings of the various States' laws. But, at some point, for crying out loud, what an abuse of a profession.

The only claim that could stand on the facts would be failure to seal. Had it been sealed by the boss, what case is there to make against the author/OP?

 

[SWComposites]

How many NSPE members have been rung up because they published an article with a PE byline? Really? That has actually happened?

 

[JAE]

Help me understand this. If someone goes up to John Doe and asks him to look at their foundation and write a report with what john sees when he does the observation - does he need to be an engineer? does he need to seal the report? if he's not an engineer, is he not allowed to write a document saying what he saw? I'm not being snippy, I'm just actually curious. I've worked for a few different companies and all of them sent out documents that weren't sealed. like, thousands (or millions?) of documents per company. It just seems to be the way it is in Pennsylvania.

In the US, each state has its own laws regarding the practice of engineering.
While different, most states laws are generally similar.

In all cases where I've been licensed (27 states) the duty of an engineer to sign and seal an engineering document is specifically dictated by the state's engineering laws.
They define what is engineering and what is not. They all state that ANY engineering document must be signed and sealed by the engineer responsible for the engineering.

Never is the engineer supposed to respond to a client or other person as to when and if they need to seal the document.

In your question above - the situation of a residential project - looking at a foundation say - may not be defined as "ENGINEERING". For example, in Nebraska (one of my states) they define when a residential project requires licensed practice (and thus sealaing) and when an licensed engineer is NOT required - sometimes based on square footage, sometimes based on the actual service provided. Houses greater than 10,000 sf need an engineer....houses smaller don't.

In a lot of cases with houses, no licensed engineer is required and if an engineer is asked to look at it, technically, they don't need to sign/seal something for that....I always do and did anyway.

 

[CWB1]

The bit that the guild usually misses is that law is always applied in context by the court, and many of these issues have well-established case law because of legal challenges in other professions. State sections specific to one licensed profession don't apply when an issue affects ALL licensed professions. The rabbit-hole of issues pertaining to state borders vs licensing is deep - Identifying as a licensed professional in correspondence/advertising/etc received out-of-state, working remotely from a state you aren't licensed, emergency powers, federal reciprocity, etc. IME most professionals dont worry over regulators nitpicking their signatures bc the courts pretty clearly distinguish between 1. identifying as a licensed professional and 2. performing work as a licensed professional.

 

[zelgar]

As others have noted, each State has their own rules and regulations when it comes to professional engineers, and what is required for certification of an engineering report. Depending on the State, if the letter was not signed and sealed by the PE, it was not certified by a professional engineer. As a regulator, I have not accepted documents that need to be certified by a PE if they were not signed & sealed in accordance with the rules. BTW, what States are we talking about (licensed vs unlicensed)?

 

[LOTE]

My signature in emails and every letter I write lists every state I am licensed in (13). Basically if my seal isn't on it, I want it to be clear which states I am licensed in. I started this when I was working for a material supplier that supplied bridge products in all 50 states, but only had as few as 4 PEs. We were constantly running projects in states we weren't licensed in due to balancing workload. The PE sealing would do a "peer review" of the final design drawings, then seal, but would not review or seal every little field issue that came up. If the owner wanted a PE seal on a letter directing the contractor how to fix an issue, the person who prepared it would always sign their name, and the PE in that state would sign/seal next to that.
For sealing, we took the stance that as the engineer in "responsible charge", even if we weren't responsible for every aspect of that particular project, we were certifying that we had an established process (design checks,qa/qc,etc.) and that those processes were followed. Processes that all the PEs in the company came up with and agreed upon.
I know that's not directly related to your situation, but just thought I'd share. I don't think you were in the wrong at all. I also disagree that the report necessarily constitutes engineering.

 

[IRstuff]

Identifying yourself as a licensed professional in a state in which you are not licensed is not practicing without a license

In California, it is; you cannot even publicly say you are a professional engineer if you do not have a valid license in California

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

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

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[gte447f]

OP, your boss, as the licensed engineer in responsible charge, should have stamped and signed the letter, and you should not have used the PE designation on the letter. If your boss had stamped and signed as he should have, then you might have "gotten away with" using the PE designation, but since he did not use his PE stamp, the ambiguity by both of you has predictably led to confusion amongst the public, and has resulted in unwanted liability for you and your boss. He really kind of screwed you on this, but you could certainly have avoided any trouble for yourself by not using the PE designation.

I've known lots of engineers over the years who didn't like to stamp things unless they absolutely had to, meaning their client made them. The truth is, according to most state rules that I am familiar with, they should basically be stamping everything they do unless it is explicitly marked "preliminary" or some such. They are under the wrong impression that stamping makes them responsible and exposes them to increased liability. I think the situation is actually quite the opposite, as your and your boss's situation illustrate.

There is no way I would put the letters PE next to my name in a state where I am not licensed. Its just inviting scrutiny and possible negative ramifications with your license.

In the grand scheme of things, in my opinion this is minor thing on your part and maybe just a lesson learned to scrutinize your own practices, if for no other reason than self preservation to avoid negative consequences imposed by others out of your own control, whether that be an unhappy individual with an exe to grind or an overzealous state licensing board. Hopefully, things play out favorably for you with the state licensing board.

 

[MyCupboard]

This is all helpful information. From now on I am going to take the advice given here and add (PA) to my signature and business card and make sure my name is not on anything in other states (to avoid any issues). Now i'm just venting, but i'm upset because I told my boss that my name should not be on the reports and he also was the one that instructed me to put my credentials behind my name. I know i'm ultimately responsible for it, i'm accepting whatever comes of it. I just wish it wasn't so easy to screw over a newly licensed engineer who can't really go against his boss without risking losing his job. Next time i will do a better job advocating now that i know what is on the line. Hopefully the board takes it easy on me for a first offense (i was a PE for something like 1 day when i wrote the report)

 

[AZPete]

If your boss is licensed in the jurisdiction instant and you wrote at his request, he owns the result. You may be the initial touch point for board inquiry, but it rests with the responsible entity in charge.

 

[dik]

You did OK... but, you should have included your state(s) of registration. This type of stuff is one of the reasons I should have gone into medicine, rather than engineering...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SWComposites]

Or into an engineering field where no one cares one iota about any PE stuff.

 

[GregLocock]

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles? I use the Oxford comma.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

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

 

[dik]

Oxonian

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[CWB1]

In California, it is; you cannot even publicly say you are a professional engineer if you do not have a valid license in California

I'd be really surprised if the courts upheld that bc its rather unreasonable. I'd also be surprised if they upheld a state board's fine for not sealing work without a complaint from a local regulator. The VA code cited isnt law, its agency code and engineering boards really aren't regulatory, they're administrative/licensing agencies. Politics and the media suggest otherwise but courts do take separation of power pretty seriously stateside. Usually when regulatory abuses happen its bc paying a small fine was cheaper/faster/easier than hiring an attorney for a legal battle, tho occasionally we get a fella like Mats Jarlstrom.

 

[dik]

It's my understanding that an engineer should be using the latest technical information available. I understand the British Columbia engineering association took an engineer to task for using the latest code (don't know if conc or steel, I think steel) rather than that stipulated in the BC building code. The City of Winnipeg insists that the code stipulated version is used. The Manitoba professional organisation refuses to comment on this practice. I think the profession is Friar Tucked...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[NOLAscience]

t's my understanding that an engineer should be using the latest technical information available. I understand the British Columbia...

What if a newer code allows the use of LESS rebar than previous [BC building] codes? But BC and City of Winnipeg wants designs to contain the greater amount of rebar? Engineers need to use the adopted code, as adopted by law or ordinance, and that's that.

The reasoning for specifying a particular edition of a building code is to avoid having to frequently retrain reviewers and inspectors. Frankly, I think engineers should be able to choose the steel or concrete code they prefer to use.

 

[dik]

Disagree... what is their reason for wanting more? Things should be designed on the basis of the latest information... just common engineering sense...

The reviewers and inspectors should be up with the latest information, too. Else they are not doing their job!

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[jayrod12]

Don't the standards committees indicate that only the most recent version is applicable and once a new one is issued, all previous ones are null and void?

To be fair, they're in it to make money, but still it's not like we can take them to task if something doesn't work out because it meets an old standard but not the newest one for that exact reason.

I generally try to design to the most recent standards, and if the City of Winnipeg, or Province of BC wants me to put a reference to an older version on the drawing, so be it.

In response to NOLAscience's point about an older code requiring more reinforcing (or larger members, or what have you) I don't think since the snow load debacle of the NBCC 1995 I've seen a code or standard become less conservative.