Dispositions regarding "responsible charge" 3

[MrStohler]

The term "responsible charge" is used by many states to establish who may seal or stamp engineering documents. The definitions offered for the term are usually open a degree of interpretation since it would be difficult to write a rule or regulation for each conceivable situation.

Our office has been involved in discussions regarding how the term might be interpreted with regard to several situations. We questioned whether there have been actual cases that provide examples.

Are specific dispositions available online to show how this has been interpreted?

Of particular interest would be cases where:
* Multi-discipline plans were sealed by a project manager who is licensed in the state where the work will be done,
* Single disciple plans were sealed by a licensed engineer who technical proficiency is in a more narrow category of the discipline,
* The owner of a multi-discipline firm seals all drawings for a project since the work was performed by engineers under full-time employment.

These cases and a few hypothetical situations have led to discussions where there is a lack of unanimity among the project leads.

It would be greatly appreciated if links to actual dispositions could be posted.

Thank you.

 

[Ron]

I doubt that dispositions of such are available. They are usually balled up into other complaint forms. You might consider calling the general counsel for your board to get an interpretation, albeit informal.

As for your hypotheticals, my opinion is the second one is the only one that comes close to being acceptable. Your examples are, in general, violations of most engineering statutes in the US...not for responsible charge...but for practicing outside their core competency.

Multiple discipline plans must be signed by multiple disciplines of engineers...not just one guy.

 

[rbulsara]

I agree, only the second one. Even CEO/owner or PM can only sign the drawings of the discipline of his/her license, that too taking full responsibility for everything in them.

"Work performed by employee of full time employment" has no meaning.

Again, these things come to head only when something goes wrong and lawsuits/claims begins. So just because so many questionable practices go on without making news, that does not make them acceptable. Like speeding without being pulled over.

Also once in court, it becomes only a matter of who has more convincing lawyer, and not who is right or wrong.

Rafiq Bulsara

http://www.srengineersct.com

 

[xnuke]

I also agree - the second instance is the only acceptable option.

xnuke
"Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[MrStohler]

Thank you for the replies. Your interpretations are in line with mine.

Specific examples are sought so that independent verification can be applied to similar (but not as clear cut) situations where there are differences of opinion between staff at different levels in the organization. The examples would carry considerable weight.

Several Google searches make it appear that Ron's statement regarding their availability might be true but I would appreciate ay additional references that might be useful.

 

[msquared48]

Responsible Charge is the opposite of what a teenager would do with a charge card.

My two cents.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[btrueblood]

Reckless Charge - hmm, sounds like there could be a market for that as a brand name card line for teens.

 

[JAE]

I would also agree with Ron here.

Assuming you are in the US, I would add that most states have very similar statutes, but that you should check with your local state's board (as Ron suggested) and discuss particulars with them.

It sounds like you are trying to develop an in-house standard operating procedure. The state board may or may not have clarifications, examples, etc. that they can share.

I'd be careful about getting dispositions from other states as there are differences.

 

[southard2]

Responsibile charge is WHAT the Engineer of Record is supposed to do. If you sign and seal construction plans you are basically stating that you are the engineer of record. See the section in green below to see if you pass the test of being and engineer of record. If you fail the test and have signed and sealed the document then you have failed to do your job. Basically if you are the guy signing and sealing documents then you must understand all of the principles and practices being employed by you or however is doing the work. You better have good reason to believe that the persons doing the work under your license know what they are doing. If you don't have adequate reason to believe they are capable of doing the work you give them then you have failed to take responsible charge. You had better have put enough time in on the project to understand its systems, load paths, and why said systems/methods were chosen. If you are incapable yourself of performing the calculations then you are out of your areas of practice. You have also got to have good reasons to believe that those working under your license are also capable as mentioned before. You can't just hire and EIT and say, "Go design this", and then seal their work. Until you have satisfied yourself that they are capable then you must check all of their work. If you have never reviewed the person's work then how do your know they are qualified.

Below is an exerpt from the State of Florida dealing with responsible charge. Before reading it though I like to think of it as what the State of Florida requires to become a successor engineer. To become a successor engineer you must reproduce on your own the required calculations to justify the design when assuming or taking over another persons work. To be an engineer or record I think along the same lines. You had better be able to reproduce the required calculations of those working under you. Furthermore it is your job to make sure those working under you on a project are capable or producing correct calculations. Fail either of the above two test then you have not adequately taken responsible charge.

I agree that their is always going to be some subjectiveness because human language can only account for so much. But I think most people know IRRESPONSIBLE charge when they see it.

I think the more important question for your firm should be this. If something goes wrong do we know who is going to jail or who should feel guilty. If not then you have a big problem cause apparently knowbody is taking responsible charge. If the job is complex then your office should have a checking system in place. If it is small it can be resonable to assume the person doing the work has made no mistakes. For me personally, I think the experience of a PE should always be employed to look at those critical elements and the more complex calculations. Usually big mistakes will stand out right way to the experienced eye. On more complex and detailed projects then you've got to have a system of checkers.

From the Florida Laws and Rules:
(1) ?Responsible Charge?shall mean that degree of control an engineer is required to maintain over engineering decisions made personally or by others over which the engineer exercises supervisory direction and control authority. The engineer in responsible charge is the Engineer of Record as defined in subsection
61G15-30.002(1), F.A.C.
(a) The degree of control necessary for the Engineer of Record shall be such that the engineer:
1. Personally makes engineering decisions or reviews and approves proposed decisions prior to theirimplementation, including the consideration of alternatives, whenever engineering decisions which could affect the health, safety and welfare of the public are made. In making said engineering decisions, the engineer shall be physically present or, if not physically present, be available in a reasonable period of time, through the use of electronic communication devices, such as electronic mail, videoconferencing, teleconferencing, computer networking, or via facsimile transmission.
2. Judges the validity and applicability of recommendations prior to their incorporation into the work, including the qualifications of those making the recommendations.
3. Approves the inclusion of standard engineering design details into the engineering work. Standard engineering design details include details mandated or directed to be contained in engineering documents by governmental agencies (such as the Florida Department of Transportation); and details contained in engineering design manuals and catalogues that are generally accepted as authoritative in the engineering profession. In order to approve the inclusion of such details the Engineer of Record must conduct such reasonable analysis of the content of the standard detail(s) as is necessary in the sound professional
judgment of the Engineer of Record to be assured that the inclusion of such detail(s) into the engineering work is acceptable engineering practice.
(b) Engineering decisions which must be made by and are the responsibility of the Engineer of Record are those decisions concerning permanent or temporary work which could create a danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the public, such as, but not limited to, the following:
1. The selection of engineering alternatives to be investigated and the comparison of alternatives for engineering works.
2. The selection or development of design standards or methods, and materials to be used.
3. The selection or development of techniques or methods of testing to be used in evaluating materials or completed works, either new or existing.
4. The development and control of operating and maintenance procedures.
(c) As a test to evaluate whether an engineer is the Engineer of Record, the following shall be
considered:
1. The engineer shall be capable of answering questions relevant to the engineering decisions made during the engineer?s work on the project, in sufficient detail as to leave little doubt as to the engineers proficiency for the work performed and involvement in said work. It is not necessary to defend decisions as in an adversary situation, but only to demonstrate that the engineer in responsible charge made them and possessed sufficient knowledge of te project to make them. Examples of questions to be answered by the engineer could relate to criteria for design, applicable codes and standards, methods of analysis, selection of materials and systems, economics of alternate solutions, and environmental considerations. The individuals should be able to clearly define the span and degree of control and how it was exercised and to demonstrate that the engineer was answerable within said span and degree of control necessary for the engineering work done.
2. The engineer shall be completely in charge of, and satisfied with, the engineering aspects of the project.
3. The engineer shall have the ability to review design work at any time during the development of the project and shall be available to exercise judgment in reviewing these documents.
4. The engineer shall have personal knowledge of the technical abilities of the technical personnel doing the work and be satisfied that these capabilities are sufficient for the performance of the work.
(d) The term ?responsible charge? relates to engineering decisions within the purview of the Professional Engineers Act and does not refer to management control in a hierarchy of professional engineers except as each of the individuals in the hierarchy exercises independent engineering judgement
and thus responsible charge. It does not refer to administrative and personnel management functions. While
an engineer may also have such duties in this position, it should not enhance or decrease one?s status of being in responsible charge of the work. The phrase does not refer to the concept of financial liability.

John Southard, M.S., P.E.

http://www.pdhlibrary.com

 

[rbalex]

As stated by others, each State has its own standard for determining both what constitutes “responsible charge” and how it is determined. California’s is outlined in Board of Registration rule 404.1. Section 404.1(b) discusses the general criteria:

(b) Responsible Charge Criteria. In order to evaluate whether an engineer is in responsible charge, the following must be considered: The professional engineer who signs engineering documents must be capable of answering questions asked by individuals who are licensed by the Board in the appropriate branch of professional engineering relevant to the project and who are fully competent and proficient by education and experience in the field or fields of professional engineering relevant to the project. These questions would be relevant to the engineering decisions made during the individual’s participation in the project, and in sufficient detail to leave little question as to the engineer’s technical knowledge of the engineering performed. It is not necessary to defend decisions as in an adversarial situation, but only to demonstrate that the individual in responsible charge made, or reviewed and approved, them and possessed sufficient knowledge of the project to make, or review and approve, them.
Examples of questions to be answered by the engineer could relate to criteria for design, methods of analysis, methods of manufacture and construction, selection of materials and systems, economics of alternate solutions, and environmental considerations. The individual should be able to clearly express the extent of control and how it is exercised and to demonstrate that the engineer is answerable within said extent of control.

The National Society of Professional Engineers has proposed a model law with precious little chance of gaining universal adoption, since it has already been floating around since the late ‘30’s I believe. Nevertheless, it does occasionally influence some States.

 

[MrStohler]

Thanks southard & rbalex, your quote from FL & CA provide some of the most clear interpretations for responsible charge.