Fee for an SE stamping another firm's drawings? 7

[seattlemike]

Washington State SE value?

Our small Seattle firm (5 engineers) has been approached by a 2 engineer Seattle firm to stamp their permit drawings for townhomes over PT-slab. Both the engineers in the two-man firm are licenced PE's, but not SE's. They want to hire our firm to stamp their designs for about a year until which time one of them gets his SE stamp.

I originally brought the work to my boss because I know he has stamped work for other sole-proprietor engineers for states they are not licensed in. My boss, Bob, is licensed in 23 states. So, I thought it was work he would consider taking on. However, Bob is great boss, so I want to make sure he gets a fair shake rather than just a ton of liability.

Originally, I had thought to do these PE guys a favor since I know them via a friend who recommended me to them. However, realizing that we (Bob) is taking on all the liability for the job, I am thinking our fee should be significantly higher than a small review fee.

Does anyone have a handle on what percentage of the PE's firm structural budget we should charge? 10%? 20%? 30%?

Thank you,

SeattleMike, SE (but no MBA)

 

[PEStructural]

Another "self-check" that one can perform to see if they feel like the responsible engineer in charge is if they would feel completely comfortable answering questions (not defending concepts) in front of a P.E. licensing board.

If you were intimately involved with the project, then you would have no hesitation to answer questions about the project you designed/supervised.

But if you thoroughly checked it only at the end, you might not feel as comfortable sitting in front of the review board trying to answer questions that you weren't involved in.

Just my thoughts.

 

[BSE05]

My home state Massachusetts has a structural peer review clause which states that the reviewing engineer has minimum requirements that include reviewing all design criteria, review the load path distribution, and perform some calculations to insure that the drawings are correct.

With all the laws and regulations beside, I believe the professional has to be prudent and protect his license and limit his liability. If not he could loose that license. Being in this business for over 40 years, I have found that the PE license becomes very valuable at the end of one's career.

So I would suggest that to stamp anothers work not directly supervised one must exceed the requirements that I outlined above for peer review. When you supervise and engneers work you develop a knowledge and trust of their abilities and limitations. This is not so with an outside firm.

I would recommend charging for the hours it would take to review and confirm all design criteria, calculations, and perform independent calculations as the engineers feels is appropriate. Good luck, I hope this helps.

 

[JAE]

PEStructural - good thought.

SteelyLee - Yes!

 

[JAE]

I hate to dredge up a thread that seems to have run its course, but I just received a newsletter from one of the states I'm licensed in and it addressed this issue of "reviewing" documents. Specifically they were addressing the issue of "responsible charge" and defining it - but at the end they added this following paragraph addressing the review of plans:

[green]"The combined requirements contained in the Laws and Rules cited above define the expectations of the Idaho Board with regard to "responsible charge".

Practices such as aiding and abetting unlicensed persons and reviewing stamping of work of others not under a license holders direct supervision are in violation of Idaho statutes and rules.

Reviewing or reviewing and correcting, documents after they have been prepared by others does not constitute the exercise of responsible charge because the reviewer has neither control over nor detailed knowledge of teh content of such documents throughout the preparation process. "Responsible charge" means maintaining control over and having detailed professional knowledge of the content of documents during all phases of the preparation process."[/green]

That's pretty explicit that you can't review someone else's work and seal it.

 

[SmithJ]

Okay, I'm going to throw in my 2 cents. If a PE has to "re-design" everything they stamp, then that means there is really no need for an EIT or junior Engineer in an Engineering office. I mean, if I (as a PE) am going to have to re-design everything, why should we pay an EIT to run spreadsheets, design connections .... etc. when I'm just going to have to do it all over again?

This is another area where I feel we as Engineers have become too much like Lawyers and are beginning to split hairs. As in all organizations, Engineering firms have a hierarchy and while it is not possible for the PE's to do everything, it is possible to "review" others work to become comfortable enough with a design to be able to stamp it.

Beyond all this though is the issue of why each state has a separate licensing board. Isn't this country called the "United" States? If an Engineer is licensed in Maine, why can't that Engineer stamp drawings in Kansas? I see the individual license boards as another revenue stream for the States rather than at attempt to maintain quality. I think the above thread bolsters the argument that we should have one national license and let Engineers get licensed once.

Just my thoughts.
JS.

 

[rholder98]

SmithJ: Check out thread731-139833 for a lengthy discussion on individual licensing boards. Also, an EIT is under direct supervision of the PE, so it meets the requirements.

 

[rholder98]

Having said that, SmithJ, I see what you are saying--if we are comfortable enough with the calcs and drawings produced by the EIT on the other side of the building, it seems reasonable that we could review the same calcs and drawings produced by a PE in another office, assuming that we have the same control of content.

Another scenario: what about offices that outsource their CAD work? Is that considered direct supervision?

I apologize--this should have gone in a new thread. We've left the original topic.