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)

 

[bylar]

Wow! I'm surprised to see this post. Everystate I'm licensed in makes "stamping" the work of others not under your control and supervision illegal.

 

[Lutfi]

Stamping is not cool thing to do in Florida and other states that I practice in! It would get you into trouble and sanctions that may vary from reprimand to suspension of you license.

Regards,


Regards,
Lutfi

 

[seattlemike]

Hello Bylar & Lutfi,

Thank you for your posts. I appreciate all comments and concerns in this matter.

I am of course aware that Washington State engineering ethics laws require that work be done under the supervision of the stamping engineer, and that the stamping engineer shall not practice in areas outside of their expertise.

And so, if we are throughly reviewing the final product, and the final calculations, and maintain the power to add notes and make changes, I believe we meet those State requirements.

It would be in much the same way an engineering office runs: in which the project engineer doesn't really get much feedback from the stamping engineer until he/she presents the stamping engineer with his/her final design. At least, that is the way it has worked in the smaller offices I have worked at. Then, the stamping engineer redlines all the drawings, tells the project engineer what to fix, and sends him/her on his/her way. I belive this would be a similar process.

Obviously we would have to require a review process, not just one pass. And we would want to have our legal staff to check into the matter.

So, I take it from the brevity of your statements, that neither of you have specifically looked into the legalities of this, but are more commenting on the fact that it is a bad idea to just stamp other peoples's work willy-nilly?

Thank you again!
SeattleMike

 

[JStephen]

Generally, what you are proposing to do is illegal, as stamping the work by others requires "direct supervision", which is not the case if you only review it after the fact. I do recall, though, that Utah had or has provisions for doing this in their state law, so it's not universal. You might check your state's disciplinary actions as well, as this is a common issue.

While poking around in your state laws and rules, I find the following:

"Plans, specifications, plats and reports prepared by the registrant shall be signed, dated, and stamped with said seal or facsimile thereof. Such signature and stamping shall constitute a certification by the registrant that the same was prepared by or under his or her direct supervision and that to his or her knowledge and belief the same was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the statute."

Elsewhere:
"Direct supervision is a combination of activities by which a licensee maintains control over those decisions that are the basis for the finding, conclusions, analysis, rationale, details, and judgments that are embodied in the development and preparation of engineering or land surveying plans, specifications, plats, reports, and related activities. Direct supervision explains the relationship between the licensee and those persons who are performing the work controlled by the licensee. Direct supervision requires providing personal direction, oversight, inspection, observation and supervision of the work being certified.

"Communications between the licensee and those persons who are performing the work include, but are not limited to, use of any of the following ways: Direct face-to-face communications; written communications; U.S. mail; electronic mail; facsimiles; telecommunications, or other current technology: Provided, That the licensee retains, maintains, and asserts continuing control and judgment."

And provisions for reviewing work by others:
"Document review: When a licensee is required to review work prepared by another professional engineer or land surveyor, the reviewing licensee shall fully review those documents and shall prepare a report that discusses the findings of the review with any supporting calculations and sketches. The reviewing licensee would then seal/stamp and sign the report. The report would make reference to and/or be attached to the subject document(s) reviewed."

 

[JAE]

I'll chime in here too....seattlemike, I would quit using the word "review". There is NO, absolutely NO place in the engineering laws of the 20 states I'm licensed in where you can "review" and then seal/sign a design.

All designs must be accomplished by the sealing engineer or under their direct supervision. So if another firm asks you to become the Engineer of Record for that project, what technically must occur is a complete re-design of that project.

Now the re-design may use the original design as a guide/outline/format, it may use the original drawings as guides. A lot of the work developing the design is already accomplished.

But in my view, you can't just look at the calculations and call them good; you should re-create the calculations for yourself and thus your fee should reflect that.

The effort is reduced somewhat by the fact that the coordination with the architecture, mechanical and electrical designs is already accomplished. The layout, framing concept, and laterall force system has been "thought out", but you really should (to meet the laws) re-create the calcs, re-redline the plans to your own requirements (as you mentioned above) and ensure that all load paths are properly accounted for.

Just my 3 cents.

 

[seattlemike]

JStephen, what resources did you find for you research? I think I should do some more reading into those documents.

Yes, I think my experience as a plan reviewer (in addition to Structural Engineering) perhaps led me down the wrong path of thinking here.

I agree that JAE is correct: as the engineer of record, we should do our own evaluation using the original as a guideline. That makes good sense. It will definitely help limit our liability by doing a thorough check, and seems to fit the legal language in a way a "review" does not exactly.

The other option, from JStephen's explanation, appears to be that if we were involved in all the meetings and design discussions from schematic design through construction documents as well as doing the rough calculations, we could fulfill the requirement of direct supervision. That would be appropriate if a project were fast-tracked, not allowing as much evaluation on the back end.

Thank you for you all for your help and warnings. I will do some additional inquiry with the people in Olympia.

SeattleMike

 

[DRC1]

I disagree. The purpose of stamping a drawing is to take responsibility for the design that the design meets commonly accepted principles of engineering. Not every design or concept will emminate from a profesional engineer's office. If you can review the design so that you are sufficently satisfied it is correct,I don't think that is a problem. Whether you are reviewing a design developed by a staff engineer or a another professional in a different firm, I don't think there is difference, but you need to be satisfied the drawings are right.
Another important point is that laws varry from state to state and over time. The best way to avoid trouble is to contact the licencing board, explain what you want to do and see if its acceptable

 

[JAE]

DRC1 - I agree with your second sentence...taking responsibility for a design. But when you say that "not every design or concept will emminate from a professional engineer's office" I have to disagree.

According to every state law that I've read (about 21 - and I think that many others are probably similar) - an engineer must seal ONLY those designs where he/she has done them personally, or had direct personal supervision over them.

So if a design is brought to me to "review", all I'm saying is that I have to do whatever is necessary to be able to testify that the design that resulted with my seal was done under my direct supervision. Just "reviewing" the plans or calcs doesn't meet that requirement.

I guess the bottom line is the definition of the word review. If its looking over the calcs a bit, checking a couple of beam designs, or truss designs, or whatever, then in my opinion, that isn't meeting the intent of the laws - and its generally called plan stamping.

If you otherwise take a design, and re-create the full calculations by yourself, checking all load paths, connections, etc., then you have essentially performed a 100% "review" (I'd call it a re-design) and you can legally seal that design.

I fully agree with your last sentence - but upon calling, I would bet you'd get a similar response to what I'm saying here.

 

[IFRs]

Here is how I look at it. If I stamp a drawing I am legally and fiscally responsible for it. I will not risk my license, integrity, company or personal assets unless I am sure what I have done is totally legal and the work I have approved is technically defensible. Legal is easy - my lawyer tells me. Technically correct is also easy - I repeat the design path including calculations in the depth necessary to call it my own.

 

[JStephen]

Those quotes can be gotten to from this page:

http://www.dol.wa.gov/engineers/engfront.htm

At lower right, look for "The Law Relating to Engineers & Surveyors", and "Governing & Related Statute and Rule".

As far as I know, the requirements on supervision have been made more strict in recent years- maybe it's just my awareness of them. So it's not uncommon to run across engineers that simply disregard the laws.

 

[DaveAtkins]

I am a licensed SE in Illinois, where plan stamping IS allowed. Here is a quote from the Structural Engineering Licensing Act of 1989: "A licensed structural engineer may seal documents not produced by the licensed structural engineer...when the licensed structural engineer has sufficiently reviewed the documents to ensure that they have met the standards of reasonable professional skill and diligence."
As far as a fee, I agree that charging just for review time is not fair compensation. It should be somewhat more, but I am not sure how to determine that.

DaveAtkins

 

[Ussuri]

Can I throw in a question as a non-US engineer?

As I understand it an engineer is only allowed to attach a seal to a design he has completed himself or he has directly controlled and supervised (to my mind told the person exactly what to do).

So if this engineer believes the correct way to design something is using, method A, say, but has actually got it wrong and the correct way is method B, he will potentially approve his own mistake.

I have seen this happen where an engineer gave a junior engineer guidance on how to design with reinforced concrete but he got it wrong. When the junior engineer did as instructed and returned it to the engineer, he saw what he wanted to see and approved it. The mistake didnt come to light until after the concrete was poured.

Does this ever happen in the US? How do you catch a mistake when the person who made it is the person who puts his seal on it?

 

[DaveAtkins]

Here in Wisconsin, we have State employed "Plan Examiners," who may or may not catch a mistake like that. Plans for virtually every non-residential project must be reviewed by a Plan Examiner.
But if a mistake is still not caught, experienced structural engineers understand that conservative load assumptions, redundancy in structures, etc., can make a mistake "go away."

DaveAtkins

 

[JAE]

DaveAtkins

I'm also an SE in Ill. and agree that you posted a relevent portion of the SE laws and that a "review" of another's work is permitted. But my main point is that many people mis-use the concept of [red]review[/red] and don't pay attention to the intensity of a review as laid out in the Illinois laws:

[green]Licensees shall approve and seal only those designs reviewed or prepared by them, and found to be safe for the public health, property and welfare.

Licensees shall not affix their signature or seal to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared or reviewed under their direct supervisory control.

A licensed structural engineer may seal documents not produced by the licensed structural engineer when the documents have either been produced by others working under the licensed structural engineer's personal supervision and control or when the licensed structural engineer has sufficiently reviewed the documents to ensure that they have met the standards of reasonable professional skill and diligence. In reviewing the work of others, the licensed structural engineer shall, where necessary, do calculations, redesign, or any other work necessary to be done to meet such standards and should retain evidence of having done such review. The documents sealed by the licensed structural engineer shall be of no lesser quality than if they had been produced by the licensed structural engineer. The licensed structural engineer who seals the work of others is obligated to provide sufficient supervision and review of such work so that the public is protected.

Sec. 34. Each of the following acts constitutes a Class A misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense:
….. (c) The affixing of a licensed structural engineer's seal to any plans, specifications or drawings which have not been prepared by or under the immediate personal supervision of that structural engineer or after review as provided in this Act.[/green]

So the key is that a "review" is much more intense than just looking over the plans. In effect, you have to re-design it to ensure that the design would be "of no lesser quality than if they had been produced by the licensed structural engineer". And this is NOT called plan stamping. That term is used for those who just lightly look over a design (or not look at it at all) and apply their seal to it.

So to the original post question - the fee should perhaps be the same, or almost the same, as if you were hired in the first place.

Ussuri - this is a big issue you ask about. A case where a design office has a chief engineer, and that engineer makes an error and has no other peer to review the plans and calculations. A few things an engineer in that position can do:

1. Personally double check (re-question) everything they do - this is difficult to do continuously and gets tedious - but I've caught a lot of my own errors over the years simply by taking a second look.

2. Ask junior engineers to check his own work and provide incentives to the junior engineers if they find things (so as to avoid reluctance on the jr. engineers part of showing up the boss).

3. Ask an outside engineer to review the design (this costs a bit but for larger projects makes sense).

4. Like item 2 above - if the firm is large enough - require in-house peer reviews of every design. Our firm does this on most substantial projects.

 

[IFRs]

Ussuri - In my opinion, "checking" means do it a different way and get substantially the same results. The process you outlined has no "checking" step.

 

[JStephen]

Ussuri- there's no law against checking work, or Engineer A reviewing Engineer B's work. The question is who should seal it, and that is established by the engineering rules and laws of the different states.

 

[DaveAtkins]

JAE,
I don't disagree with anything you have posted, and the one time I did use my SE stamp on another's work, I did a thorough review (but I did not redo all the calculations, because I knew the individual and his abilities). So I am not sure the fee would need to be as high as you think, but this also may be "engineering judgment."

DaveAtkins

 

[JAE]

Yes, I guess that's where our judgement comes in and our practice swerves off into the realm of "art" instead of raw science. I just know I keep reading all the state engineering board newsletters each quarter and they are full of PE's getting slapped for plan stamping.

There are reviews (flip through the pages and nod your head)...and there are reviews (numerical calcs with code books open) and the final effort comes down to the nature of the project and the known skills of the engineer who did the work in the first place.

 

[MWPC]

We review (thoroughly) designs by other firms that do not have an IL SE on staff. From the amount of mistakes that we find I do not know how any engineer could do a "flip through the pages and nod" review before sealing the drawings.