Forensic Engineering Industry - Acceptable Practice by Graduate Engineer and Supervising P.E. 5

[structengr23]

I am new to the forensic inspection industry, but it typically involves insurance companies hiring engineering firms to investigate and evaluate structures, in our case typically residential structures (single family homes), with the intent on evaluating (determining cause and origin of damage) a catastrophy's (tornado, wind storm, flood, etc.) effect on the structure. Typically the intent is to differentiate what was caused by the event versus what was previously existing from other damage induces activities or if the structure was inadequately constructed with regards to design code compliance, etc.

The firm I joined has a graduate engineer who has worked for them for several years, but is not licensed as a PE or even as an EIT. He is very knowledgeable of the industry, but not credentialed. They have him doing the onsite inspections by himself, then writing the report (evaluation, conclusions, and repair recommendations), and then they have asked me to review his work, findings, and recommendations. Then, they want me to seal and sign these reports. I am in effect becoming the engineer of record. I have reviewed his photos, reviewed his engineering evaluation, repair recommendations completely and given my comments and recommended corrections. So, I have given it a complete review and all.

But, my question is does that fall under the correct definition of "direct supervision", or am I violating the engineering practice act. I was not physically at the inspection and I did not direct his conclusion. I did review and change if I say fit. The physical presence at inspection is my big question. I'm wondering how most boards view this. I am in Texas, so it falls under the TBPE jurisdiction. I can ask them directly, but figured I could get some good feedback from this forum. I'm sure it's been asked, but I searched and did not find this specific scenario.

Thanks in advance.

 

[JStephen]

I've noticed a fair bit of variation in the different states, with some of them specifically allowing the "review and seal" and others not so much. And as I recall, a few years ago, Texas got a lot stricter (at least in the rules) on this. Take a good look at the Texas rules, see what you need to do to satisfy them, then coordinate things at work accordingly. You might want to work it where you review earlier rather than later or something like that. I would say you don't necessarily need to be physically there.

 

[structengr23]

Thanks, JStephen. That is a good idea to start earlier. I tend to get the report when he's theoretically done, so I'm only reviewing it after he's done, rather than collaborating during the analysis. But, they try to rush these thru quickly. That seems to be the process. I thought that Texas had gotten stricter on this a long time ago. Most of the firms that I know only send PEs out there, since these things can get litigious real quick and you don't want to get grilled by an attorney over not having been at the site.

 

[Eric C.]

Does the inspecting engineer report to you and are the report findings your control?

If I were in your position and being new to the Forensic Engineering field, I would request to accompany the inspecting engineer on several inspections, have him walk you through his processes and procedures and then be involved in the analysis and report writing phase along with him. This would give me an opportunity to learn to trust him and his work. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying the inspector is untrustworthy but, if I were in your position, I would want ensure myself that this inspector is competent before I would be comfortable stamping his reports as I may very well be on the witness stand one day testifying to his conclusions.

 

[Ron]

The Texas Practice Act considers the terms "responsible charge" and "direct supervision" to be synonymous. Eric C. has given some good advice.

My practice is forensic engineering. While we don't do much of the type of insurance business that your firm does, we do utilize a process whereby some observations and inspections are done by non-engineers. They are not the ones who make the assessment, however. They report data and the engineer in responsible charge must then make the assessment. We are a small group so it is easier to control the quality of the personnel and observations. As an example, all of our engineering team (4 licensed engineers) have worked together for over 20 years. We only have two technicians and neither is allowed to make an engineering assessment or provide engineering recommendations, even though they are quite knowledgeable.

Most of our work is construction defect claims driven. We often are up against firms such as yours who do mostly defendant insurance assessments. Some are good, some not so good...just as with those on the plaintiff side.

One thing to remember in the practice of forensic engineering.....your job is not to let the client's position dictate your conclusions. You must be objective and independent.

As for the supervision side, Eric C. is exactly right....YOU have to assure yourself that the observations made by your delegate are reasonable and the conclusions are YOURS not his alone. Remember, he has no licensing obligation and nothing to lose....you do.

 

[structengr23]

Eric C and Ron, thanks so much for those comments and recommendations. I totally agree. There is an office manager, the gentleman that hired me, who organizes and directs the office. He and his admin person schedule all of our activities. They send the graduate engineer and I out on assignments, initially together, but now independently. I know they are trying to maximize the efforts. I initially went out with the graduate engineer, to both get me up to speed and to also see how the graduate engineer is doing. The graduate engineer is very good and seems to be really competent. I don't have any issues at this point with his field awareness, inspection process, analyses, conclusions or the like. He has been doing this for several years and is in the process of getting ready to take the FE, so I am told. I've reviewed his reports with a fine tooth comb and have verified his conclusions to be correct. I do make adjustments to fit my conclusions to make sure we are on the same page. I was mainly concerned with the possibility if the case ever went to court and the attorney asks who did the inspection and if I was onsite.

But, his findings and conclusions must meet my same conclusions. I change his conclusions if I don't agree. Because at the end of the day, it's my report once I seal it. So, I make all necessary corrections and adjustments to fit my conclusions of how I see it. I just know that most of these forensic companies don't send un-licensed inspectors out, at least I'm not aware of any. And when I was interviewed, they did not mention that I would be asked to perform this supervisory type report review. I am a little irritated that I am in this position, since I know these cases can get litigious.

But, I read the Texas Engineering Practice Acts and Rules and there seems to be pretty clear language about Direct Supervision. I just didn't find exact language about onsite requirements.

I definitely make my own objective assessments, no matter what the client or insured think. I agree. That is my responsibility as a Professional Engineer.

Thanks for your feedback. I really appreciate it.