"Project Engineer" Title 10

[knelli]

Hi,

I am a licensed professional engineer (structural) that works for a Design Build firm. Our company managers have a habit of calling new project managers "Project Engineers". I have a problem with this, because the people they are titling as "Project Engineers" are new out of school with, at most, a 4 yr construction management degree (not engineering based). They then move up to being a "Project Manager" after gaining some experience.

My first job before I was licensed was at an A/E firm and we were not allowed to be called Engineers until we recieved our license. Is anyone aware of legal issues with calling a project manager and Engineer without an engineering background?

We do a lot of work with the government, and I could see a big issue with a new PM giving advice on a project, and others taking their advice because they assume they have engineering credentials (such as recommendations on shoring, removing forms, and other means and methods issues that would usually be asked to an engineer).

I was told that "Project Engineer" is an industry accepted term for a green or new "Project Manager" What are your thoughts?

 

[Latexman]

I was told that "Project Engineer" is an industry accepted term for a green or new "Project Manager" What are your thoughts?

It must depend on which industry, or maybe it's a local/company thing. In my company in the chemical industry, the "Project Engineer" coordinates/manages the detailed engineering design team to produce construction packages. The "Project Manager" manages the overall project including process design, detailed engineering, procurement of equipment, construction, commissioning, and start-up. They are two separate functions.

Good luck,
Latexman

 

[knelli]

Thank you Ron, That was the type of info I was looking for. Would you mind sharing which state sent the letter so I can look at their laws?

Ironically, our company is big on getting "the company" certified in every state to practice engineering and be a licensed contractor in every state in which we work, even on federal projects. We won't provide structural engineering on projects where our engineers are not licensed per the state's requirements even on federal projects where the contract specifically states that we are not required to be licensed in that state (I hope this doesn't start a new battle - I don't agree that the designers should be exempt on federal land).

Thanks again

 

[photoengineer]

David has a very good point. Dealing with the federal government is sticky.

They like the Professional Engineer stamp on documents, however, the federal government cannot recognize state laws (federal preemption). Their legal requirement is that a stamp from any professional engineer, regardless of the state that issued the license, is ok for federal work.

However, the EPA and others will be quick to point out that practicing engineering (whether for the federal government or not) needs a license from the state in which the project is taking place, and the state board will handle that issue.

But the federal government won't meddle with state laws, so I don't think they will deny the stamp from an out of state engineer.

Cedar Bluff Engineering

http://cedarbluffengineering.webs.com

 

[frv]

This is very state specific in the US.

In Texas, it is perfectly OK for me to call myself a "Project Engineer" IF my firm is registered in the state AND I work under the supervision of a Licensed Professional Engineer (obviously, I am not licensed yet).

Apparently in other states they will send you a cease and desist letter, according to the above posts.

 

[Ron]

knelli...I am in Florida. The letter was issued to my former employer, a large, international engineering firm with offices in Florida since the 1950's.

 

[Ron]

I had forgotten about another one...same firm...we had an engineer who was licensed in another state but worked in Florida. Florida did not recognize the other state's PE since at that time they did not require the FE exam (that state has since changed its law and requires the FE exam). Anyway, this engineer signed a report with P.E. after his name. It was co-signed by a properly licensed engineer in Florida, but the subject area was not in his specialty. We got a letter telling the out-of-state P.E. to stop using the title and another one reprimanding the in-state P.E. for signing a report outside his specialty. He was only following company policy for administrative review, but got zapped because he was the only one who signed the report who was properly licensed in the state.

 

[mauricestoker]

Photoengineer,

I've been an engineer with the federal government for a number of years. Your take on PE requirements is different than what I have understood, even when working in a federal contracting office.

 

[photoengineer]

Maurice,

I'm not surprised it's different....I think it is a new thing that some government agencies are instituting. I know for sure that it is the policy of the EPA to accept a PE stamp from any state, but the IRS wants a stamp from an engineer licensed in the state where the building is. Perhaps the expectations are different in different branches of the government.

(It's wrong for an engineer not licensed in a state to stamp off a drawing for something in that state. I want to be clear that I don't disagree with that.)

Cedar Bluff Engineering

http://cedarbluffengineering.webs.com

 

[mauricestoker]

We're definitely clear on that. I guess the heart of the matter is all federal agencies don't do things the same way, some are backwards, and some are plain fup duck.

A problem I've seen a lot of times is non-engineers editing guide spec's for engineering. If you don't know what you are doing, editing the qualifications portion of a guide spec is pointless.

A problem area I have repeatedly encountered is agency use of Service Contract Act as opposed to Brooks Act. Under the SCA you might get better wage rates and lower initial cost; if for saving energy, such as re-commissioning, an SCA might suggest cutting back or out outside air (I've seen this happen in unfortunate places). The gubmint may pay more upfront for Brooks Act, but I have greater trust that a PE would not be doing nutty things. VFD application to everything that moves is more likely to happen (in my experience) when the PE is not involved. I have greater control/authority on energy funds, so a PE stamp by the State is required. I still have to convince the Contracting Officer (I've only worked with one Contracting Officer that was an engineer; one large federal agency I worked for had a policy disallowing engineers from working in Contracting-weird).

EPA has an in-state PE requirement for EnergyStar submittal.

 

[zdas04]

mauricestoker,
Your last sentance is interesting. Why in the world would they have an in-state requirement for one program and be silent on another program? No, wait, it is the government.

David

 

[debodine]

Back to the OP (and I promise I will make this relevant), knelli was asking if Project Engineer is an industry accepted term for a green or new Project Manager. I can only give you the perspective from MY industry, which is aviation in the United States.

Engineering in US aviation is an exempted industry as far as using the word "engineer" in a title. The FAA ACO (Aircraft Certification Office) engineer and/or the FAA/DER (Designated Engineering Representative) stands in the place of a licensed professional engineer and all of us who perform engineering tasks must have what we design blessed by these individuals.

For example, I am not a licensed professional engineer. However my job title is Project Engineer. And contrary to your industry, in our usage it means I am expected to be an experienced engineer who leads of team of engineers (six in my personal situation) regarding technical and engineering decisions. I do not have any managerial, supervisory or administrative authority. I exist to insure that everything my team creates will meet the standards of the FAA ACO engineer and/or the FAA DER BEFORE they look at it, under the theory that the sooner we find issues and resolve them the more likely our final product will be blessed in the desired time frame.

So at least in my industry the term Project Engineer does not mean what it means in your industry. I thought you might want to know of this exception, but it really does not affect you because your industry is a completely different ball game from the legal and oversight perspective.

I hope you found this interesting even if not useful.

 

[mechmama]

Seconding debondine's post. . .Our job title structure is very similar.

At a former employer in the Power EPC industry, Project Engineer was used as a title for the top-ranking technical engineer on a project. We are not exempt, so this person was always a PE and the one to stamp the drawings for his discipline.

For example, on a typical power plant project, the mechanical staffing would look something like this:

Project Manager (mostly dealing with managerial issues relating to the owner and construction partner, and overseeing the whole project)
Engineering Manager (managerial issues related to engineering and procurement)
Project Mechanical Engineer* (licensed PE, reviews all mechanical work)
Mechanical Engineers** (x 5-10 engineeers, levels I-IV, may also be licensed.)


*my current company calls this Lead Mechanical Engineer
**we can use the term "engineer" for any degreed engineer in my state, only "professional engineer" or "licensed engineer" is restricted.


HOWEVER, similar to the situation you are seeing, on the construction-partner side of the business, "ENGINEER" is used for the construction management professionals, regardless of whether their BS degree is in CM or engineering.

 

[mauricestoker]

A good practice I've seen with several agencies, especially for Brooks Act IDT's, is to spell out exact qualifications for positions. It's very hard to protect against "bait and switch" otherwise. All contracts I have seen generally use a requirement of graduatioon from ABET accredited school to use the term engineer, plus additional experience/education for specific positions (to include PE requirements).

I would strongly recommend against listing any intern or apprentice as an engineer on a federal contract, that will run afoul of FAR Part 31 and the Cost Accounting Standards.

If the gubmint does not spell out requirements, such as having PE, Structural for excavation shoring, and when it is required, then that agency needs to start editing its specifications. Worrisome part is it might not be an engineer (depending on which agency is involved) editing the qualifications. OSHA can and has fined the gubmint.

I have not yet met a gubmint engineer that did not have at least an ABET accredited degree. I've met a lot of project and program managers that have a degree in history.

 

[Waidesworld]

Can someone point me to the EPA requirement for Energy Star requests? We recently got a product ES approved and there aren't any licensed engineering involved. Also where in the state laws is all this "proper name calling" mentioned.

drawn to design, designed to draw

 

[mauricestoker]

The requirement is in the application package. The PE must be licensed in the State in which the facility resides.

It's listed under the Download, Sign, and Mail Letter of Agreement and SEP to EPA.

An exception is given for federal facilities and employees; if a federal employee, out-of-state is acceptable as long as it is allowed by the State of licensing.

 

[RoyTyrell]

Professional Engineering Licensing is Dead. Industry has successfully killed it. Sorry to say - but it is true, and Engineering Boards are powerless to stop it.

I worked hard for my P.E. but it is now irrelevant, a meaningless credential. I see absolutely clueless clowns calling themselves "engineers" designing foundations, superstructures, connections who would not know how to analyze a free-body-diagram.

Across the board, mechanical, civil, structural, chemical - you name it. Design is being off-shored, accountability is nil.

America is now officialy a third-world country. I doubt I will even bother renewing my license. throwing good money after bad.

 

[Noway2]

RoyTyrell,

Your post raises some valid points. Namely that cost is having a tendency to drive towards the lowest bidder / lowest common denominator. In my experience, Off shoring definitely makes design accountability a lot harder. It places some serious responsibility on the few remaining on shored engineers that must qualify the work.

Personally, I would really like to see the bar raised for ALL engineering disciplines. I think that some form of standardized qualification is required. I think that the lack thereof will ultimately demand a serious price tag. Unfortunately, the current PE system falls far, short of this goal. The answer, of course, is to expand the system, but as I said in my previous post, there needs to be some sort of discipline differentiation.

Take for example, software. Most "embedded" software is NOT developed by computer science people. Most of it is developed by electrical engineers. One driving reason for this is that the EE has a much easier time understanding the hardware that they are trying to control. How many critical systems today depend on software? Cars, planes, nuclear power plants, fire and other life safety equipment, etc, basically most of the nations infrastructure are all only as safe and reliable as the software running them. Does developing software currently require any sort of certification? Hell, no. Should it. Hell yes.

 

[photoengineer]

Noway2,

If cars, airplanes, and nuclear power plants are designed by unlicensed engineers, why should the software that runs them be any different?

Cedar Bluff Engineering

http://cedarbluffengineering.webs.com

 

[Noway2]

I don't think that any of it should be, but I also think that only real engineering certification system that exists (the PE) falls miles short of the necessary target. Fortunately, the day is coming where certification standards will be required. Unfortunately, that day won't come until there is a grave tragedy that brings awareness to the requirement. If I am not mistaken, at least one plane crash was attributed to bad software. In the industry I currently work, bad software has caused Fox News to go off line and brought down the NASDAQ due to loss of power. A more comprehensive and up to date certification system for engineering is desperately needed.

 

[HgTX]

Roy, speak for your own industry, not for mine. There is almost nothing meaningful that can be said about "engineering" as a general concept, rather than about specific disciplines.

And, frv, not everyone in TX agrees with your interpretation of TX law. I was an Engineering Assistant, not an Engineer, until I got my license, for legal reasons, even though I was working for a hierarchy of PEs.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376