Responsible Charge - What does this mean to you? 1

[BadgerEngineer]

State statues require Engineers to have "responsible charge" over drawings they sign and seal. What does this mean to everyone? I have researched this but am having a difficult time coming across a specific response.

At my firm it is not uncommon to have employees without their professional license heading structural projects. An EOR is brought in at 100% construction drawings to quickly review (15 minutes or less) and sign and seal the drawings. (He/She may be involved during the kickoff and/or consulted when questions arise, but otherwise they are not involved on in the daily design process) Does responsible charge include believing that your employees are adequately trained (even if not professionally licensed) and trusting the systems your company has put in place to prepare drawings that are safe for public use?

I greatly appreciate all your input.

 

[jmw]

"Reasonable" is one of those words loved by lawyers because they can get rich arguing about what it means not just in one case but in every case.
Good legislation, standards etc requires that the language is more precise but, of course, lawyers were probably responsible for the wording in the first place.
In other words, it is whatever the lawyers want it to be, it doesn't matter what so long as any two lawyers can disagree at hourly rates and your expense.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[RARWOOD]

Contact your state board. The State of Minnesota requires that the professional skill and judgement of the engineer of record be embodied in the documents he or she certifies.

 

[EddyC]

The "15 minutes or less" scares me. Sounds like you are working for a chop shop.

 

[civilperson]

Your firm is breaking the rules and you are liable for their faults.

 

[BigInch]

Lawyers or not, we all know pretty well what reasonable means and "that sure ain't it."

I'd like to know a CPA that would look my tax statement for 15 minutes and sign it.

"I think it would be a good idea."
- Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948),
when asked about Western civilization

 

[MiketheEngineer]

You might want to search this forum - this comes up quite often.

15 minutes is "NOT RESPONSIBLE CHARGE" unless that 15 minutes is just a final check of the work he closely supervised all along

But I doubt it

 

[MintJulep]

If everything works and nothing falls down, then "responsible charge" means nothing.

If stuff don't work, or something falls down, then "responsible charge" means it's your fault.

It's your fault if you did the work yourself.

It's your fault if you reviewed someone else's work and missed a flaw.

It's your fault if you put your stamp on something you never looked at.

 

[RVSWA]

MintJulep makes a very good point. I think I'm going to post it in my office. We have discussed Responsible Charge quite a bit and we feel we have to be involved in each step of the project. We have them (employee design engineers) determine the design criteria, dead loads, live loads, snow loads, wind loads and earthquake loads, etc. We have them show how they find it and then move on to discuss the plan of attack. Certain parts of the building will present obvious gremlins and we ask them to review their findings with us. When we have completed the calculations and reviewed any oddities, we move on to the detailing, discussing those that are typical and those that we need to create. They create the construction documents and then we review them. It doesn't often take much time when you have a well trained employee. We do it with everyone, my business partner, PE, usually looks over my work, I'm a PE too... I'm sure I'm missing something here and wouldn't mind someone jumping up and kicking me if they think I'm out of line. My two cents...

 

[BigInch]

RVMSW, I think you have it nailed and certainly satisfy any reasonable definition of responsible charge. Two PEs checking each other is certainly an excellent practice. I personally would be satisfied by a well trained engineer who is not yet a PE being checked by a PE. A certain amount of that checking should involve reviewing the major calcultions, a review for completeness (often items that might have been entirely overlooked by the original designer can be the most difficult to find and have the most consequence to the design's integrity), and for the design's compliance with the overall project's technical requirements. The level of detailed checking might vary, but should always be appropriate to the abilities and experience of the original design engineer.

IMO this quote from RMRMBJ above, note the key word "embodied", "the professional skill and judgement of the engineer of record be embodied in the documents he or she certifies", in which I believe a rather substantial effort is implied.

"I think it would be a good idea."
- Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948),
when asked about Western civilization

 

[BadgerEngineer]

Thanks for all the great comments. I agree completely with RVSWA's comment, but have a follow-up question.

In the event of "Something doesn't work" is there a difference between the following three responses:

1. I did the calculations, but I made a mistake.
2. I throughly reviewed someone elses work, but I missed it or looked at it and thought it was ok.
3. I only briefly reviewed and didn't notice. (I may or may not have caught the mistake if I throughly reviewed or did it myself)

The truth is, yes, it doesn't really matter why the mistake happened - its still your fault because you are the EOR. However, I'm assuming you would feel much differently if you made a mistake for reason 1 or 2 versus 3. Do you have an ethicial responsibility to do 1 or 2?

In the third option you are making a clear decision to not at least look for a mistake. (Regardless if it is something you would have caught)

What are your thoughts?

 

[BigInch]

Perhaps philosophically, but all of them are essentially the same when it comes to responsibility of the EOR. In all cases you would have to look to your insurance company for protection.

I'm not sure why you would feel differently, especially if someone was injured as a result. OK at least the first exhibits some good intent, the second is a case of inexperience, if you thought it was ok, but oversight if you didn't notice, which at least is an absence of malintent. In the third case, you originally stated it as what I would consider an oversight alone (without malintent), but later say its a concious decision not to perform, which I would have to consider as malintent.

You have the ethical responsibility to do or review calculations, when in your considered opinion as a PE, such calculations are beyond the level at which you are competent to say "approved by inspection" and are thus required to prove the technical acceptability of the design by calculations.

"I think it would be a good idea."
- Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948),
when asked about Western civilization

 

[MintJulep]

In the event of "Something doesn't work" is there a difference between the following three responses:

1. I did the calculations, but I made a mistake.
2. I throughly reviewed someone elses work, but I missed it or looked at it and thought it was ok.
3. I only briefly reviewed and didn't notice. (I may or may not have caught the mistake if I throughly reviewed or did it myself)

1 and 2 are most likely covered under your "errors and omissions" insurance.

3 would most likely be construed as negligence by anyone suing you and by your insurance company - in which case you are probably on your own.

 

[whyun]

The codes mention "general responsible charge" but I have yet to find the definition within the code.

My take is that everyone working for the one in general responsible charge should be consider an extention of the one in charge. When a member of the team is technically superior to the one in responsible charge and divert the general direction of the project, responsible charge is lost. Members of the team may influence the decision making process of the engineer in responsible charge but shall not be in full control.

 

[DonPhillips]

I think you have to consider the entire firm and its policies, procedures, and internal checks. With associates doing things correctly, and properly supervised by seniors, the principal is sealing the office's general practices and procedures as well as the specific drawings. CFO's of large corporations who certify financial documents cannot possibly know that every penny is properly accounted for. I would still consider this as responsible charge. If something goes wrong, who is held accountable? The person who signs the dotted line.


Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[RVSWA]

Don has brought up an interesting subject which I often wrestle with... If I create company policies, standards of performance and practice, followed up with quality continued education, haven't I established a large degree of the "responsible charge"? Shouldn't I then be able to expect an employee to follow this course when applicable with minimal oversight? Our company is young and I have yet to enjoy the pleasure of an employee that has my equivalent experience so everything is scrutinized. Someday will come when I have an employee who knows everything they need to competently complete the job. How much time do I need to spend reviewing their work? As I read your three options; I would propose we adjust the wording of #3 until we all agree that this third degree of review contains an element of knowingly neglecting your responsibility, i.e. you were busy, and didn't even look at it... #2 could perhaps be a spectrum of review that is based on the combination of all the above discussed factors. What do you do in this region of #2?

 

[BadgerEngineer]

RVSWA makes a great point. The reason for having employees beneath you is to delegate work and not have to redue/recheck everything they do. (Otherwise everyone out there would be a one man/woman firm) How many firms out there have one engineer that signs & seals every project that leaves their office? Many times this can be hundreds of projects a year so there is no way the EOR is fully involved in many of the design decisions. (However, they may have been very inolved in the establishing of processes and standards that company quality standards adhere to)

The problems I usually see with this are the following:

1. People who hold the above point of view many times have 'partner' or 'CEO' as a job title. I sometimes see a conflict of interest when it comes to signing and sealing drawings when you have this title. Being involved in day to day issues of projects take time - partners usually have 'bigger' items on their mind like getting the next project in the door or maintaining client relations. Therefore, their decision to not be involved can be seen as more of one due to economics.

2. How do you know when your staff is adequately trained that you don't have to check certain aspects of their work? (I believe this is the question RVSWA is asking) Even if you have set clear processes and procedures for quality - there is still a chance they could make a mistake or miss something based on lack of experience or education. Does this "trusting" in others work fall under responsible charge? If there were ever a life safety issue - would you feel confortable stating you chose not to be involved because you 'trusted' the work of those beneath you?

3. Do you think non-signing engineers will review drawings as closely as they woudl if they were the EOR? From my experience, I would say no. With tight deadlines and falling feels things can get rushed out the door. Its a lot easier to push something out the door that doesn't have your name on it.

Great comments everyone. I've discussed this topic with management at my company and they gave a response similar to RVSWA. Responsible charge for them is the fact that they have established processes and trained staff to a point they consider responisble charge is taken.

I greatly appreciate all your input.

 

[Enginator]

RVSWA and Badger seem to be confusing the duties of the designated engineer and the responsible engineer - at least the way it is written in the state of Washington. With a smaller firm, certainly there may be only on PE, but in a larger firm, a PE is expected to provide "direct supervision" to the development of the design. This is not necessarily just the designated engineer (EOR for the company, or chief engineer). By necessity, if the firm is too large for the EOR for the company to directly supervise and stamp each design, then more PE's will need to be hired.

Maybe things are different here in Washington.

 

[RVSWA]

Enginator,
We didn't say anything about Designated Engineer. S-Corp's are required to designate an engineer in their Certificate of Registration, PS Corp's don't have to, and Partnership's have been exempt for sometime now, Sole-proprietorships are simply engineers in responsible charge... in Washington. Designated Engineers are ultimately responsible for all the engineering services provided by a corporation. I believe what The Badger is saying is that when a company grows to a certain size, it's principals may have duties that conflict with their ability to constantly provide responsible charge. I think you asserted this point yourself. So should each Licensed Engineer in responsible charge of engineering projects within a Corp be designated in the Certificate of Registration? I can't find anything suggesting this plurality, in fact is says "...designate a person holding a certificate of registration...". So it seems that for a large company, the only way a single Designated Engineer has to ensure the quality of service coming from their company is through policy, training and reviewing representative samples. Should they be stamping drawings? If they can provide responsible charge I'd say yes, just so long as it doesn't take them away from ensuring a large group of engineers are doing their best work.

 

[DonPhillips]

I think COA requirements vary widely based on state law. In Ohio, only sole proprietors can practice without a COA if they practice under their own name. One you create a separate legal entity (S and C corporations are separate legal entities that really differ from a tax perspective) and LLC and LLP are still separate entities. For example, if you call yourself John Smith LLP, you need a COA. This is the same for architects, and again, this is Ohio.

Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com