Should I trust this engineer? 9

[Metalmasterscm]

I went to inspect a job today involving a pair of access stairs for a small 2 story parking garage at an apartment complex. I met with the facilities manager and toured the project. Immediately I spotted numerous cracks in the concrete surrounding the bases of a number of tube columns and was then shown a few bases that were only covered with stones under a landing. They all showed signs of severe corrosion, some to the point of showing grain layer expansion within the rust... We then went to a second stairwell where there were a number of columns that were not only corroded but were swollen from water ingress. Upon further inspection there were a few columns that were split from freezing including one that was split some 8 feet long along the weld seam from the tube mill. It appeared to be a lack of fusion between the two sides of the welded joint as the shear line was perfectly straight with no tearing of material from one side to the other. There were a number of columns showing swelling upwards of a 1/4"- 3/8” outwards on a 6x6x1/4” HSS. Further conversation with the Facilities. Mgr I was able to find out they had an engineering inspection and forwarded me the report and scope of repair. The EOR is calling for a cut and replace of approx 1-2 feet of the columns at the bottom along with the base plates, cap the tubes but does not address the column swelling, the split columns and many other issues including the interior of the tubes as these were only painted so more than likely they were raw steel on the interior. He (the EOR) basically said it would be "OK", now I'm not a P.E. I was working towards it but fell in to fabrication and 'erection', but I am much more technical that a lot of the bolt monkeys out there. I under stand shear diagrams, radius of gyration and moments of inertia.

Should I have faith in this engineer? There were a number of things left out and seems like it's a more of a 'done for a friend' type deal and trying to be cheap than an actual professional report and plan. Any opinions?

Thanks

 

[WARose]

It's not a loophole, per se, is it, since it's what allows EITs and non-licensed engineers to design under the supervision of a licensed engineer, even in the US? Otherwise, a licensed engineer would have do everything themselves.

True. But I have favored (for years) altering this to prohibit offshoring. There has to be someway of altering the language of the rules (like I have cited above).

 

[hokie66]

If it is not "under direct supervisory control", then it is illegal. If it is designed in India and reviewed in the US, to me that is not direct. I know, I'm somewhere in the last century.

 

[WARose]

If it is not "under direct supervisory control", then it is illegal. If it is designed in India and reviewed in the US, to me that is not direct. I know, I'm somewhere in the last century.

I tend to agree with you.....but legally (to me) this language allows it.

 

[phamENG]

Depends on the state. In Virginia, my reading of the regs is that it would, in fact, be illegal.

[A.]1. No professional shall affix a seal, signature, and date or certification to a plan, plat, document, sketch, or other work constituting the practice of the professions regulated that has been prepared by an unlicensed or uncertified person unless such work was performed under the direct control and personal supervision of the professional while the unlicensed or uncertified person was an employee of the same firm as the professional or was under written contract to the same firm that employs the professional.

 

[r13]

I've two projects that were outsourced to different countries, but both were drafting (CADD) works only. We had another project that was contracted to a Chinese design institute, I and three other colleagues were rotated in and out throughout the design phases. I've never seen a project been outsourced completely without the presence of buyer side technical staff (licensed engineer).

 

[WARose]

Depends on the state. In Virginia, my reading of the regs is that it would, in fact, be illegal.

Quote (18VAC10-20-760. Use of Seal)
[A.]1. No professional shall affix a seal, signature, and date or certification to a plan, plat, document, sketch, or other work constituting the practice of the professions regulated that has been prepared by an unlicensed or uncertified person unless such work was performed under the direct control and personal supervision of the professional while the unlicensed or uncertified person was an employee of the same firm as the professional or was under written contract to the same firm that employs the professional.

Again that still leaves the nebulous "under the direct control and personal supervision" language out there. One could argue (quite successfully in my opinion) that through e-mails, red lines, etc.....you are exercising supervisory control of a project. (Even if the person is in a overseas office.)

If anyone wants to think this language is stopping anyone: I'm here to tell them they are wrong......and I have seen it first hand.....and there isn't a leg to stand on to argue that this violates any rules.

If we want it to stop.....we've got to accept that fact and change this.

 

[dauwerda]

Again that still leaves the nebulous "under the direct control and personal supervision" language out there. One could argue (quite successfully in my opinion) that through e-mails, red lines, etc.....you are exercising supervisory control of a project. (Even if the person is in a overseas office.)

I believe it is the intent to include electronic control/supervision. There are some states that specifically clarify that this is OK. But, not only does the EOR need to be in "direct control and have personal supervision", the people he has direct control over need to be in direct employment or have a contract set up.

The board is not trying to prevent you from having someone in India (or wherever) work for you and prepare engineering documents that you are in control of. What they are trying to prevent is a contractor bringing you plans that were engineered (maybe engineered?) by some other firm without a license in the state and you stamping them without having direct involvement with the actual design/designer. Even if you review them (per Virginia's law cited above as well as most other states) and determine them to be OK, it is illegal to stamp them. You would need to produce your own original documents based off of sound engineering principals to stamp.

 

[phamENG]

WARose - I agree with everything in dauwerda's post, so I'll try not to repeat it. To your point about it stopping anyone, I don't think any of us believe that it's preventing it any more than a 35mph speed limit sign stops people from driving 55mph through a neighborhood. It's up to us to practice ethics and do our best to discourage behavior to the contrary.

In the situation described by the OP, an unlicensed engineer provides him plans and he gets a licensed engineer to stamp them. Based on the information given, it sounds like the unlicensed engineer and the "EOR" are both have a contract with the OP. IF that is the case, it is illegal according to the Virginia regs. It would be fine if the unlicensed engineer was under contract to the EOR and the EOR was under contract with the OP. But that's not what it sounds like. That's why hokie66 called it out and discouraged the practice.

 

[WARose]

WARose - I agree with everything in dauwerda's post, so I'll try not to repeat it. To your point about it stopping anyone, I don't think any of us believe that it's preventing it any more than a 35mph speed limit sign stops people from driving 55mph through a neighborhood. It's up to us to practice ethics and do our best to discourage behavior to the contrary.

In the situation described by the OP, an unlicensed engineer provides him plans and he gets a licensed engineer to stamp them. Based on the information given, it sounds like the unlicensed engineer and the "EOR" are both have a contract with the OP. IF that is the case, it is illegal according to the Virginia regs. It would be fine if the unlicensed engineer was under contract to the EOR and the EOR was under contract with the OP. But that's not what it sounds like. That's why hokie66 called it out and discouraged the practice.

That's great.....but I've never understood the determination in this business to stop one but not the other. Offshoring costs us a whole lot more (in terms of jobs) than the once-in-a-blue-moon case of: it was prepared by a contractor or [whomever].

 

[phamENG]

Because the profession is more concerned with maintaining the validity of the seal and what it stands for.

I think you'll get a wide variety of opinions from the engineering community if you asked them about engineering and engineering related job loss due to outsourcing, so it's hard to get a sufficiently large enough group to agree and push for the regs to do allow it explicitly or disallow it.

The meaning of the seal, on the other hand, has more widespread support. The seal means that the engineer whose name is on it is responsible for not only the consequences of the work, but the performance of the work itself. I know we get hung up in the litigious nature of society a lot and focus mostly on liability, but the idea of the public trust that is supposed to be embodied in the seal is really focused on the rest of the time. They want to know it won't get to litigation, or injury, or worse. So the performance of the work by a qualified individual or under the direct supervision and control of a qualified person is the predominant focus of the professional associations and regulating bodies.

I realize this is all pretty idealistic, but I'd much rather be a pragmatic idealist than an ideal pragmatist.

 

[WARose]

Because the profession is more concerned with maintaining the validity of the seal and what it stands for.

Anyone who is concerned about that should be concerned about offshoring. (IMHO)

The meaning of the seal, on the other hand, has more widespread support. The seal means that the engineer whose name is on it is responsible for not only the consequences of the work, but the performance of the work itself. I know we get hung up in the litigious nature of society a lot and focus mostly on liability, but the idea of the public trust that is supposed to be embodied in the seal is really focused on the rest of the time. They want to know it won't get to litigation, or injury, or worse. So the performance of the work by a qualified individual or under the direct supervision and control of a qualified person is the predominant focus of the professional associations and regulating bodies.

I'm not sure what the (real) difference is between the 2 situations discussed and how one somehow is better for the profession than the other (and indeed, a lot of engineering boards don't differentiate between the two).....but....in any case, vive la différence (as the French would say).

 

[phamENG]

Anyone who is concerned about that should be concerned about offshoring. (IMHO)

Can you expand on that a little? I'd like to know your reasoning why the concern should be any greater than with hiring an unknown entity in the States. Are they sufficiently knowledgeable about the field of engineering they're being hired for? Are they sufficiently familiar with the codes governing the design and construction of the project? Can the clearly communicate the design on contract documents?

To answer the second part of your post, I think it's easier to give a pair of hypothetical examples:

Example A) A multinational engineering firm has a large project in Anytown, VA. The local office has too much work to perform the entire job, so they tap one of their project managers there to oversee and act as EOR, but send the work to their office in, lets say, the Philippines because they're light on work. The EOR sets the parameters for the project and "builds the sandbox" for the engineer in the Philippines. The overseas engineer goes to work on the analysis and design, sending regular updates to the EOR for review and comment. The drafting is done overseas but with similar involvement from the EOR in terms of monitoring, reviewing, commenting, and directing. When the job is finished, the EOR seals it and it's delivered. The work was done by unlicensed individuals in another country, but the EOR maintained direct control and personal supervision. This could also apply to a smaller firm who outsources some analysis work or drafting, so long as the EOR maintains similar control. With the current state of technology, the only differences between this and outsourcing it to a freelancer two counties over are the time difference and the geopolitical considerations about globalization (which, as I mentioned before, is more divisive than I think the professional organizations really want to tackle).

Example B) Project Manager at a firm in Anothertown, VA gets a project from a client. He hands it off to an EIT and says it's due by next Friday. Next Wednesday comes around and the EIT, who has done all of the analysis on his own and worked with one of the firm's draftsmen to prepare the drawings, drops it on the PM's desk. The PM glances at it and sends it to the client.

Do you think either of these meet the requirements of the regulations for use of a seal? Do either of them violate them?

 

[WARose]

Can you expand on that a little? I'd like to know your reasoning why the concern should be any greater than with hiring an unknown entity in the States. Are they sufficiently knowledgeable about the field of engineering they're being hired for? Are they sufficiently familiar with the codes governing the design and construction of the project? Can the clearly communicate the design on contract documents?

I'm not saying the concern should be greater than one (vs the other). What amazes me is how much the outrage is for one vs. the other....it should be for both. In both cases, neither are a licensed professional. Ergo, they both fall into the same category.

Do you think either of these meet the requirements of the regulations for use of a seal? Do either of them violate them?

Theoretically, neither one violates the rules under many states regs. But the former undermines the profession because we are talking pennies on the dollar for engineering work.

A lot of the same organizations talking about "raising the bar" (and so forth) for licensing have said/done very little on this. What is the point of raising the bar to rubber stamp something that was done overseas.....and will ultimately drive down wages and opportunity here? Doesn't make a bit of sense (to me at least).

 

[r13]

I think the discussion is over heated, and not very productive. I'll say if someone rubber stamp, just don't get caught by failure of the constructed structures, and don't mind to lose your license and be sued.

 

[phamENG]

retired - I'm not heated, and I don't think WARose is either - just discussing a contentious issue that has important impacts on our profession.

There was a reason I said "Anytown, VA" - I wanted to keep this at least tangentially tied to the OP, and in the extremely small population sample of regs that have been presented Virginia seems to have the most stringent wording in the regs. Can you look back at the section of code I quoted earlier and tell me if either one violates the Virginia regs regarding use of seal?

On the same token, what states say it's okay for a PE to stamp a design prepared by an unlicensed person without an actual review and understanding of the design and decisions made? Maybe re-read my B above - I said "glanced" not "reviewed." I put that in there because it isn't purely hypothetical - I've encountered it first hand on occasion (as I'm sure most of us have for one reason or another).

It seems to me that your issue with this is not related to the quality of the engineering, but rather the geopolitical and socioeconomic consequences of globalization and how the impact professional engineering specifically. Does that sound about right?

 

[canwesteng]

Why does this objection only apply to engineering? Why not IT, or drafting, or accounting, etc... All of the other parts of the business that are also being offshored.

 

[WARose]

[blue](phamENG)[/blue]
retired - I'm not heated, and I don't think WARose is either - just discussing a contentious issue that has important impacts on our profession.

Definitely no heat (intended) from me.

[blue](phamENG)[/blue]

On the same token, what states say it's okay for a PE to stamp a design prepared by an unlicensed person without an actual review and understanding of the design and decisions made? Maybe re-read my B above - I said "glanced" not "reviewed." I put that in there because it isn't purely hypothetical - I've encountered it first hand on occasion (as I'm sure most of us have for one reason or another).

I'm not sure if this is aimed at me or not.....but I myself have quoted regs where the "reviewed" term is used. I think my point on that was clear.

[blue](phamENG)[/blue]

It seems to me that your issue with this is not related to the quality of the engineering, but rather the geopolitical and socioeconomic consequences of globalization and how the impact professional engineering specifically. Does that sound about right?

Absolutely. (Although I do question (to a degree) how effective any supervisory control can be when the parties involved are separated by thousands of miles.)

I would think/hope any engineer who has any rational self-interest in preserving his/her means to earn a living and/or their profession would agree.....but more on that in a moment......

[blue](canwesteng)[/blue]
Why does this objection only apply to engineering? Why not IT, or drafting, or accounting, etc... All of the other parts of the business that are also being offshored.

I don't presume to speak for those jobs/professions.....that's up to them. I will say this though, after a lifetime of observing this and other professions.....I'm not sure I've ever seen a professional group more willing to get screwed over than this one. Other profession's lobbies are out there fighting to help theirs. (I was just reading today about a doctor's lobby fighting tooth and nail to reduce their liability.) The organizations that presume to represent us: How about let's raise the bar?.....how you liking this CEU requirement?....legislation to reduce/eliminate a EOR's personal liability? Nah. Offshoring? Well, what about raising that bar?

Don't get me wrong.....I love what I do....and I'd probably do it all over again. But I will never, ever get the (pardon if this is too crude) bend-over-and-take-it mentality in this business.

 

[moon161]

^ Yeah, take a look at Jeff Schmidt's book 'Disciplined Minds' about this attitude. Pilots and teachers are other professions that organize around collective self interest.