Unlicensed Activity 3

[Ron]

I would appreciate comment on the following:

In most areas of the US, National Engineer's Week is ended with a banquet celebrating local engineering accomplishments and providing selected awards for local engineers. Often there is a keynote banquet speaker, sometimes an engineer, sometimes not, but usually offering a topic of engineering involvement, interest, or connection to the community at large.

This year, a group has selected an individual as its keynote speaker on a topic of engineering interest. This individual runs a company that offers engineering services in three states. These are "classical" engineering discipline services that require licensing. A couple of problems....the firm is not licensed to provide engineering services and there are apparently no licensed professional engineers on staff.

In your opinion, does this compromise the integrity of the profession?

**Need Professional Development Hours / Continuing Education ??
**Try this course...

http://pdhonline.org/cgi-bin/quiz/courses/courselist.cgi?class_name=p112

 

[aspearin1]

On paper, perhaps. It doesn't necessarily reflect on the lack of expertise within that company. But may reflect on the lack of conformity. In a sense, they could be revolutionaries... but for now, they're just anarchists. As it would seem, without certification, the company takes no legal liability. However, if municipalities continue to accept contracts with this company, it may speak to a trade-off on the side of an extremely low-risk venture.

aspearin1

 

[RDK]

It appears that these guys are breaking the law.

You as a professional engineer and a citizen have an obligation to report them to the appropriate authorities.




Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[IRstuff]

Depends on what they're doing EXACTLY.

California's PE industrial exemption extends to subcontractors and service providers.

TTFN

 

[haggis]

If the diciplines require licensing, who in their right mind would retain them as consultants in the first place.

For instance, if a developer retained them to design a high rise, wouldn't he want to see some credentials?

It seems to me if they were doing projects of any consequence, the word would get around and the state licensing boards would take the appropriate action.

 

[RDK]

People often assume that the authorities know of illegal activity and therefore fail to report it.

It’s the same in an emergency situation. Everyone assumes someone else phones 911 as a result the emergency response is delayed.


If you know of illegal activity and fail to report it you can be as guilty as the person doing the illegal activity.

It can cost you your license. If you have reasonable grounds to believe that they are doing something illegal then report them. If your fears are groundless then no harm done.

Most associations will accept and investigate anonymous tips it that makes you more comfortable.





Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[patdaly]

I fall in line with RDK on this one, and yes, it does, at least in my mind, compromise the integrity of the Profession. Basically, if they do it, then why shouldnt I? ( Other than I do not have the License )

'Tis quite the slippery slope sir!

 

[buzzp]

Does the "firm" have to be licensed to practice engineering too?
I would have to know for sure there is no licensed engineers signing off on drawings before saying too much. The media or lower key publicity can hurt anyone or any company even if they are found "innocent". Perhaps you know more than you have said, and reporting it would definately be in order.

 

[JAE]

Ron,
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "Classic" engineering - perhaps you could expand on that.

 

[haggis]

I agree with patdaly "why shouldnt I do it". That's fine if I started a business and had a few designers working for me as long as the drawings were stamped by at least having one engineer on staff or using a third party do so.

Also, buzzp is right in saying before any reporting is done, find out all the facts as it could be harmful to the entreprenuer who is running a legitimate and maybe quite a successful business.

 

[melone]

RDK stated that "If you have reasonable grounds to believe that they are doing something illegal then report them. If your fears are groundless then no harm done."

How naive! Unfounded accusations reported to a government body can be VERY harmful!!! In the US, the belief is "innocent until proven guilty", however the reality of the situation is often "prove to me that you aren't guilty". Therefore, the burden of proof is placed squarely on the shoulders of the accused.

Releasing the government hounds onto a proven business seems inappropriate! Why don't we just start pulling over random motorists to validate that they have a valid drivers licence and up-to-date insurance? If the motorist has all of the paperwork, then they have nothing to fear.

 

[RDK]

There is a vast difference between random stops of drivers for record checks and someone with a reasonable belief that a law is being violated acting on that and filing a report to the appropriate authorities.

If the firm does have licensed people in place the check will stop there. If there are no licensed people in place then the firm will be asked if their practice included activities that should be licensed.

If you have a reasonable belief that illegal activity is taking place then you have an obligation to act, both as a professional and as a concerned citizen.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[aspearin1]

I'll disagree with melone on this one. A tip is a tip. It's not a public outcry or a media frenzy. It's a nudge to an agency to say, "you might want to check this place out." The burden is then on the investigators to find proof. The same holds true for an IRS audit. Just because there is an audit, doesn't mean there is wrong doing. It's standard practice for any company who reports losses each year, no matter what the legitimacy. A tip is a yellow flag that says, "watch these guys." It doesn't say to drag them into litigation. An engineer is bound by his own ethics to report wrong doing, or even questionable actions. If Ron, though, were to make an accusation, it would be very much in his best interest to go forward with more truth than hearsay. It's clear that this company is very much in the open with their services, but unclear whether they have a PE signature attached to their plans. Is that worth investigating? Every customer who uses this firm should be looking for those credentials, if the work requires it. If in the case that the customers are not looking for a signature, then they are equally liable.

aspearin1

 

[BJC]

Ron
The easy way is call up someone in the group and ask them? You may both learn something. Put yourself in their place. If they are honset and above board they would rather have an open question from you than people beating around the bush and in all probability damaging their reputation.

 

[RDK]

Aspearin1

I agree with your post except for one thing. A lot of customers do not know about the laws requiring licensed engineering for services let alone recognize the nuances of these laws.

This is true in Canada where there are no exceptions to this rule. Doing engineering requires licenses. Calling oneself an engineer requires a license.

I would think that in the US the confusion would be greater since not all engineering requires licenses, the term engineering and title engineer can be used by anyone and the situation is even more complex.

Look at some of the other threads on licensing, you will quickly see that here among engineering and technical people that there is not complete agreement on what the licensing laws are. (And even less on what they should be but that’s another thread.)

The first canon of conduct for the Manitoba Association is

1. Each practitioner shall obey the laws of the land.

The fourth is

4. Each practitioner shall uphold and enhance the honour, integrity and dignity of the engineering and geoscientific professions.

A subsidiary clause to this canon is

present appropriate information to the Registrar of the Association if a professional colleague, or any other person or entity, is believed to be in violation of the Act, the By-laws or this Code of Ethics;

For the full text see:

http://www.apegm.mb.ca/keydocs/ethics/ethics.html#c1

Taken together there is a positive obligation to inform the association. Since most of these codes of ethics are very similar, I would think that the same provisions apply in your jurisdiction.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[haggis]

In response to RDK, even if the firm has no licensed Engineers, as I said in my previous post, as long as any drawings that go out the door are stamped by a Licenced Engineer who could even be an independant third pary. Nobody says that the designs can't be by a competent designer and stamped by someone else. This is the bottom line, as long as all the requirements are met in the interest of public safety and in keeping with the laws of the jurisdiction.

As far as tips and rumors are concerned, "reasonable belief" can be just that! You can hear plenty of these if you attend the local sewing bee!

If my scenario about a firm with no licensed people is correct, and maybe they have built up a reputation and getting the lion's share of the work in their area, it could be sour grapes with other firms.

You know, if the building permit for your neighbor's deck isn't visible from behind your window blinds, don't just assume he hasn't got one. As BJC suggests, go and ask before any reporting gets done.

 

[zdas04]

It is pretty common in my area for companies that do Right-of-Way and Permitting work to not have a PE or Professional Land Surveyor on staff - they simply go to the appropriate independent consultant for document reviews and stamps. It is legal, ethical, and proper.

The only caveat to this is that the company can't hold itself out as an engineering or surveying company (e.g., it can be called "New Mexico Land and Cattle Co.", not "New Mexico Surveying and Engineering Co.&quot. If the firm being discussed in this Sewing Bee is calle "Phil's Engineering" then most jurisdictions require a PE on staff.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

http://www.muleshoe-eng.com

 

[JAE]

haggis,

What you just described is "plan stamping" - where a company designs something that falls under the engineering practice act and then hires someone else to review and stamp the drawings.

In most states in the US, this is explicitly illegal.

The engineer of record must either perform the design directly, or directly supervise others who are working for, or under his/her direction.

Coming in after a design is complete, and reviewing it is not allowed unless the engineer re-calculates everything.

 

[haggis]

JAE, I agree with you 100%. I do both Mechanical and Structural work inside one of the Big Three's plants and yes, a proper review by a Licensed Engineer requires running the calcs.

There are a load of good and competent designers out there and a load of Licensed Engineers who thrive (financially) on reviewing and certifying work.

Otherwise, I totally agree with everyone, if it's against the law to use the term "Engineer" without a license, don't do it and don't misrepresent in any manner.

I hope this thread doesn't turn into another one about the legalities of doing engineering work without a license because there is a vast difference between one being engaged in engineering design work and masquarading as something one is not.

 

[Ron]

Good discussion and points....thank you.

For JAE...what I meant by "classical" engineering disciplines is the ones that require licensing in essentially every state...civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical.

For melone....I can assure you my premise is well-founded. I agree that someone shouldn't go off half-cocked and just complain, as that could be damaging to reputations and businesses if undeserved.

For Rick...your comments are exactly on point. There is no room for such practices and I wish the individual states and their laws were as clear as those in Canada...unfortunately they're not and there is lots of wiggle room.

After learning of this firm through a friend who thought it strange that a "salesman" we had both known in previous employment had founded a firm of such prominence as to be asked to speak at a significant gathering, I got curious. The firm is not licensed to do business in two states in which it has addresses, one of which is its corporate headquarters. Both of these states require that firms be licensed as well as the engineers they employ. The remaining state does not have online capability to check the status,so I didn't do that. Knowing that the online info is not always up to date, I called the state board in one of the states to verify the information. The firm is not licensed.

I called one of the phone numbers listed on their website. It routed me to a cell phone, answered by the principal. I asked if they provided engineering services and he said "yes, we provide civil, structural, and electrical engineering services".

At the least, firms should follow the rules so that we all are practicing under the same premise. For firms to practice without such compliance allows them a distinct economic advantage to those firms that are in compliance. Licensing is not cheap. My firm spends many thousands of dollars each year to comply with the laws of the states in which we practice. We're no different than other legitimate firms....we have to do it. Further, as engineers we carry professional liability insurance with relatively high premiums and deductibles...a cost of doing business. Those costs are not borne by those who don't comply.

There was a time in our profession when fees were not the deciding factor of a client's selection. In fact, at one time it was unethical to "bid" our services. The Supreme Court changed that by striking the bid prohibition in our Canons of Ethics. Qualification based selection is becoming less prominent than ever....price based selection is gaining each year. Unlicensed activity and fringe-services engineering have promoted this and in my not so humble opinion has degraded and demeaned our profession.


I will continue a bit of checking on the firm. If my suspicions are correct and appropriately founded, I will file a complaint with the appropriate engineering licensing board.