Unqualified personnel reviewing engineers' plans 3

[PaulDWilson]

Does anybody else feel disturbed that unqualified people can review an engineer's plans and make comments that more often than not have to be addressed for a plan approval?

I am a civil engineer in Pennsylvania that is responsible for land development plans. In my area, we submit plans to the local municipality for their Engineer's review. The plan goes in front of the municipal planning commission and/or Board of Supervisors who take input from the staff (engineer and zoning officer) before rendering opinions and decisions.

Part of our process also requires submission of a plan to the local County Planning Commission. The County Planning Commission staff makes comments and often we are responsible for making changes based on these comments. The County has NO engineer and the staff is made up of people that have no form of professional registration or professional organization affiliation. It also seems that they have no requirements for the job. Anybody that can read an ordinance is qualified. And often times, by municipality ordinance, County comments have to be addressed before a plan can be approved.

I don't want to sound all "high and mighty", but I think it is unreasonable to have to make corrections to a plan that an unqualified person reviewed. I have no problem if these comments were made by someone under the direction of a qualified individual. Does anybody else have a similar gripe? I know the Florida Engineering Society (Policy PP No. 28) believes that when an agency reviews plans it should be by a registered professional engineer. Is there anything like that in Pennsylvania?

 

[IRstuff]

You use the term "correction" as to imply that something was incorrect prior.

If so, then what difference does it make where the correction was instigated?

TTFN

 

[PaulDWilson]

Sorry - I should have used "changes" instead of "correction"

 

[ACtrafficengr]

The problem is PA is fractionated in to over 2200 municipalities. If it's anything like NY (with 1608), most municipalities are way too small to afford a PE's salary. Most can't even pay an engeering technician.

However, these communities are very proud of their identity, and rarely entertain any notion of consolidating municipalities. They tend to be very jealous of whatever home rule they have, and, when they act together, they can have significant influence over the state legislature.

So, I counsel patience. Consider education as part of your job description. The situation will probably not change any time soon.

 

[Maury]

If the County staff is simply raising questions about the plans in accordance with there function as a planning agency, then they are only doing their job. Having a P.E. after your name doesn't mean that non-engineers can't have opinions, even ones that differ with yours. If you are being asked to perform that wrong from an enginnering point, them you should document your reasoning and ask for a professional review. If you are just objecting to any non-engineer looking at your plans, get over it.

 

[bltseattle]

This would be dictated by the Pennsylvania state codes, which I do not know, but a similar issue was raised here in Washington and addressed by the Washington Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and
Land Surveyors. The following excerpts are from:

http://www.dol.wa.gov/engineers/engfall02.pdf

It sounds like they agree with Florida. Maybe their views will be helpful for you - good luck dealing with this issue. It couldn't hurt to contact PA Board of Licensing for their particular view on the issue (let us know what you find out!)

Excerpt from Washington Board Journal Fal 2002 issue:

Question:
If I am a PE working as a government employee
reviewing the work of other licensed professionals,
do I need to stamp my work?

Answer:
The key to this question is the type of review being
performed. If the review is strictly for compliance
with codes or rules and no engineering judgments are
required to complete the task, the work is not the
practice of engineering and, therefore, does not
require a stamp. However, it IS the practice of
engineering when the review requires the application
of engineering knowledge and judgment. In these
situations, the review comments need to be documented
and stamped in accordance with WAC 196-
23-020(5). The only document that needs to be
stamped is the one prepared by the review engineer
and not necessarily the submittal documents. The
above referenced WAC states “the reviewing licensee
shall fully review those documents.” The Board
interprets “fully review” to be limited to those aspects
of the document that are within the scope of the
reviewing licensee’s assignment. Because most
government reviews are limited in scope, the review
document should include information as to the scope
of the review to keep the responsibility for the project
properly aligned with the design engineer(s).
Some argue that regulatory review engineers are not
offering services to the public and, therefore, should
not be required to stamp their work. The Board does
not agree with this perspective. Government reviewers
are there to protect the public as the core of their
mission. The review engineer is providing an
engineering critique that is shared with the project
engineer and is available to the public as part of the
public record on a project. The review engineer
needs to clearly document and stamp their work,
just like any other professional engineer doing
engineering work.

 

[BigH]

In accordance with the Code of Ethics in Ontario, if a registered professional engineer is reviewing the work of another, he must notify the person that his design/report is under review. If, in Washington, Florida, PA, or wherever the reviewer doesn't specifically inform the design/report professional, is he in contravention of the Code of Ethics for that state? Simply, if plans come to him for engineering review (as a government employee or city engineer), he should/must? intimate that he is reviewing the work.

 

[Fizzhead]

PaulDWilson:

You voice one of the complaints I often hear as a professional engineer and consultant. The problem is that the work you do must do more than comply with codes and standards. It must also be compatible with other local issues/projects/goals outside your immediate project scope. Therefore, it must be reviewed by those "unqualified" personnel as it presumably may affect their works. If these non-engineering types are commenting on your engineering, clarify your reasons and if further resistance is encountered, suggest the County seek third party resolution by a competent licensed professional. If the comments are based upon non-engineering concerns (i.e., other County Planning Board desires/intentions/pet peeves, etc.) that are outside your realm of expertise (i.e., county planning issues), then it's all politics and your gripe is a common one that cannot really resolved "professionally". Sometimes life just s*#@s! In my experience, fight for sound engineering and let the county planning people have their say. Their input is a necessary part of the review process.

 

[LHA]

LTAPJim has it correct in a nutshell.

I was born and raised in southcentral PA, and currently work in the land development here. I have done engineering work in dozens of US states, and many foriegn countries.

PA (and I guess, NY) are somewhat unique to the USA. We have highly powerful local boards, rather than county/regional-wide authorities. I've done several jobs which have lain within two different municipalities. I will run two entirely different stormwater reports with entirely different input variables (thus, arrive at two different output numbers) for the same job site, sign and seal both and submit them! Neither is "right" or "wrong". Both are per their respective Ordinances. It is just how PA chooses to run things, and everyone else who responded is correct; it is not likely to change within your lifetime.

 

[PaulDWilson]

Thanks to everybody for their input. Yes, patience is being practiced, but sometimes it runs thin. I have no problem when County personnel comment on Codes and ordinances or plan appearance, but when they start suggesting engineering changes, that's a problem. And believe me, as some of you may know, it does happen. We joke around here that if somebody knows water runs downhill, that makes them a stormwater expert.

Just FYI for all of you that read this, this is not a gripe just with me. A number of engineers and surveyors (probably at least 50 in number) in my area are concerned with how things around here are being run and are comtemplating starting a petition to send to the County Commissioners.

 

[LHA]

Send a copy to steventodd@hotmail.com, I will sign it and forward it to the Dauphin County Commissioners. Tell me what County you are doing it in, and I will reference your petition.

 

[hydraulicguy]

I'm in southwestern PA and it is the same, or worse here too. I agree fully with lha, it has to do with what an individual municipality's ordinances say.

Personally, I get more frustrated when other consulting firms make comments just to justify their review cost... many seem to feel like they need to comment just to justify the review process.

 

[KRSServices]

Welcome to the world of Municipal plan review. You failed to mention consistancy.

I have been in this business for over 20 years and have found that yes, reviews by what I would term as partially qualified individuals is all too common. In most cases, the reviews, such as the nature you describe, relate to statutes and bylaws and the interpretation of the reviewer versus the consultant/engineer. I hate to say this but in most cases, the reviewer notes a concern relating to appearance or perception of a design philosophy, usually arising out of uncertainty or confusing layouts. I have rarely seen comments requesting complete design changes, but in most of those cases, these were P.E.'s reviewing the design on behalf of the municipality.

What I have found is that as a designer, I owe it to my client to provide the most concise set of ducuments for review by a municipality, rather than a sea of redline changes. Prior to submission, at say the 80% or 90% stage, I encourage a meeting with the reviewer(s) as an exercise to determine conformity to codes, statutes and bylaws, as they understand. Issues are clarified and understaood and the design drawings then provide the requisite information. If they (municipality) has details and drawing requirements....use them. Use their symbols or linetypes...regardless of how backward it may seem. Use their offsets or alignments....and any deviation should be qualified with the greatest of detail and explanation. I am also very cognizent that the reviewer is likely not terribly qualified or a junior position, therefore I tend to stick to their rules.



KRS Services

http://www.krs-services.com

 

[gravel]

PaulDWilson.... I feel your pains... I'm in western PA and have the same thoughts. I always feel the township supervisors and such should back up their "review" comments with the appropriate ordinance reference. If they can't, I ask for their justification on the comment/s. They always try to take the high road stance, stating their comments are what they want. When I bring it to their attention they are outside their scope of reasoning and need an engineer to make that technical decision, the solictor usually pipes in and sets the supervisors on the right course. If the township engineer or solictor have issues, then that is a different matter to address. Their role is to protect the township, so you have to look at things from their perspective to make compromises. It will always be a give & take process.

 

[LHA]

Gravel makes a good point...as much as I get frustrated beign on the submitting end of this system, my company is also municipal engineers for several Twp.s & Boroughs. We do reviews for these municipalities. When we do, our job is to protect the public and environmental interest. Which we do.

 

[Ron]

In some states (Florida is one), if your engineering opinion is overruled or changed by a "lay authority" you have an obligation as the engineer of record to document and inform them that they have required changes to an engineering document that are counter to your engineering judgment. Having said that, it usually does no good and they will proceed with their municipal decisions without regard to the engineering implication. It does; however, help to mitigate your liability in the event problems develop later.

 

[sc]

I am currently doing some contract work for a Municpality in Australia and part of the job is to review development plans.

lha

As engineers it is always our job regardless of the client to protect the public and the environment.

All

Many engineers and councils have fallen into the trap of checking the drafting and not the engineering. I have submitted plans to one council for engineering comment and the plans returned covered in red pen. This was to highlite the drafting related issues, the engineering remained uncommented on. It was a first draft and as such drafting had not been checked we wanted to confirm road falls and drainage fitted in with council requirements for the area.

So from having seen both sides of the fence, remember engineering is engineering and drafting is not as important until the engineering is right.

Regards
sc

 

[bank]

The key is to look at the nature of the changes requested. I've been in this business over twenty years, and I do understand that there are people reviewing plans who are not licensed (or even degreed, in some cases). They are, however, required to keep abreast of municipal ordinances and design criteria, and to ensure that those ordinances and design criteria are adhered to. In doing so, they often know more about those ordinances and design criteria than I do. I can accept that. Usually, they won't challenge the technical accuracy of your work. If they do, you should be able to prove them wrong. Once, after I finished explaining to a reviewer what a composite C value was in a land development project I was working on, he asked me if we could get together on weekends so I could tutor him in stormwater design. At least he admitted his weakness in the area.

Sometimes, though, a reviewer will let his "authority" go to his head, and will use his position to create roadblocks. One reviewer refused to accept a perfectly good design because he "didn't like it." We had to get his boss to intervene and order him to pass it.

My general attitude is, if what they're requesting is within the current ordinances, and if it doesn't invalidate the engineering aspects of the design, then let them have their way.

 

[Focht3]

Yup. "Pick your fights carefully."



Please see FAQ731-376 for great suggestions on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora. See faq158-922 for recommendations regarding the question, "How Do You Evaluate Fill Settlement Beneath Structures?"