PE Stamping with customer specification

[Sierrasparky]

is from the administrative code, not chapter 18.

So?

my sorry.

What different does it make?

 

[Sierrasparky]

[h=3]WAC 196-27A-030[/h]
[h=3]Explicit acts of misconduct.[/h]

In addition to any failure to conform with the requirements of chapter 18.43 or 18.235 RCW, or this chapter, the following acts and any act or condition listed in RCW 18.235.130, are explicitly defined as misconduct in the practice of engineering and/or land surveying.
(1) Aiding or abetting the unsupervised practice of engineering or land surveying in the state by a person or firm that is not registered in accordance with chapter 18.43 RCW, or, aiding or abetting an unlicensed person to practice or operate a business or profession when a license is required.
(2) The practice of engineering or land surveying by a registrant when the registrant's license is retired, expired, suspended or revoked.
(3) Failing to comply with the terms and conditions of an order issued by the board.
(4) Failing to provide relevant information on plans and surveys in a clear manner consistent with prudent practice.
(5) Failing to comply with the provisions of the Survey Recording Act, chapter 58.09 RCW and the survey standards, chapter 332-130 WAC.
(6) Failing to respond to inquiries from clients, or other professionals regarding conflicts with the registrant's work, opinions or procedures, in a manner that would be expected from a prudent practitioner.
(7) Failing to correct engineering or land surveying documents or drawings known to contain substantive errors.
(8) Failing to notify a client or employer that a project could not, or would not, be completed once that assessment is made.
(9) Modifying another licensee's work without notifying that licensee, and clearly delineating the modifications and sealing and signing the modifications made; EXCEPT where the plans, maps, or documents are modified by the owner to reflect changes over time for their own purposes and are not used for submittals or bid documents.
(10) Offering or accepting money, goods or other favors as inducement to receive favorable consideration for a professional assignment, or as an inducement to approve, authorize or influence the granting of a professional assignment.
(11) Soliciting or accepting gratuities, directly or indirectly, from contractors, their agents, or other parties dealing with clients or employers in connection with work for which the registrant is responsible.
(12) Using privileged information coming to registrants in the course of their assignments as a means of making personal profit beyond their professional compensation.
(13) Requesting, proposing, or accepting professional commissions on a contingent basis under circumstances in which the registrant's integrity may be compromised.
(14) Any act, statement or behavior that harasses, intimidates or retaliates against anyone who has provided information, assistance or testimony in connection with any board inquiry, investigation, hearing or other proceeding.
(15) Willfully attempting to suborn another person to violate the law or administrative code, public policy or their code of professional ethics.
(16) Willfully making false statements or submitting fraudulent documents when reporting the completion of continuing professional development requirements.
(17) Disorderly, discriminatory or abusive behavior or statements which are significantly disruptive to the normal activities of a place of business or public view, where such behavior would give anyone witnessing the act a reasonable belief to be concerned for their safety or well-being.

 

[Sierrasparky]

With all due respect that stamp implies the correctness of the items beneath the stamp. That you have complied with the client requests and contract, that you have followed the codes and industry standards all of it. If you don't then you face the administrative route.
I am not saying who will prevail I am only stating that a PE is in violation if he stamps a incompetent set of plans or specifications.

 

[jim dungar]

So?

my sorry.

What different does it make?

This is not about semantics it is about the law as written.

The seal says I am responsible for the work.
The law says the finished work must be to engineering standards. It makes no difference if I seal the documents or not.

 

[Sierrasparky]

This is not about semantics it is about the law as written.

The seal says I am responsible for the work.
The law says the finished work must be to engineering standards. It makes no difference if I seal the documents or not.

The law says that if the work is intended to be submitted it must carry a stamp
The law says if the work is submitted it must meet the standards.
If the docs are preliminary as per his code it must state preliminary.
The law of WA is pretty clear.

Its the law.
Nobody is saying if you don't do as per that you will be charged. However it is the law none the less.

You are foolish if you really think that all the stuff behind the stamp is semantics.

Go ahead and design something others can prove that you knew were grossly incorrect and the owner or others were damaged. See where that gets you. See where it gets you in WA if you provide and charge a client for final drawings and fail to wet stamp and walk away.

Just see where that gets ya.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Agency filings affecting this section
[h=3]WAC 196-23-020[/h]

[h=3]Seal/stamp usage.[/h]

The use of the seal/stamp must be in accordance with chapter 18.43 RCW or as otherwise described herein:
(1) Final documents are those documents that are prepared and distributed for filing with public officials, use for construction, final agency approvals or use by clients. Any final document must contain the seal/stamp, signature and date of signature of the licensee who prepared or directly supervised the work. For the purpose of this section "document" is defined as plans, specifications, plats, surveys, as-built documents prepared by the licensee, and reports.
(2) Preliminary documents are those documents not considered final as defined herein, but are released or distributed by the licensee. Preliminary documents must be clearly identified as "PRELIMINARY" or contain such wording so it may be differentiated from a final document. Preliminary documents must be stamped, but need not be signed or dated by the licensee.
(3) Plan sets: Every page of a plan set must contain the seal/stamp, signature of the licensee(s) who prepared or who had direct supervision over the preparation of the work, and date of signature.
(a) Plans/plats containing work prepared by or under the direct supervision of more than one licensee should be sealed/stamped and dated by each licensee and shall clearly note the extent of each licensee's responsibility.
(b) As provided for in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, each page of a plan set must contain the seal/stamp of the licensee who prepared or who had direct supervision over the preparation of the work.
(c) Plan/plat sheets containing and/or depicting background and/or supporting information that is duplicated from other plans need only be sealed/stamped by the licensee(s) who prepared or was in direct supervision of the design. The origin of the background information shall be noted on the plan sheet.
(d) All design revisions to final plan/plat sheets shall clearly identify on each sheet; the revisions made and shall contain the name and seal of the licensee, and signature of the licensee with the date the sheet was sealed.
(4) Specifications: Specifications that are prepared by or under the direct supervision of a licensee shall contain the seal/stamp, signature of the licensee and the date of signature. If the specifications prepared by a licensee are a portion of a bound specification document that contains specifications other than that of an engineering or land surveying nature, the licensee need only seal/stamp that portion or portions of the documents for which the licensee is responsible. Nothing herein should be construed to require that each page of an engineering or land surveying specification be sealed/stamped by the licensee.
(5) Document review: When a licensee is required to review work prepared by another professional engineer or land surveyor, the reviewing licensee shall fully review those documents and shall prepare a report that discusses the findings of the review with any supporting calculations and sketches. The reviewing licensee would then seal/stamp, sign and date the report. The report would make reference to and/or be attached to the subject document(s) reviewed.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 18.43.035. WSR 08-10-009, § 196-23-020, filed 4/24/08, effective 7/1/08; WSR 06-22-036, § 196-23-020, filed 10/25/06, effective 11/25/06; WSR 99-15-055, § 196-23-020, filed 7/15/99, effective 8/15/99.]



How about the above.

 

[charlie b]

Charlie I think you need to read the code!
Here it is..... Chew on this.

Been there. Read that. Believe I understand it better than you do, because I am aware of what it does not say. What it does say is to give me my obligations to public safety. I will not seal and sign a document until I am confident that I have fulfilled those obligations. What it does not say is the meaning of the very act of sealing and signing. I’ll address that next.

YES it does! you have not read the whole section and directly related ones. By this statute a PE cannot produce knowingly faulty documents.

No one, and that includes me, has said otherwise. And the text you highlighted in red in post #35 is the same text that I quoted in post 23.

I am sorry Charlie but you walked into this. I as well as other electrical professionals are just plain tired of PE and EE hiding behind things.

I am not hiding behind anything. My seal and signature put me at risk of a lawsuit, in the event I failed in my obligations. It puts me at risk because it declares that nobody else is to be held responsible. I did this work, or I supervised this work, so blame nobody else but me. There is no place for me to hide.

It is about time that we here is the news about some design professional being sued or removed from practice for continued Gross Errors on plans.

Here is where WA publishes that information:
http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/disciplinary/disciplinaryel.html
Since you live in LA, here is the CA version:
http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/consumers/acc_disc_list.shtml
I am sure that other states have similar web sites. I also get periodic newsletters from the states in which I am licensed. Those newsletters have summaries of recent disciplinary actions.

 

[charlie b]

The law of WA is pretty clear.

And I have worked within that law for the past 18 years. I am fully aware of what it says. I have read every bit of text you have been quoting many, many times over the years. Please don't think you are revealing anything new to us.

You are foolish if you really think that all the stuff behind the stamp is semantics.

It is nothing like semantics. It is, as you pointed out, the law. Other states apparently have different laws. But in Washington State, the law says that my seal attests to the fact that the work was done by me or under my supervision. That is all it says. It is my responsibility to make sure the design conforms to codes, standards, and contracts, before I apply the seal. But when I do apply the seal, all that act says is that I take responsibility for the work.

 

[drktmplr12]

i think part of the point charlie is making is that it would be a mistake for anyone to assume that just because something is signed and sealed, it should be relied upon as compliant with applicable codes and standards.

to put it another way, it would be a mistake to assume that someone isn't doing something just because it's against the law.

a PE can put whatever he or she desires on the paper, however it isn't in his or her best interests to do so, as is rightly pointed out. the signing and sealing of documents only provides a mechanism by which to discipline negligent work that puts life and property safety at risk, which more often than not, is enough motivation for most people to get it right.

 

[Sierrasparky]

The semantics that many PE play is exactly that, the plans don't need to be compliant for them to sign and stamp them. If they ready for construction they better be compliant otherwise you can face discliplary action as well as a civil complaint as you have stated.
So if you want to go on saying that the stamp means nothing other than the person who signed it, by means please go on saying such. I said my points.




An example for CA. Just because you have a final sign off does not necessarily mean anything these days. Contractors many times do not follow codes or the plans and yet projects are given final. Large projects in my opinion really need inspectors paid on behalf of the owner to scrutinize work.
A bit diverged here.

 

[gadfly56]

The semantics that many PE play is exactly that, the plans don't need to be compliant for them to sign and stamp them. If they ready for construction they better be compliant otherwise you can face discliplary action as well as a civil complaint as you have stated.
So if you want to go on saying that the stamp means nothing other than the person who signed it, by means please go on saying such. I said my points.




An example for CA. Just because you have a final sign off does not necessarily mean anything these days. Contractors many times do not follow codes or the plans and yet projects are given final. Large projects in my opinion really need inspectors paid on behalf of the owner to scrutinize work.
A bit diverged here.

Charlie's position is perhaps more nuanced than most are used to dealing with. If, within the narrow definition of the law, the signature and seal mean only that the work was prepared by or under the supervision of the signee, then that's what it means. How the PE is to act regarding the execution of his work is covered under other portions of the law and any rules and regulations promulgated by the relevant governing bodies.

 

[petersonra]

Charlie's position is perhaps more nuanced than most are used to dealing with. If, within the narrow definition of the law, the signature and seal mean only that the work was prepared by or under the supervision of the signee, then that's what it means. How the PE is to act regarding the execution of his work is covered under other portions of the law and any rules and regulations promulgated by the relevant governing bodies.

what the law actually says is not exactly "nuance" in my book.

 

[gadfly56]

what the law actually says is not exactly "nuance" in my book.

Each portion of a statute means one particular thing. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Boy,
I never expected this tread to go this way. However it makes perfect sense, in the many years I have seen plans and specifications that blatantly violate applicable codes and standards of the industry. That as long as the PE feels that there is no substantial safety issue. That the PE just is testing the plan checker to see if PE can save the client money.

At this point I say Whatever floats your boat.
I know what is right.

 

[charlie b]

I will try just one last time, as I don't think you are tracking on my message.

I also know what is right. If the plans include code violations, then the PE should be taken to task for it. Absence of a substantial safety issue does not justify anything. If the PE is trying to slip something by the plan checker in an effort to make the client happy, then that PE will have violated the trust imparted to him or her by the licensing board.

All that said, here is the essence of the matter. If something goes wrong, resulting in an injury or property damage, the PE who sealed and signed the plans will not be able to say, “But I just reviewed the documents. They were designed by one of my employees. That person made the error, not me. Blame him.”

 

[petersonra]

Boy,
I never expected this tread to go this way. However it makes perfect sense, in the many years I have seen plans and specifications that blatantly violate applicable codes and standards of the industry. That as long as the PE feels that there is no substantial safety issue. That the PE just is testing the plan checker to see if PE can save the client money.

At this point I say Whatever floats your boat.
I know what is right.

When you ran across plans that blatantly violated applicable codes and standards, what happened when you reported these violations to the PE board?

 

[Sierrasparky]

I will try just one last time, as I don't think you are tracking on my message.

I also know what is right. If the plans include code violations, then the PE should be taken to task for it. Absence of a substantial safety issue does not justify anything. If the PE is trying to slip something by the plan checker in an effort to make the client happy, then that PE will have violated the trust imparted to him or her by the licensing board.

All that said, here is the essence of the matter. If something goes wrong, resulting in an injury or property damage, the PE who sealed and signed the plans will not be able to say, “But I just reviewed the documents. They were designed by one of my employees. That person made the error, not me. Blame him.”

Charlie, With all due respect we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. You feel that because the code or statute only says what you think it says and that there is no implied or any other rule applies in conjunction then fine. What I said earlier "what ever floats your boat"

 

[midamericairon]

Charlie, With all due respect we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. You feel that because the code or statute only says what you think it says and that there is no implied or any other rule applies in conjunction then fine. What I said earlier "what ever floats your boat"

Wow!!! You engineers really know how to attack each other!

It would be my dream job if, as an “installer”, that you could build the project as per the prints and walk away with everything working as the customer expects it to work. It’s not happened in 20+ years, so I don’t see it changing any time soon. If anything, it seems to be getting worse. So much more responsibility is being put on the “installers” in the field to “make it work”.

That’s just me joining in the rant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[charlie b]

Wow!!! You engineers really know how to attack each other!

I hadn't noticed any engineers attacking one another. I have noticed a polite disagreement between one engineer and one electrician. But that sort of thing happens on the forum all the time.

Sent from my laptop using Tapakeyboard.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Wow!!! You engineers really know how to attack each other!

It would be my dream job if, as an “installer”, that you could build the project as per the prints and walk away with everything working as the customer expects it to work. It’s not happened in 20+ years, so I don’t see it changing any time soon. If anything, it seems to be getting worse. So much more responsibility is being put on the “installers” in the field to “make it work”.

That’s just me joining in the rant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

]

The reason for the escalating incompetence is the owners grinding the PE and others on price. As a FYI here in CA the contractor in a public works project is not responsible for any resulting issues due to incorrect plans if he built the entire project as per approved plans. ( that is the caveat) The usual clause in the prints putting the onus on the contractor is invalid as long as the plans were followed precisely what will usually happen is the contractor fails in another aspect and negates the whole concept.

It all boils down to who has the most leverage not the actual law.