PE Stamping with customer specification

[Sierrasparky]

Okay-

If you submit final plans to a agency or a owner and WA law states that the PE needs to wet stamp and sign.
The Stamped plans are gross factually incorrect , not to code or minimum standards. The specs provided to the PE were correct, the PE made several hours of site visit prior to final plans. The site was always available for inspection. Nothing was hidden or concealed. Either the owner , agency or contractors have been financially harmed.

What say you the PE?
Can the PE claim oopsy and offer to just make the plan corrections.
Is the PE subject to disciplinary action.
Is the PE subject to Civil claims.
Is the PE subject criminal claims.

I say if any is correct then it is implied that the stamp is more that a testament that the plans were prepared by and supervised.

:thumbsup:

 

[gadfly56]

No one has argued that the PE does not have an obligation to see that the design follows the appropriate standards.

Precisely. In WA the seal and signature signify that the documents were prepared by or under the supervision of the signee. One tiny portion of the entire legal structure surrounding the practice of engineering in WA. Other portions of the law govern how the PE is to conduct himself.

 

[petersonra]

Okay-

If you submit final plans to a agency or a owner and WA law states that the PE needs to wet stamp and sign.
The Stamped plans are gross factually incorrect , not to code or minimum standards. The specs provided to the PE were correct, the PE made several hours of site visit prior to final plans. The site was always available for inspection. Nothing was hidden or concealed. Either the owner , agency or contractors have been financially harmed.

What say you the PE?
Can the PE claim oopsy and offer to just make the plan corrections.
Is the PE subject to disciplinary action.
Is the PE subject to Civil claims.
Is the PE subject criminal claims.

I say if any is correct then it is implied that the stamp is more that a testament that the plans were prepared by and supervised.

:thumbsup:

The PE is responsible financially professional malpractice. he might also be subject to disciplinary actions. Criminal cases are pretty hard to prove in such cases.

Now you have gone away from claiming the law says it to some it is implied. There is no such thing as implied law. it either says it or it doesn't. And the law does not say it in this case.

 

[charlie b]

Why are some of you having a hard time with this? I will do whatever it takes to make sure my designs are compliant with codes and contractual obligations. I will do that before I seal and sign the documents. If you see my seal and signature on a document, you can be assured that I personally made sure they were compliant. That is what a PE does. I don’t understand why anyone is questioning this aspect of my posts in this thread.

Now if, heaven forbid, there are technical errors in my design and they result in either added costs for correcting the errors or an injury to a person working in the building, I can certainly (and should certainly) be taken to task. I can imagine being asked, in court, many questions about my experience, my technical competency, and the reasons the errors were not caught before the documents were sealed and signed. But there is one thing, above all other things, that I absolutely would not be able to do: I would not be able to foist the blame on someone else. The law clearly says that by signing and sealing the documents, I asserted that the work was done by me or under my supervision. The purpose of that law is to prevent a PE for eluding the blame for his or her own errors.

Now, please accept that there is no connection between my professional obligations under the law and the assertion I make when I seal and sign a document.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Now you have gone away from claiming the law says it to some it is implied.

Never made such claim , Maybe you implied this
There is no such thing as implied law. it either says it or it doesn't. And the law does not say it in this case.

Really , is that your final answer.

Obviously you have not been looking at legal cases lately. The Judges are constantly making decision as to what the law states. Judges are constantly writing law from the bench.

IMHO

 

[Sierrasparky]

Why are some of you having a hard time with this? I will do whatever it takes to make sure my designs are compliant with codes and contractual obligations. I will do that before I seal and sign the documents. If you see my seal and signature on a document, you can be assured that I personally made sure they were compliant. That is what a PE does. I don’t understand why anyone is questioning this aspect of my posts in this thread.

Now if, heaven forbid, there are technical errors in my design and they result in either added costs for correcting the errors or an injury to a person working in the building, I can certainly (and should certainly) be taken to task. I can imagine being asked, in court, many questions about my experience, my technical competency, and the reasons the errors were not caught before the documents were sealed and signed. But there is one thing, above all other things, that I absolutely would not be able to do: I would not be able to foist the blame on someone else. The law clearly says that by signing and sealing the documents, I asserted that the work was done by me or under my supervision. The purpose of that law is to prevent a PE for eluding the blame for his or her own errors.

Now, please accept that there is no connection between my professional obligations under the law and the assertion I make when I seal and sign a document.

What a game of semantics here.

Just because you feel that you can bamboozle someone of authority that because of your years expertise or yada yada yada does not make the not to code issue thing any less.

IMHO

 

[Ingenieur]

The PE is responsible financially professional malpractice. he might also be subject to disciplinary actions. Criminal cases are pretty hard to prove in such cases.

Now you have gone away from claiming the law says it to some it is implied. There is no such thing as implied law. it either says it or it doesn't. And the law does not say it in this case.

it does say it, not implied, codified

not saying it applies in this case, the law is clear, code/stds must be observed by PE law
but if all laws never seemed 'implied' or needed clarification/interpretation, no need for various levels of the judicial system

 

[Ingenieur]

although responsible charge is an important component of the law, it is not the primary rationale FOR the law
responsible charge means the pe is responsible for the work and INVOLVED in the design process, if only a review, to ensure that a techinally competent person is involved (and responsible), not only willing to assume legal liabity

the reason for the law is to ensure minimun technical competency via education, experience, references and testing

not a 'paper trail'
if that were the case just hand out licenses with bonding/insurance and ASSUME competency

 

[JoeStillman]

I've always been advised that Professionals should expect to be held to a higher standard than the general public. That's how we got to this thread in the first place. As far as I know, there is no building code that requires compliance with IEEE 519. It's a voluntary standard or, at most, enforced by the utility company. The owner volunteered to comply by putting it in the spec. They may change their mind when they find out what it costs to comply.

 

[JoeStillman]

I am a rookie PE (obtained in January) and am now asked to use my license to use for the first time by designing electrical drawings that are similar to another job. I have a large government specification that asks to meet certain restrictions. One example here is meeting IEEE 519. I don't believe our equipment will meet this, but I don't necessarily see a safety hazard associated with not meeting IEEE 519. Does part of stamping a job as a PE take into account customers' wishes or am I just to hold strict to code - UL508A and NEC with safety taken into account? Forgive my ignorance.

As the Engineer of Record for electrical work at my company, one of the perks is my IEEE subscription. The company pays for me to be able to download any IEEE standard I might need. I picked up 519 a while ago. I suggest you read it and see how in-applicable it can be. Your utility has to be pretty soft or else your total expected harmonics a huge percentage of the total load before any measures are required for mitigation.

 

[charlie b]

What a game of semantics here. Just because you feel that you can bamboozle someone of authority that because of your years expertise or yada yada yada does not make the not to code issue thing any less. IMHO

Will you PLEASE WAKE UP to the fact that I have, many times, said that I follow code. I never said otherwise. I am not trying to bamboozle anyone. This is not semantics. I know the law in my state, and I follow the law. All I have tried to do in this thread is to clarify what the law says. So, for one last time, here is the TWO PART STORY:

1. One law says I have to follow code. Check. Got it. Will do.
2. A different law says that when I seal and sign, I am announcing that I did the work. Check. Got it. I'm OK making that announcement.

If you once again state, or even imply, that I or any other PE is neglecting our duties to follow code, I will close this thread.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Then close this thread if you don't like it. You are a moderator!


What I said was my "opinion" with my years of experience and I am sticking to it!

 

[petersonra]

I suspect someone may have had a bad experience with an engineer in the past.

 

[gadfly56]

Then close this thread if you don't like it. You are a moderator!


What I said was my "opinion" with my years of experience and I am sticking to it!

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Charles has given you the facts; you just don't like them.

 

[roger]

Charles has given you the facts; you just don't like them.

And speaking from an electrician's point of view, I agree.

Charlie has stated that his seal indicates his designs follow applicable codes but that is not a guarantee that there may not be some deficiencies, it does guarantee he did his best and supervised the design.

Just my $.02

Roger

 

[Ingenieur]

I think the debate is does the PE statute and associated laws REQUIRE the design to comply with applicable codes and standards (obviously it can't require perfect, error free results)
it does
in PA all in one law
in WA, apparently supplemental law, but both apply
but the result is the same: the PE is required by law to design to code/laws./applicable standards

 

[Sierrasparky]

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Charles has given you the facts; you just don't like them.

I don't feel I provided my own made up facts. I cut and pasted them from the LAW.
I also provided my opinion which some do not agree. I have the experience and I have a problem with the words " take it to task" what a reprimand or go to the corner. ( as that is the general meaning)

Again my humble opinion.

And speaking from an electrician's point of view, I agree.

Charlie has stated that his seal indicates his designs follow applicable codes but that is not a guarantee that there may not be some deficiencies, it does guarantee he did his best and supervised the design.

Just my $.02

Roger

Again your opinion.
I agree there is no guarantee, as with much of life. However that is not the rub here.

 

[petersonra]

in WA, apparently supplemental law, but both apply
but the result is the same: the PE is required by law to design to code/laws./applicable standards

The administrative code is not "supplemental law". It is the administrative code. It is not law at all. It does not mean you can just ignore its requirement but it is not law.

No one has ever argued in this thread that a PE can just ignore the appropriate codes and standards when doing a design.

 

[Sierrasparky]

The administrative code is not "supplemental law". It is the administrative code. It is not law at all. It does not mean you can just ignore its requirement but it is not law.

No one has ever argued in this thread that a PE can just ignore the appropriate codes and standards when doing a design.

OMG, now we have it that the Administrative code is not LAW?
Well I can't tell you for a fact that in WA the Admin Code is law or not, as everywhere else it is.

Administrative law is the body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include rule making, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law.

I suspect someone may have had a bad experience with an engineer in the past.

in sorts yes. I have seen many a gross factual errors in plans. I had a set that a out of state PE drew plans and associated load calcs. The PE omitted some huge loads, and did not calculate the length of track in the loads. It was brought it to his attention and he redid the plans and omitted other loads. The problem is the calcs would not fit into a 100 amp panel as drawn. What had to happen is was either track limiters or a limiting panel. In the end I was approved to hire my own EE and get new plans and submit to the agency. It cost a hassle. This was the worst.

I think the debate is does the PE statute and associated laws REQUIRE the design to comply with applicable codes and standards (obviously it can't require perfect, error free results)
it does
in PA all in one law
in WA, apparently supplemental law, but both apply
but the result is the same: the PE is required by law to design to code/laws./applicable standards

Yes it is the law!

Administrative law is the body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include rule making, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law.

 

[petersonra]

Administrative law is the body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include rule making, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law.

Right out of Wikipedia. very impressive.