IMO that is a bit too restrictive. As long as a design is safe, compliant with all relevant codes, and adherent to all local jurisdictional requirements, what difference does it make how it got that way?
Well, it's the law in many states and as we all know sometimes we don't all agree on the law, but it's still the law. A lot can be found on the subject by an internet search for "plan stamping." I will add that I see plan stamping PEs doing code reviews of designs and saying that is all that needs to be done, but that is not the sum total of what engineers do. Trained monkeys can do code review, PEs provide engineering. PEs sell themselves short and damage the profession when saying PEs are just responsible for verifying safety and code compliance.
I'm most familiar with CA requirements and this is their definition of responsible charge from the board rules:
404.1. Responsible Charge – Professional Engineering .
(a) As used in the Professional Engineers Act, the term “responsible charge” directly relates to the extent of control a professional engineer is required to maintain while exercising independent control and direction of professional engineering services or creative work and to the engineering decisions which can be made only by a professional engineer.
(1) Extent of Control. The extent of control necessary to be in responsible charge shall be such that the engineer:
(A) Makes or reviews and approves the engineering decisions defined and described in subdivision (a)(2) below.
(B) In making or reviewing and approving the engineering decisions, determines the applicability of design criteria and technical recommendations provided by others before incorporating such criteria or recommendations.
(2) Engineering Decisions. The term “responsible charge” relates to engineering decisions within the purview of the Professional Engineers Act.
Engineering decisions which must be made by and are the responsibility of the engineer in responsible charge are those decisions concerning permanent or temporary projects which could create a hazard to life, health, property , or public welfare, and may include, but are not limited to:
(A) The selection of engineering alternatives to be investigated and the comparison of alternatives for the project.
(B) The selection or development of design standards or methods, and materials to be used.
(C) The decisions related to the preparation of engineering plans, specifications, calculations, reports, and other documents for the engineered works.
(D) The selection or development of techniques or methods of testing to be used in evaluating materials or completed projects , either new or existing.
(E) The review and evaluation of manufacturing, fabrication or construction methods or controls to be used and the evaluation of test res ults, materials and workmanship insofar as they affect the character and integrity of the completed project .
(F) The development and control of operating and maintenance procedures.
(3) Reviewing and Approving Engineering Decisions. In making or reviewing and approving engineering decisions, the engineer shall be physically present or shall review and approve through the use of communication devices the engineering decisions prior to their implementation.
(b) Responsible Charge Criteria. In order to evaluate whether an engineer is in responsible charge, the following must be considered:
The professional engineer who signs engineering documents must be capable of answering questions asked by individuals who are licensed by the Board in the appropriate branch of professional engineering relevant to the project and who are fully competent and proficient by education and experience in the field or fields of professional engineering relevant to the project. These questions would be relevant to the engineering decisions made during the individual’s participation in the project, and in sufficient detail to leave little question as to the engineer’s technical knowledge of the engineering performed. It is not necessary to defend decisions as in an adversarial situation, but only to demonstrate that the individual in responsible charge made, or reviewed and approved, them and possessed sufficient knowledge of the project to make, or review and approve, them.
Examples of questions to be answered by the engineer could relate to criteria for design, methods of analysis, methods of manufacture and construction, selection of materials and systems, economics of alternate solutions, and environmental considerations. The individual should be able to clearly express the extent of control and how it is exercised and to demonstrate that the engineer is answerable within said extent of control.
Back to my exposition. The PE can "make" the engineering decisions or "review and approve" the engineering decisions. This is where PEs doing plan stamping slip up. Being given a finished set of plans to review would not let the PE review the engineering decisions because all the information that goes into those decisions is not captured in the plans. That information also comes from site walk downs, meetings with the owners and project developers, developing the equipment specifications, and other background information that never makes it into the final plans. In order to review and approve the plans, the PE would have to be privy to all the information needed to create the plans in the first place. Maybe the PE can do a codes and standards review since they don't need to know much about the engineering decisions to do that, but that's not being in responsible charge.
Is there a legitimate way to do a review and stamp project? Sure, but the PE has to have all the information on the project just as they would if they were doing all the engineering design from scratch. They need to understand all the engineering decisions that were made that resulted in the plans they are given, they need to approve those decisions or have the ability to have the plans revised. But this will probably not be in the client's budget since they want a review and stamp that is cheap. Once the PE adds up all the costs of being in responsible charge the client is gone looking for a cheap plan stamper.
All that being said, there are a lot of PEs out there doing plan stamping for a few hundred dollars a sheet. It's quick money that many ethically challenged PEs working on their own are willing to take. I get regular calls from contractors looking for a cheap stamp on their "perfect" designs that don't really need any review. Doing it is bad for the engineering profession and personally, I enjoy seeing a plan stamper go down in an enforcement case.
