Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Canadian license "plan stamping" rules

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Daryl,

I would agree with you that in all cases that you offer, the engineer
would be doing the engineering work and thus would not be plan stamping.
In otherwords, the engineer is making all the engineering decisions and
the "other person" (aka the drafter, who could be a direct employee or a
subcontractor...who could be in the office or the other side of the world
[not that I want to start off an out sourcing debate]) is basically just a
"drawing tool" (i.e. just a means to get the engineers design presented on
paper).  The engineer is still making all the engineering decisions.  All
of the scenarios that you offer would include (at least in my mind) some
sort of review/check phase by the engineer to ensure that the drafter is
accurately drawing what the engineer designed/detailed.

Now, having said that I believe the some PE boards may have stricter
interpretations (for example, it seems that Texas might view things as I
viewed them above based upon past posts from those in Texas and familiar
with their rules & rulings).  While I might think such stricter
interpretations might be going over board on the intent of things like
"direct supervision", my opinion doesn't really count for much as I am not
on any states' PE board.  ;-)

Now, you don't have any scenarios where there is a second person making
some engineering judgements.  This could include a junior engineer, who
may (i.e. another PE or PEng) or may not be licensed (i.e. an EIT in the
US).  You could envision a similar set of scenarios with such a person
involved.  To me, this is where the direct supervision provision (and any
associated "rulings") is really intented to be applied.  If someone else
is involved with the actual engineering process (i.e. the
design/detailing), then if that person is not a PE who will sign/seal the
drawings, then the PE who will must have the "direct supervision" of the
engineering.  Now, the employment status and location of the "other
engineer" can be important as well as what the responsible (i.e. sealing)
engineer does in terms on the engineering desicions.

My point is that if the project is small enough that only one engineer is
required and thus there is really only one person making engineering
judgements, but a second (or more) individual is involved purely to put
the engineer's work/design on a presentation format (i.e. CADD and/or
paper), then it is not even a matter of direct supervision.  The engineer
is doing all the engineering (again assuming that there is a review/check
phase).  It is when the "sealing" engineer is working with one or more
other "engineers" (licensed or not) on doing the actual engineering design
that "plan stamping" or "direct supervision" issues become a potential
concern.  This could because the project is large enough (or schedule
short enough) the only one engineer cannot feasibly do all the work or
because the "sealing" engineer has some many projects occurring that s/he
needs help doing the engineering.

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Daryl Richardson wrote:

> Fellow Engineers,
>
>         Whether it's in Canada or in the U.S.A. this appears to come down to
> one question, "What constitutes direct supervision?"
>
>         As an example for discussion purposes, consider the following three
> (or maybe it's five; I never could count properly late at night anyway)
> scenarios:
>
> 1.    On an architectural project I take the architect's drawings, prepare a
> structural layout, complete the design and have an employee draftsman
> compete the drawings which I review and stamp.
>
> 1a.   The same as Item 1 except the draftsman is an independent contract
> draftsman, a subcontractor if you like.
>
> 2.    I assign the draftsman (as an employee or as an independent
> subcontractor) to take the architect's drawings, prepare a structural layout
> for me to complete the design, make any adjustments necessary, have the
> draftsman complete the drawings which I review and stamp.
>
> 3.    The same as Item 2 except the draftsman is now contracted by the
> architect.
>
> 3a.   The same as Item 3 except the draftsman is now a direct employee of
> the architect.  Or, for that matter, he's working for the owner or for one
> of the project contractors.
>
>         In my mind the above scenarios are all essentially the same.  The
> same three people are performing roughly the same tasks in all cases.  There
> is only a slight  difference between Items 1&1a, and the other Items in the
> level of responsibility (Here I'm talking seniority or responsibility to me
> for doing the work; not financial responsibility to third parties under
> contract law for the correctness of the work) that I assign to the draftsman
> who is working under my general supervision.  It is generally regarded as
> good business practice to have employees working at the highest level of
> responsibility consistent with their abilities.
>
>         In my opinion the most important thing (or, to paraphrase Vince
> Lombardi, the only important thing) is not who was holding the pencil when
> it was making contact with the paper, but that the E.O.R. can honestly
> confirm that the information on the drawing is completely correct and that
> (s)he stands behind the design.
>
>         I'm looking forward to further discussion on this topic.
>
> Best regards,
>
> H. Daryl Richardson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Baron, Darryl (DR)" <DRBARON(--nospam--at)dow.com>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:56 AM
> Subject: RE: Canadian license "plan stamping" rules
>
>
> > Each province in Canada has legislation in place that charges a
> > professional organization with the responsibility of governing the
> > practice of engineering in that province. The definition of "engineering"
> > is very broad, and appears to be fairly consistent across the country.
> > There are some differences between the provinces in the details of how
> > this is done, but all provinces (and territories) have the same general
> > rule - engineering work in a province or territory can only be done by a
> > person who is registered as a professional member with that province's
> > association, and the final work product of a professional member is
> > supposed to be stamped. This includes drawings, specifications, reports,
> > etc. Generally, a professional member can only stamp work that they have
> > done personally or which is done under their direct supervision, but at
> > least one province (Alberta) has provisions for relying on work done by
> > others. These provisions are intended to cover situations like relying on
> > man
> >
> > Darryl Baron P. Eng.
> > Dow Chemical Canada Inc.
> > Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > *
> > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********