Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Plan stampers

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Shawn... Thanks for the info, You are a gentleman and a Scholar. I take
back everything I said about Florida (besides the alligator thing).

The way they state paragraph 2, is my view on the matter, and it cannot
be stated any clearer. 

Kevin



-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn M. Stambaugh, PE [mailto:sstambaugh(--nospam--at)qeassociates.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:48 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Plan stampers

This was found in the FAQ on the Florida Board of Professional Engineers
website.


"When taking over an engineering job from another engineer, do I need to
redraw all the plans?"
 
No, not necessarily. Rule 61G15-27.001, F.A.C. however, makes it clear
that
a successor engineer seeking to reuse already sealed documents must be
able
to document that he has, in fact, recreated all the work done by the
original engineer. In other words, all site visits, research, and the
like
must be documented and producible upon demand. In addition, he or she
must
remove the old title block and use his own and, of course, accept all
professional and legal responsibility for the documents.



"Occasionally I have been asked by a contractor or other professional to
sign and seal plans they did. I understand I can only sign and seal
plans
over which I have had responsible charge but what is meant by
"responsible
charge?"
 
Consider the following test found in Rule 61G15-18.011, F.A.C.: An
engineer
who signs and seals engineering documents in responsible charge must be
capable of answering questions relevant to the engineering decisions
made
during the engineer's work on the project, in sufficient detail as to
leave
little doubt as to the engineer's proficiency for the work performed. It
is
not necessary to defend decisions as in an adversarial situation, but
only
to demonstrate that the engineer in responsible charge made them and
possessed sufficient knowledge of the project to make them. Examples of
questions the engineer must be able to answer include the criteria for
design, methods of analysis, selection of materials and systems,
economics
of alternate solutions, and environmental considerations. 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Wilson [mailto:wilsonengineers(--nospam--at)yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 3:21 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Plan stampers

I guess I'm struggling with what the definitive illegal offense is in
some
cases.  I'm straight with the illegality of plan stamping like the guy
from
PA that offered to stamp plans for $9 a sheet, or whatever it was.
That's
perfectly clear.  I'm also straight with the concept of direct
supervision. 
Whether the intent is to ensure that younger unlicensed engineers are
being
properly taught, or to ensure that the stamping engineer is fully aware
of
what is in the design, the assumptions, etc., that aspect is clear.

But is it clear legally if one firm prepares a design and set of
drawings,
but needs them stamped by an outside engineer because the firm doesn't
have
an in-house engineer licensed in a particular state?  Any possibility
for
direct supervision is out the window. 
By what I've been reading today and have read here in the past, this is
considered an illegal act.  Now, if that outside engineer does full due
diligence and provides an independent calculation or full check set, and
then stamps the drawings or calcs, has that engineer acted within the
law?
I expect so, as many of us have done that at one point or another.  But
what
about the firm that did the original design and prepared the original
drawings?  Have they acted illegally by "practicing" in another state
without license or perhaps without proper supervision?  It sounds like
maybe
they have.

That's where it doesn't seem black and white.  The concept of "direct
supervision" seems to be in contradiction with stamping a drawing
prepared
by anyone other than an employee under responsible charge, even if the
PE
provided a proper check set of calcs and validated the design.

Different states with different laws don't make this any easier. 

Jim Wilson, PE
Stroudsburg, PA

--- Christopher Wright <chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:22 AM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> 
> > These board disciplinary decisions that have been mentioned make the

> > matter sound so black and
> white.
> Actually it is pretty much black and white. As an engineer, you're 
> obligated to carry personal responsibility for the quality and 
> substance of the work represented by a set of drawings, and you can't 
> take responsibility for something over which you have no control. You 
> can delegate the actual work, but only to the extent that you control 
> the results of such work.
> 
> The seal on a report or a set of drawings indicates that the engineer 
> can accept responsibility for the drawings'
> substance and content and
> has in fact done so. The seal doesn't attest to quality so much as 
> responsibility for quality.
> 
> Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
> chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com   | this distance" (last words
> of Gen.
> .......................................| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania
> 1864)
> http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw/
> 
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* *******
> ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********