This is interesting 1

Anyone see this?

Maybe they worked with the guy in Pennsylvania who did online structural engineering

Hell, if no one complained, maybe these guys should be given a professorship at Univ. of California to teach new engineers how to do a job cheapkly and have it pass plan review.

Interesting.

The comments on that article are almost as crazy.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

Goes to show there is not much oversight in residential construction or light commercial, or maybe just in that area.

My last post was similar, a garage-engineer trying to out engineer an engineer. Unfortunately it was removed.

This it out there, we need to be aware.

Here's what P!$$2$ me off about this story: it gives ammunition to those who say "why do you need a PE to design anything?"

Fun things I read in the article -
- Stolen engineering software allows criminals to produce building plans
- "Legitimate Professional Engineers" (not to be confused with illegitimate) take grueling tests and have 5 years experience (the only thing grueling about them was that they were 8 hours each and I had to sit next to a guy who had failed it 5 times before)
- "the value of architectural licensure is "immeasurable."" (Actually, the value of the license is negligible. The real value lies with the Architect and his ability - good thing I'm not a spokesman for the AIA).

I wonder if they had liability insurance or were posters to this website?

Presumably, the State of Calif., the Counties and Cities, the AHJ’s never missed a chance to collected their fees and also conducted plan checking, permitting, inspection and final inspections for occupancy. How could they have been doing the jobs for which they had collected fees, and then, this go on completely unnoticed for about ten or eleven years? Many plan checking nit-pickers drive real engineers crazy when the engineer is not dotting their I’s or crossing their T’s correctly. You mean there were never any questions with these particular plans and building operations which raised red flags? You mean the real engineering company never got any calls about their supposed projects, when something went haywire? It would seem that at least part of the reason this fraud went on so long, undetected, was that all of the various public authorities involved were, at the very lease, not being very vigilant and doing their jobs fully. I’m sure they never missed a chance to collect their fees though. There should also be some minimal investigation of all fo the Architects, builders, owners, etc. involved in these projects, that none of them made a min. effort to verify who they were dealing with. This seems to be an indictment of the whole system above the engineers doing the design work.

I certainly think these guys who committed this fraud should be hung out for a good long time, not just given a cease and desist order. I’m all for Professional Registration and the protection of the public on who’s behalf we toil for their health, safety and welfare. But, that something like this could go on so long, I think says something about the whole registration and AHJ system, and what it says isn’t so good. According to police, “Neither had the training, expertise or credentials to vouch for the safety of the building plans, and authorities are only now grasping the scope of the problem.” But, they had the ‘the training, expertise or credentials’ to fool all the public officials who we pay to oversee Professional Registration and our building industries.

Every article I've read on the subject uses extremely pejorative terms, probably supplied by the PE commission, to describe the two men. They worked at the company that they claimed to work for later, so it's not like they weren't in the industry to begin with. And, it's highly unlikely that completely untrained and uneducated guys could do reasonably correct calculations hundreds of times simply by dumb luck.

"According to police, “Neither had the training, expertise or credentials to vouch for the safety of the building plans, and authorities are only now grasping the scope of the problem.”

Sure, the police have the training, expertise or credentials to make that assessment? I think not; it's more likely they got that from someone else with an axe to grind. The usage of "phony" and "bogus" leads me to suspect that this is a demonization process, to paint the two people in the worst possible light in the court of public opinion. Particularly in view of the fact that there are lots of engineers that might be sufficiently qualified to do that work, but don't have licenses. So, how to make the case that the PE license is critical to the actual process? By demonizing the people that don't have licenses.

I'm not saying they were or weren't qualified; it's just that there's nothing but pejoratives used when describing the two scofflaws. It would be much more credible if there was something that said, "Mr. A only graduated from high school, and Mr. B only has a degree in English Lit. If that were the case, then sure, hang the two demons and boil them in oil. Additionally, it seems to me there might be a self-serving element as well, given that there are now "hundreds" of analyses that need to be vetted by experts, who are going to have to be paid to do that.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //faq731-376 forum1529

I think the only way to hope to disuade others who may be doing this is give extremely harsh penalties for someone who is blatently and willfully practicing engineering without a license. Throw the book at them and then some.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

The drawings don't surprise me that much. This is the problem with electronic signatures and such, right?

If they had access to all their previous company's standard drawings and notes and such then all they had to do was find similar drawing from previous jobs. And, then do some basic / simple CAD work and the drawing would all look legit.

What I'm shocked about is that around here (Southern), you are normally expected to submit engineering calculations with your designs. So, how did they get around that? Or, maybe no one at the cities they work in is actually reviewing calculations?

IRstuff said:

I'm not saying they were or weren't qualified

Click to expand...

Let's be clear here. They were not qualified for the simple reason that they were not licensed. Without a doubt, the license is not the end all be all, but it is the legal starting place which should be expected from anyone that wants to practice engineering in the construction field. If these gentlemen wanted to be engineers, I believe they could have been. Instead, they chose to live outside the confines of the law. That choice defines them better than any piece of paper or test could.

No, let's be clear, they WERE qualified. CA professional engineering act exempts the types of projects they are said to have worked on, CA Business and Professions Code 6737.1. They are exempt because of the simple fact is that the type of construction preforms well during earthquakes.

They are going to be in trouble for the fraud of using the license to stamp the drawings had they not done that they could have still submitted drawings and calculations following the conventional framing requirements. The article has so many glaring issues it's not even funny. If find it a little funny that everyone is so upset yet, Professor Prevedouros is not a registered PE in California or Hawaii or any US state, and his expertise is transportation. He is as unqualified to talk about these guys as they were. Going to start calling for him to step down?

JoshPlum said:

This is the problem with electronic signatures and such, right?

Click to expand...

I don't think there is a problem with electronic seals. Anyone can go buy a physical stamp and forge a signature. If someone wants to commit fraud, it is easy. This is my beef with my Board requiring us to jump through a bunch of third party certification hoops in order to do electronic seals. It does nothing to prevent fraud.

Whatever their technical capabilities may or may not be there's no way around the fact that it's outright fraud, same as if they had forged checks.

"They were not qualified for the simple reason that they were not licensed."

I was referring to the technical issue and not the legal issue, which are separate. Two people, with the same training, experience, and education, but one with a license are both qualified to do the calculations, but the one without the license would need to be working under a licensed engineer. The quality of the work would essentially be identical, it's just how the law perceives the work.

"No, let's be clear, they WERE qualified. CA professional engineering act exempts the types of projects they are said to have worked on, CA Business and Professions Code 6737.1."

They would only be in the clear if they hadn't pretended to be PEs; that makes the exemption moot, particularly since they had to have violated the PE Act itself. BTW, I don't see where 6737.1 would apply to commercial buildings like strip malls.
TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //faq731-376 forum1529

Yes, as I said they could have done the work under the exemption. You are correct the exception would not and it is not clear what work they truly did, reports were it was just homes and additions.

Just saw it. A collegue who is in Alaska, but licensed in California sent it.

Just a few problems I guess, but I think they should all shake out eventually, since this was in California.

So... looks our stamps and other paperwork can be obtained on the black market between the opium vendors now.

Great, just great.



Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

sandman21 is very observant w/r/t the professor.