Another Peer Review question - license requirements in US States

[JAE]

If you are asked to provide a peer review of another engineer's plans (private project - not governmental), and the project is in a particular state:

1. Is it proper or necessary for you to be licensed in that state?
2. With your review, you produce a list of comments, corrections, suggestions, etc. - should that document be sealed and signed by a licensed engineer in that state?

Keep in mind that there is already an Engineer of Record in the state that is the final responsible charge. You are just providing a layer of quality control or improvement
by reviewing the drawings.

Some state's suggest that the "practice of engineering" includes "reviews" or "evaluations".

Thanks,

 

[msquared48]

As a courtesy to another engineer in another state, I would have no problems with giving my opinions and reactions to the design. However, I could and would not seal anything, letter or otherwise, for his state if that was required by his client and I was not licensed there. The slope is too slippery...

Remuneration for the review - well that's another issue that really muddies the water here... Without a license in that state, I would probably have to do it as a professional courtesy, and not very often.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[IRstuff]

This would seem to be a problem that is barely being solved for a bunch of other industries, like Amazon.

Are you really "practicing" in his state? Or are you practicing in your licensed state?

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[msquared48]

You are "practicing" in the state where the project is.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[IRstuff]

That just seems weird to me; if you are practicing in a state where you've never been to, does that mean that you owe income tax in that state?

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[rowingengineer]

I don't think number 1 is something I can comment on but I do provide comments on engineers works from and in over sea locations and I have never had to be registered in the country.

As for number 2. When providing comments I do sign my opinions with my official registrations, I do this for all my official opinions bar when they are verbal.

http://www.nceng.com.au/

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

 

[Ron]

As Mike mentioned, it is a slippery slope and has to be approached carefully.

In court, judges routinely skirt state engineering laws by allowing testimony of out of state engineers who are not licensed in the state, even though most practice rules state that if you provide testimony on engineering issues you are providing engineering services. Most judges are more liberal in their interpretation that if you are qualified to be licensed in that state, and similar requirements are present for licensing in the respective states, you are qualified. That doesn't meet the letter of the law, but probably meets the intent.

Still, if the issues become contentious, you can get a complaint filed against you. Successful or not, it would still be a pain in the a$$ to go through.

I would caveat any written correspondence with clear statements that your intent is for professional purposes of peer review and your comments are offered as such and are not to be construed in substitution of the EOR's design or analysis, and do not replace the engineering done by the EOR. They are for consideration only.

Both NSPE and ASCE have had peer review processes in the past...I don't know how they handled the issue, but it has been done many times.

 

[wannabeSE]

JAE,
As usual, your question is thought provoking (should I be doing something different). I imagine it may depend on the nature of the peer review. Is this an internal QA/QC or an external peer review required by a contract? Could the peer review be construed as acting under the responsible charge of the engineer of record?

 

[Forensic74]

I dont think this is any different than having an EIT look over the drawings for issues. However, if you feel the EOR is lacking competence in a certain area which you are supplementing, then you start treading into grey waters, especially if something should go wrong.

 

[JAE]

wannabeSE - This is not an internal QC - we are hired separately from the EOR. We are not acting as in responsible charge of the EOR - only proving an "outside" layer of review to perhaps aid/assist/improve the EOR's design.

MainMan10 - Nothing about the EOR's competence. Even if they were a fabled "perfect" engineer we would still do the QC.

 

[Ron]

JAE...you've probably already thought of this, but many states have a provision for single project or short term practice (temp license). I've done this a couple of times over the years.

 

[JAE]

Ron - thanks. In this case I'm already licensed in the state...but the firm isn't licensed as a corporate entity there.
So if I have to seal it then presumably I'm practicing in the state, and the firm needs to get the status there.

 

[Ron]

JAE...got it! You could, of course, take on all the liability and sign it individually!

 

[JAE]

OK - I'll do that - right after you hire me as a contract employee and I do it under your corporate umbrella.

 

[Forensic74]

oh, this is an issue of business entity licensing? Stamped drawings or not, either way I think what you're doing is categorized as engineering services; I dont think your company can offer such services in a state they're not licensed.

 

[msquared48]

Sounds like you need to get licensed in the state of the project, JAE. I would.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering