Remote Engineering 3

[EddyC]

Check this out:

http://www.plan-source.com

They apparently offer professional engineering services in the USA utilizing a workforce overseas. Their designs are stamped by stateside PEs. I get the impression that this type of business model is not legal, but lets see what others think.

 

[DRC1]

My impression of these setups is that you send a bunch of site information and in a few weeks you have a bridge or building plan set. I don't care if an Indian firm is designing a bridge in the US or a US firm is designing a building in Germany, The engineering team has got to see it and the supervising engineer has to supervise the engineers. That means lots of trips back and forth for several engineers. If the guy who understands the site doesn't have a good understanding of the design, and the guy who did the design doesn't have a good understanding of the site, who is going to answer all of the contractor's RFI's about how to resolve conflicts between the design and field conditions?

 

[GregLocock]

'who is going to answer all of the contractor's RFI's about how to resolve conflicts between the design and field conditions?"

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Those of us who build missiles rather than targets would probably say that the job was poorly specified in the first place. The lax attitude towards design is shown by the necessity for such argy-bargy.





Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[MikeHalloran]

I didn't appreciate until recently that targets' immense weight is supported by, for lack of a better word, a lottery.

When you trouble yourself to remove the dirt from the holes, you find that there's rock where you expected dirt, mud where you expected rock, and quicksand where you expected mere mud.

The excavation and the revelations all occur _after_ the plans are, uh, cast in concrete, and after the money has been allocated. Hence the RFIs and other argy-bargy. It ain't like workin' for the DOD.





Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[davidbeach]

MikeHalloran, that's what the Geotechnical Engineer is for. But even then there can be surprises. When Portland's MAX light rail was being extended west of downtown it had to tunnel through the west hills. A large number of borings were made to determine the conditions to be encountered at the east portal of the tunnel. What didn't become apparent until construction was underway was that the borings that paralleled the tracks managed to straddle a filled ravine. Bedrock between the tracks was much deeper than bedrock under the centerline of each track.

 

[EddyC]

An overseas firm that cannot be disciplined by US law will have less reason to do good work. If anything does go wrong they can fold up and reorganize under a new name with the same cast of characters. Its easy for them to do since they are paper entities with no real assets.

 

[IRstuff]

MikeH,

Hate to burst your bubble, but just because a spec is DoD, makes it neither bullet-proof nor unambiguous.

Case in point: we just figured out today, after a solid 3 years on contract, how one performance parameter was interpreted differently by us and our supplier.

TTFN

 

[TDAA]

. . . the EOR who eventually signs off on it pays close attention, supervises the work, and ensures the public safety and welfare as any good engineer should.

This really sums it up. We can complain that the person doing the work has not seen the site, may not understand the code, etc. But oh well, who cares?

I'll change my mind on that, when every one of you can say that ALL the people that have worked on projects with you have seen the site. This includes the draftsman, and the EIT doing the initial work, stuck in his /her cubicle. Now, add to that the understanding of the codes. Based on the questions presented on this site about interpreting portions of codes, there are obviously differing opinions on some things. There is always a learning cure, whether it is the new grad, working with the code for the first time, or the ready to retire engineer that needs to brush up on changes in the new revisions or code (such as the recent switch for many to the IBC, LRFD design, etc.).

Now for “direct supervision”. Do those of you complaining of this really sit and watch a draftsman draw every line, an EIT perform every calculation, and fix any errors observed in real time as they occur? I bet it is more along the line of “Hey you, figure this out. I want it to do this.” Then you check it afterwards, perhaps with some questions during the process.

If you find the local company is not following the license requirements or practicing quality engineering, hang them high with the local law. They can try to go after their off-site subcontractor/employees if they want.

 

[JAE]

Now for “direct supervision”. Do those of you complaining of this really sit and watch a draftsman draw every line, an EIT perform every calculation, and fix any errors observed in real time as they occur? I bet it is more along the line of “Hey you, figure this out. I want it to do this.” Then you check it afterwards, perhaps with some questions during the process.

Yes, I check every line of those who draw for me. Do I make mistakes? Yes, everyone does. But that's not the point.

The issue is that the law states that the engineering should be done by a licensed engineer in that state/region/whatever.

I have no problem with a person from a non-US country WHO IS LICENSED in the US to perform the engineering.

Its the people who hire engineers from out of the country, who don't supervise the designs, who don't do the calculations or supervise those who do, and then use their US license to seal the plans - stating untruthfully that they have designed the project and are protecting the welfare and safety of the public.

I'm not ticked at the non-US engineers doing the work...I'm ticked at the US engineer who is essentially plan stamping drawings.

 

[TDAA]

Yes, I check every line of those who draw for me. Do I make mistakes? Yes, everyone does. But that's not the point.

Just my point. You check it, not watch as the mouse is moved and the button pushed and the pencil marks the page. So, does it matter where it happened originally? I don’t think so, as long as you check it.

The issue is that the law states that the engineering should be done by a licensed engineer in that state/region/whatever.

I think your wording is backwards (at least based on the states I am licensed in) in that the engineer must be licensed in the state. You indicate the licensed engineer must be located in the state, which is not correct.

I have no problem with a person from a non-US country WHO IS LICENSED in the US to perform the engineering.

Never said you did, but the comments in the post generally indicate that if a person is in that it can not conceivably be legit.

Its the people who hire engineers from out of the country, who don't supervise the designs, who don't do the calculations or supervise those who do, and then use their US license to seal the plans - stating untruthfully that they have designed the project and are protecting the welfare and safety of the public.

I'm not ticked at the non-US engineers doing the work...I'm ticked at the US engineer who is essentially plan stamping drawings.

Exactly my point. But what if that engineer takes the same care as you (or even better) when doing his/her review? The OP asked about the business model, not the bad engineer.

 

[JAE]

TDAA you are not really arguing with me..but with the stated laws in most US States.

Your first quote response above - yes I check my staff's work, but I ALSO have direct and personal input and decision making in how the structure gets built in the first place.

This is where the typical licening law makes a very VERY important distinction. The practice of engineering involves decision making. It involves process, coordination, and an intimacy with the project.

While a complete design review of another engineer's design can be considered the practice of engineering, a review like that must include a comprehensive design/calculation effort to allow that reviewing engineer to then serve as engineer of record.

The state laws that prohibit plan stamping are there because the engineering boards correctly perceive that too many cases would occur where someone will "review" a design and stamp it without fully digging into the design and understanding it.

An engineer who does not supervise the original design effort, does not decide how things are framed, where the load paths go, and how connections are to be facilitated, does not have the same knowledge, care or control of an engineer who participates in the design as it happens.

I agree with your other two quotes of mine - backward statement by me and all.

But your last statement:

But what if that engineer takes the same care as you (or even better) when doing his/her review?

If the reviewing engineer takes the same care or better in DESIGNING the project, I have no problem. But the fear is that many engineers who "plan stamp" won't do a COMPLETE design. The human tendancy is to check something only to a certain extent...and that is what the plan stamping laws are out to prohibit.

 

[atlas06]

We all see evil and ethical issues when it involves serious cheap competion.
Canadians can compete and win lots of US federal jobs and no one seems offended, although it is our tax dollars being spent.
Somhow we can't take it when work is performed in India or China, I do resent it, but hey it is all fair game, we have signed WTO, NAFTA and all kinds of agreements, we have to live with them.

As for the ethics part, I can't tell you all the number of Electrical Engineers stamping Mechanical drawings every day, and vise versa in every state. Some of you probably did.
I'd rather see a Mechanical Engineer stamping Mechanical Drawings done in India than an Electrical Engineer signing Mechanical drwings done in Virginia or anywhere else.

Atlas

 

[EddyC]

An update for anyone who's still reading: The state of Virginia has informed me that as long as the business entity in question has a PE on board, its in conformance with the law.

 

[JStephen]

One of the differences I see in the above discussion is how different fields of engineering typically work. Civil and structural engineering are normally carried on by a company that is either more or less local, or at least has a local branch. State laws normally require the individuals doing the work, and quite often the company for which they work, to be licensed. The engineering process will normally include some degree of on-site inspection, occasional meetings, etc. On run-of-the-mill civil -type work, you will seldom see a company with all its personnel in, say, NY, trying to carry on work in California, even if licensed to do so. (This might happen with very specialized work.)

Something that is invariably the case, but not often stated clearly in state engineering laws, is that if a structure or project of some kind is located in a state, then doing engineering work on that structure constitutes engineering in that state, even if the engineer in question never actually sets foot in that state.

The company in question could simply attempt to carry on a normal civil or structural practice in the US. However, they aren't doing that, according to the website. They are trying to partner with US consulting firms. This does raise the issue of exactly who is in responsible charge of the work being done, and who stamps it (does that one licensed individual personally resume responsibility for everything they do?). Their website names an individual and states "He is now the Supervisor of Engineering Operations and is responsible for the production of engineering plans for land development projects in the United States." This is NOT the individual listed with the license. It appears from their website that they expect to do unlicensed work which will be directly supervised by an unlicensed individual and then be stamped by the "partner" company, thus making more money for the partner company. They never come out and state this for obvious reasons.

The whole issue of outsourcing is kind of a mess. The principle idea is that my company will outsource, yours will not, and I will then have an economic edge over you, enabling me to make more money. The problem with the line of reasoning is that if every competitor outsources, you no longer have an economic edge over anyone- and instead of actually doing constructive work with your company, you've become just a brokerage firm for having it done by others. In the case of the company above, if they get going good, they could simply hire a few engineers in the US to represent them here, and their partner firms would then be superfluous.

It would be interesting to see the reactions if this plan is applied to medicine.

It would also be interesting to see how this would affect liability insurance for the companies involved.

EddyC- I think your statement would more correctly say "There's not an obvious violation of the law", which is a bit different. Having a PE onstaff is not an automatic guarantee of compliance with all engineering laws.

 

[EddyC]

JStephen,

I am in agreement with your entire statement above. If the states allow the business practice described above, PEs might over time end up being nothing more than "rubber stampers" of overseas work. At such a point, there will no longer be any purpose to engineering licensure and we will professionally end up back in the 19th century. All so someone can gain a temporary edge over their competitors.

 

[DRC1]

The point JStephen makes is that especilly for civil work it is hard to do the design work from a distance. Site conditions change, clients needs change, construction rasises issues, etc. No matter how talented someone is, you can design from half way around the world. Yes the billing for the design work may be cheaper oveseas. The point the Owners fail to see is that the cost of engineering is maybe 10% of construction, yet a poor design can easily double the cost of construction. What you guys need to convince Owners is that putting additional money into quality design is not spending, it is investing.

 

[civilperson]

The firm that I last contracted with had 800 engineering staff in the office building where I worked and 3000 other engineering types in other US offices, their biggest office was in Mombai, India with 2500 engineers. These engineers neither wanted to come to the US nor would come permantly if asked, in fact the three week orientation given in the US office for the Indian staff was considered onerous and a hardship! Thus US managers are now in a Intercontinental commuting mode to coordinate with the Mombai force.
The salary level for equally qualified engineers was 1/4 the American wage rate but this put the India employee in a comparative great position, (affording servants, vacation homes and private schools for the children).
Price and competitive pressure requires this low cost engineering for mega projects offered by the multi-national corporations, (ExxonMobil, BP, etc.).

 

[stevenal]

Here is the Virginia exception in question:

"Engaging in the practice of professional engineering as an employee under a licensed professional engineer, engaging in the practice of architecture as an employee under a licensed architect, or engaging in the practice of land surveying as an employee under a licensed land surveyor; provided, that such practice shall not include responsible charge of design or supervision."

Having the PE "on board" is not enough, he must be supervising the project and be in "responsible charge." You may debate exactly that means, but it certainly means more than plan stamping. I see no reason why supervision and responsible charge cannot take place remotely via modern communications. See FAQ #5 on their website. You would probably need actual evidence of wrong doing to take to the board.

 

[HgTX]

The bigger the project, the more likely it is to have been done halfway around the world, because it becomes an international game rather than a local thing that's outsourced. Major design firms take on projects all around the world. The Petronas Towers and Taipei 101 were both designed in New York.

Somehow for projects on that level it's not "outsourcing".

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[JStephen]

HgTX, to be a comparable situation, there would have to be an overseas consultant that contracted to do the engineering for these buildings, who could do it themselves, but instead turned around and subcontracted it to a NY firm, and then when the work was done, took responsibility for it. It's doubtful that's the way the work was done in those cases.

 

[JAE]

Yes, I think a lot of answers on this thread are confusing the concept of international engineering with plan stamping. They are not the same thing obviously. The idea of large projects being designed by engineers in another country is not what the original post was talking about. The issue is where the actual design calculations, schematic designs and decisions made during the course of the design are made by non-licensed (i.e. illegal practicing) engineers in one jurisdiction getting those designs approved by a lone engineer in the jurisdiction of the project who simply stamps the plans with no real involvement in the design.