If you are called out as engineer of record, then you'll at least need a license in each state where that's done; otherwise, you'd be practicing without a license, even if you don't do anything at all.

I would recommend that you ask your own lawyer whether there are unintended liabilities for being listed there, as that would seem to put a target on your back.

As for the second, I don't have a solid answer except to point out that licensure is a personal liability, and whether you are a principal or not, the risks are the same, regardless of what the company structure is, since YOU are in "responsible charge" of the work you seal.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I agree with IRstuff - you need to consult a lawyer on this. It's what I did after I got licensed, and it helped shape my approach to things with my employer. When I switched over to an industrial setting I chose not to go back to my attorney because the company attorney and management adopted a very conservative stance of their own accord.

As for the managerial position - not exactly. It should be the person in charge of engineering for the company and/or site for which the license is granted. But as far as I'm aware the only legal requirement is that they are licensed. The reason I brought it up in the other thread is that a lot is riding on this person. If they quit, the firm/business cannot legally practice engineering until they are replaced and the board is notified. In a firm with 10 engineers each earning an average of, say $1,200/day...that can be a painful pill to swallow if you can't do anything for a couple weeks while that person is replaced. Even worse if it's a manufacturing operation with in house engineering, and they have to shut the line down until a new engineer can be brought in to provide inputs for production. That's why it's important that the person with that much impact (and, frankly, leverage) over the company be somebody pretty high up the food chain with a vested interest in the long term success of the company. Joe Schmoe employee is not that guy.

Well, I am thinking to let my manager know that I cannot be this person.. do you think they would fire me for this? Obviously not a question you can answer with certainty, but just looking for perspective. I am debating whether to have a job lined up before mentioning this.


In terms of being listed as EoR on the licenses.. if we use a subcontractor for the work as you suggested before, it doesn't seem like I would have any liability?

You also would have no need to have a license. The consultant will have all of the necessary licenses.

As for whether or not they'd fire you, I have no idea. From an earlier thread you said that they didn't hire you for this. So as long as you're still doing what they hired you for, it wouldn't (based on the limited info I have) be rational to fire you. But that means essentially nothing.

If they find somebody who is willing to do both, they may let you go and hire that person instead. But if that's the case, do you really want to work for this company anyway?

Right.. yea that was my thought, if they find someone that can do both functions. I'm not sure what our financials look like for hiring, but right now we are very lean on staff and we do intend to expand once we have work, so I would like to think they wouldn't fire me if they found someone.

We don't have work yet and won't be completing any until the end of the year.. so maybe I just keep this to myself for now.

I previously proposed to have a company review my work (folks I had previously worked with) as contractors so maybe the idea of using them to be in responsible charge isn't far fetched.

Edit: Maybe I can probe my manager by asking if he would be ok with the other firm stamping the drawings if I didn't feel comfortable after giving it a shot.

Quote (psmpsm)

Is there any legal risk one should be aware of if their firm is listing them as the engineer of record for their firm license in each state, as well as their certificate of authorization? Assuming the engineer of record doesn't plan to stamp anything?

It is my understanding that this is essentially just a way for the state engineering board to ensure companies aren't advertising (even if by name only) that they offer professional engineering services without actually having a professional engineer on staff.

Quote (psmpsm)

Also, is there any document/reference that says this engineer of record is supposed to be a principal/partner or someone way up in senior management? From what I've read on the licensure application.. it says nothing of the sort.

Each state is different. There are some state's where it is a requirement, there are others where it is not. Of the 30+ state's I am licensed in and act as the "principal in charge" or whatever each state wants to call it, I would guess about half of them have some type of wording that this person be an officer or management person. Most give vague definitions that say the person is allowed to make engineering decisions for the company.

psmpsm, the rules and laws for obtaining a certificate of authority as an engineering firm vary from state to state, just like the rest of the engineering rules and laws. I believe that some states do indeed require that a licensed engineer hold a position of ownership or be an officer of the company in order for that company to hold a certificate of authority as an engineering firm.

Also, I have to say, based on the 3 threads that you have started recently that all basically deal with similar issues related to engineering licensure, you seem to be in over your head on all of this, and not ready to handle the situation in which you find yourself or in which you perceive yourself to be. I don't know whether this is of your own doing or that of your employer, but you need to get on the same page with your employer about what role you are comfortable with and are capable of. Don't allow yourself to be taken advantage of or put in a position with which you are not comfortable and don't allow your employer to use you as a pawn in a scheme to which you don't consent.

By way of example, the following aspect of your original post does not make any sense. Explain why would a company that employs a PE (you) need to obtain a engineering firm license if that company does not intend to have that PE (you) stamp drawings as an EOR? Or, in other words, why would a company that doesn't intend to practice engineering need an engineering license?

Based on your posting history in this and other threads, I presume that the answer is so that your company can act as a pass through entity and subcontract all engineering work to a third party engineering firm, but I contend that such practices are basically a way to subvert the engineering licensure laws, since you have already admitted that you and your firm are not qualified for this work. And again, why would the owner hire an unqualified pass through entity, and why would the third party firm work for an unqualified pass through entity for less money than a direct contract with the owner, not to mention, why would the third party firm assist an unqualified competitor gain market share? Only shady companies do these types of things. If I have misinterpreted the situation, forgive me.

The company didn't even know that they needed an engineering firm license. They intended to have me stamp drawings as the EOR for a long time now, we are just waiting on work.

My perception tells me the company didn't have any intention of being dishonest here, they just don't know what is really required to perform services.

As for why a third party would work with us, I'm assuming because they would want the revenue and experience that comes with the job. We would do 75% of the work in house and have them involved at each stage of the project to review/direct as needed to fulfill the role of responsible charge.

psmpsm - is that not terrifying to you? This company walked into this whole new realm of business blindly, not knowing what sort of legal compliance they need to meet. I would be wondering what else they missed.

I think gte's question is more of a "why would they accept all of the liability for a lower price?" Most reputable firms won't do that. It's either my job, or it isn't. If I have a really good client (an architect) with some incidental structural work on his/her drawings, I'll review it and give feedback, but I won't put my stamp on anything unless my employee or I did the work.

Quote (psmpsm)

My perception tells me the company didn't have any intention of being dishonest here, they just don't know what is really required to perform services.

Sorry to be blunt.

My perception, based on your multiple recent threads here is that you don't know what is required to perform the services of a PE, you do not understand the legal and liability risks associated with doing what your employer is asking you, and you do not understand business.

You are in over your head. You seem too interested in pleasing your employer, and not at all interested in taking care of yourself. I think that your employer sees this, and is working to take advantage of your naiveté.

GO FIND AND TALK TO YOUR OWN LAYWER ASAP!!

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

psmpsm, I don't know what else to say at this point. You seem to me to be beyond help on this issue. You have repeatedly asked for help in multiple threads by asking basically the same elementary questions over and over again, but then you have batted away every response that does not reinforce what you want to do.

In your most recent response you stated,

"The company didn't even know that they needed an engineering firm license."

and

"...they just don't know what is really required to perform services."

It seems self evident that no owner would want to hire such a company to provide engineering services.

It also seems self evident that no competent and reputable third party engineering firm would want to work for (or aid and abet) such a company to provide engineering services, especially for a reduced fee.

Should a medical assistant offer to perform surgical services for patients? Would a patient agree to hire a medical assistant to provide surgical services instead of hiring a surgeon? Would a surgeon agree to work for hire for a medical assistant who had contracted to perform surgical services on patients? When providing surgical services, would a surgeon agree to be compensated as a medical assistant instead of as a surgeon?

Does the master work for the apprentice, or vice versa?

Quote (mintjulep)

Sorry to be blunt.

My perception, based on your multiple recent threads here is that you don't know what is required to perform the services of a PE, you do not understand the legal and liability risks associated with doing what your employer is asking you, and you do not understand business.

You are in over your head. You seem too interested in pleasing your employer, and not at all interested in taking care of yourself. I think that your employer sees this, and is working to take advantage of your naiveté.

I have been in the business for over a decade - and this is the first time I have been asked to stamp something. Given my manager asked me this shortly after joining, I don't think they "see my naivete" and are taking advantage of me in that way. I think they really had no clue what a PE can and can't stamp. They ARE taking advantage of me by asking me to do the work of a design engineer that they didn't hire. I agree with you on that.

I also agree that I am in over my head. My company is not small; as a matter of fact, they are a huge manufacturer. I've just never been in this position before. Quite frankly I find it upsetting that any practicing engineer does have to be put in this position.

As for being interested in pleasing my employer - who isn't? I would rather do that than lose my six figure salary and search for work. I am treading cautiously. And not understanding business.. I can do a $50,000 study for $10,000 because I'm great at what I do. I would imagine a subcontractor who specializes in what we're asking wouldn't mind taking on a job for $10,000 that they could complete within that budget because they are good at what they do as well.

Quote (gte447f)

psmpsm, I don't know what else to say at this point. You seem to me to be beyond help on this issue. You have repeatedly asked for help in multiple threads by asking basically the same elementary questions over and over again, but then you have batted away every response that does not reinforce what you want to do.

In your most recent response you stated,

"The company didn't even know that they needed an engineering firm license."

and

"...they just don't know what is really required to perform services."

It seems self evident that no owner would want to hire such a company to provide engineering services.

It also seems self evident that no competent and reputable third party engineering firm would want to work for (or aid and abet) such a company to provide engineering services, especially for a reduced fee.

Should a medical assistant offer to perform surgical services for patients? Would a patient agree to hire a medical assistant to provide surgical services instead of hiring a surgeon? Would a surgeon agree to work for hire for a medical assistant who had contracted to perform surgical services on patients? When providing surgical services, would a surgeon agree to be compensated as a medical assistant instead of as a surgeon?

Does the master work for the apprentice, or vice versa?

I have not batted away your help - I have taken it into consideration and know what I have to do. I'm going to push back on my employer and explain the issue to them. As for why owners hire us? We are a major manufacturer and they have asked us if we had in house services to offer. Our client base is already there, we just have to create the service and they will pay.

"As for why owners hire us? We are a major manufacturer and they have asked us if we had in house services to offer. Our client base is already there, we just have to create the service and they will pay."

OK, then this is very simple. Major manufacturers have plenty of money to hire expensive lawyers to advice them on the best way to structure their business to expand their product and service offerings while abiding by applicable rules and laws. Your employer should do this. Also, major manufacturers have plenty of money to hire necessary and appropriate personnel when adding a new department to expand their business offerings into a new service sector, especially when they have a captive client base that is actively requesting the expanded services. Your employer should do this. This means hiring the appropriate senior management level licensed engineer(s) capable of lawfully and competently performing the engineering services that your company wishes to offer to its customers, along with any needed support staff including engineers like yourself.

Why would a major manufacturer cut corners and go about this in the half***ed way that you have been describing? Spend the money. Hire the right people. Prepare and equip yourselves to perform the services that you want to offer your customers. Forget all this other nonsense that you have been describing. Do not offer services that you are not competent to or capable of performing. Do not depend on (or conspire with) third parties to provide services that you are not competent to or capable of performing, and therefore should not be selling to customers.

Quote:

Why would a major manufacturer cut corners and go about this in the half***ed way that you have been describing?

Why indeed. Most in this thread are assuming that the work being considered requires stamping for legal purposes based on very vague descriptions of work that generally doesnt.

Quote:

Do not depend on (or conspire with) third parties to provide services that you are not competent to or capable of performing, and therefore should not be selling to customers.

Industrial sites are generally exempt, so when a stamp is required by a regulator its very common to bring in a third-party consultant for a quick pre-commissioning review.

Just to point out- the "EOR" is not the same as "engineer in responsible charge" for a corporation. If you work for Acme Doorknob Company and do delegated design of doorknobs, that doesn't make you EOR on the buildings they go in.

This is one of the weirdest threads I've read on these forums.

psmpsm, you work as an engineer for a manufacturer? And now that manufacturer is looking to offer outside engineering services?

I'm trying to understand what your company does and what it is planning to do such that it requires engineering credentials.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

"All the world is a Spring"

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.