Re: Of Interest To Texas P.E.'s

I not sure it gets in the way of a private entity requiring their engineer also be LEED, SECB, etc.  I could see a lawyer arguing that a private entity is not requiring an engineer (with or without LEED, SECB, etc) to seal documents, but rather hiring the engineer to do some design work...it is then the local jurisdiction that is the one that is requiring the documents to be sealed.  I don't know if I am saying such that it makes sense...at least like it does in my head.   Basically, the private entity is kind of technically hiring the engineer for other reasons (so to speak)...and as a "by product" it is the local jurisdiction that is requiring the sealing.  In other words, the entity that actually cares about and requires the sealing of the documents does not require the LEED, SECB, etc...in the local jurisdiction's mind the only thing that matters is that the engineer have their PE license.

Now, I could see it being a problem where you might have some private entity that might require something to be sealed by an engineer with LEED, SECB, etc.  For example, let's say you have a project that is in one of Texas' infamous codeless, non-city areas.  As such, there will be no local jurisdiction that requires sealed drawings.  But, the owner decides they want sealed drawing...and they want it done by a some one LEED certified because they care about that stuff.  Since it is the owner now requiring the sealing (i.e. there is not other entity requiring it), then it might run afoul of how that is written.  Of course, the way around that is that you hire some subconsultant who must be a LEED certified to handle the LEED stuff...but does not need to seal the drawings.

End result is that the wording seems to be limiting in itself, which may be intention or just a lucky by product of politicians doing silly stuff that unintentionally works well.

Of course, I ain't no lawyer...I only play one in my occasional delusions of grandeur.   :-D

Scott

On Aug 31, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Stan Caldwell wrote:

Bill:

 

I know that this might be an exception, but your recollection is not correct.  The language you refer to was pushed through the Legislature two years ago by TSPE and ACEC-Texas.  It was an overreaction to a requirement by the City of Austin that a PE could not do a drainage plan unless he or she was also a certified floodplain manager (my terminology might be somewhat in error).  This is part of the NSPE/TSPE plan to defend the PE license as the ultimate credential for all engineers.  The issue did not involve TDI, which is another story altogether.  Texas SEs did not see this coming and, in fact, were unaware of it until after it passed.

 

The cited language causes all sorts of problems, because it applies to all private as well as all public procurements.  Thus, owners supposedly cannot require LEED, SECB, etc. But Rick Perry signed it into law nevertheless.

 

Stan  

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:53 AM, bill@polhemus.cc <bill@polhemus.cc> wrote:

I had noticed this new verbiage in the Texas Engineering Practice Act (TEPA) before, but I happened across it again recently:  

 

§ 1001.401.(e) A license holder shall not be required to provide or hold any additional certification, other than a license issued under this chapter, to seal an engineering plan, specification, plat, or report.

 

IIRC, this was intended to address complaints about the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI), which administers a hazardous zone wind insurance pool, requiring licensed P.E.s to also be "registered" with TDI in order to perform inspections of new construction for compliance with the wind insurance program requirements. That requirement has obviously now been nullified by the new TEPA provisions.

However, unintended consequences being what they are, folks may not have recognized that it also potentially wipes out the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) "precertification" program, which requires that engineers be vetted through TxDOT before being considered as engineers of record on TxDOT projects. (My experience with TxDOT was that they were often eager to substitute their own rules for those of the TEPA - for instance, refusing to accept electronically sealed-and-signed documents.)

TxDOT has in the past been politically quite powerful - not for nothing was it termed "The Texas Department of Defense" - but I know they've been humbled a bit for a variety of reasons over the next decade. If I were still in the bridge bidness, and wanted to, for instance, be EOR on a "signature bridge" for which I don't have TxDOT Precertification, I would bring this up as a point of order. Certainly TxDOT or any client can select their engineering consultants on the basis of experience, but to codify it and only allow those with the proper official vetting seems to fly in the face of the latest version of the TEPA.