A/E$Stamping,$Sealing,$&$Signing:$ Sasfying$$ Statutes ...

A/E
 Stamping,
 Sealing,
 &
 Signing:
 
Sa2sfying
 
 

Statutes
 &
 Standards
 of
 Care
 

David
 Ericksen
 
Severson
 &
 Werson
 

April
 2014
 

Real
 World
 Reali2es…
 

•  Project
 located
 in
 State
 A
 
•  Principal
 Engineer
 with
 client
 rela2onship
 

located
 in
 State
 B.
 
 Licensed
 only
 in
 State
 B.
 
•  Subordinate
 Engineer
 based
 in
 State
 C,
 but
 

licensed
 in
 State’s
 A
 and
 C,
 but
 not
 B.
 
 
 
•  Engineering
 Firm
 has
 offices
 in
 States
 B
 and
 

C,
 but
 not
 A.
 

Real
 World
 Reali2es…
 

•  All
 client
 communica2ons
 and
 site
 visits
 
solely
 by
 Principal
 Engineer.
 

•  Design
 development
 and
 prepara2on
 
principally
 by
 Principal
 Engineer
 or
 those
 
under
 his
 direc2on.
 

•  Subordinate
 Engineer
 stamps
 and
 signs
 all
 
documents.
 
 Says
 that
 he
 periodically
 
reviewed
 and
 commented
 during
 design,
 
but
 has
 no
 2me
 recorded
 or
 documents
 
reflec2ng
 review.
 

Real
 World
 Reali2es…
 

•  Project
 valued
 at
 $3M+
 fails
 to
 operate
 as
 
desired
 by
 Client.
 
 “Remedia2on”
 in
 excess
 
of
 $2.5M.
 
 Claim
 that
 proper
 project
 should
 
have
 cost
 approximately
 $10M.
 

•  Total
 claim
 $14M
 +
 return
 of
 fee
 for
 
unauthorized
 prac2ce
 of
 engineering.
 

•  Claimed
 to
 be
 per
 se
 negligent
 due
 to
 
licensing
 viola2on.
 

Real
 World
 Exposures…
 

•  Claim
 far
 in
 excess
 of
 policy
 limits
 &
 
capacity
 of
 firm
 

•  Claim
 poten2ally
 uninsured
 due
 to
 
licensing
 issues
 and
 claimed
 liability
 
independent
 of
 the
 standard
 of
 care
 

•  Poten2al
 for
 professional
 disciplinary
 
ac2on,
 including,
 but
 not
 limited
 to
 loss
 of
 
license
 

Agenda
 

•  The
 Unique
 Significance
 of
 the
 A/E
 Stamp/Seal
 
•  Three
 Levels
 of
 Concern
 
•  Statutory
 &
 Regulatory
 Standards
 
•  Common
 Law
 Exposures
 
•  Best
 Prac2ces
 for
 Process
 &
 Documenta2on
 
•  Acronym
 Ambiguity
 of
 Titles
 
•  The
 Cer2fica2on
 Corollary
 

Stamping/Sealing
 Separates
 
 
Design
 Professionals
 from
 Others
 

Stamping/Sealing
 is
 an
 Act
 of
 
Professional
 &
 Public
 Significance
 

“For
 the
 public,
 the
 seal
 cons3tutes
 the
 dis3nc3ve
 mark
 of
 
the
 professional
 engineer.
 It
 must
 be
 used
 to
 iden3fy
 all
 
work
 prepared
 by,
 or
 under
 the
 direct
 supervision
 of,
 a
 
professional
 engineer
 as
 part
 of
 professional
 engineering
 
services
 rendered
 to
 the
 public.
 It
 assures
 the
 document’s
 
recipient
 that
 the
 work
 meets
 the
 standards
 of
 
professionalism
 expected
 of
 competent,
 experienced
 
individuals
 who
 take
 personal
 responsibility
 for
 their
 
judgments
 and
 decisions.
 The
 seal
 is
 important
 because
 it
 
is
 a
 visible
 commitment
 to
 the
 standards
 of
 the
 profession
 
and
 signifies
 to
 the
 public
 that
 a
 par3cular
 P.Eng.
 
accepted
 professional
 responsibility
 for
 the
 document.”
 –
 
Professional
 Engineers
 of
 Ontario
 

Stamp
 &
 Seal
 Reali2es
 

•  Stamping
 &
 Sealing
 Allega2ons
 among
 the
 
most
 frequent
 license
 inves2ga2ons
 &
 charges
 

•  Three
 Causes
 &
 Effects:
 

–  Some
 take
 the
 stamp/seal
 process
 too
 lightly
 
–  Some
 hold
 the
 stamp/seal
 too
 2ghtly
 
–  Few
 appreciate
 the
 licensing
 and
 liability
 impacts
 

of
 the
 act
 and
 process
 

The
 Ethical
 S2gma
 of
 Abdica2on
 

“Plan-­‐stampers
 are
 marginal
 prac33oners.
 
 
Architects
 who
 are
 unable
 to
 obtain
 their
 own
 
commissions
 are
 the
 architects
 willing
 to
 sell
 
their
 seals
 to
 stamp
 the
 work
 of
 others.
 .
 .
 
 Plan-­‐
stamping
 does
 not
 afford
 the
 public
 the
 
protec3on
 it
 needs.”
 


 -­‐
 Na2onal
 Council
 of
 Architectural
 

 
 
 Review
 Boards
 (NCARB)
 

The
 Tight
 Hold
 of
 Principals
 

Many
 “principals”
 insist
 on
 handling
 all
 
stamping/sealing
 themselves
 or
 a
 limited
 few:
 


 -­‐
 Ogen
 Ego/Business
 Control
 Driven
 

 -­‐
 May
 Be
 Driven
 by
 Client
 Expecta2on
 

 -­‐
 Some2mes
 Altruis2c
 Protec2on
 of
 
 

 Others
 from
 Liability
 &
 Risk
 

Stamping
 &
 Sealing
 
Buzz
 Terms
 for
 Appropriate
 Control
 

Responsible
 Control
 

Responsible
 Charge
 

Direct
 Supervision
 

Assume
 Responsibility
 

What
 Actually
 Drives
 Stamping
 &
 
Sealing
 Policy?
 

•  Ego
 
•  Business
 Control
 
•  Client
 Expecta2on
 
•  QA/QC
 
•  Risk
 Alloca2on
 

Why?
 
 What
 should
 it
 be?
 

Stamping
 &
 Signing
 Process
 &
 
Valida2on
 is
 a
 HUGE
 Issue
 

•  Statutory
 Viola2ons
 Leading
 to
 Poten2al
 
“Strict”
 Liability
 &
 Loss
 of
 License
 

•  Negligence
 Liability
 for
 Failure
 to
 Meet
 
Standard
 of
 Care
 

•  Misrepresenta2on
 &
 Fraud
 Allega2ons
 and
 
Liabili2es
 

The
 Stamping
 &
 Signing
 Process
 
An
 Even
 BIGGER
 Challenge
 to
 Solve
 

•  Varying
 Statutory
 Standards
 
•  Elevated
 (&
 Even
 Exaggerated)
 Public
 

Statements
 and
 Policies
 Out
 of
 Step
 With
 
Reality
 
•  Varied,
 Elevated,
 and
 Unrealis2c
 Client
 and
 
Public
 Percep2ons
 and
 Expecta2ons
 

The
 “Standards”
 

•  NCARB
 Rules
 of
 Conduct
 and
 Model
 Act
 

–  Guidance
 Only
 

•  State
 Statutes
 &
 Regula2ons
 

–  Widely
 varied
 from
 abbreviated
 to
 exercise
 
“responsible
 control”
 to
 detailed
 procedures
 as
 to
 
the
 process
 and
 record
 reten2on
 

•  “Responsible
 Control”
 more
 ogen
 defined
 for
 
engineers
 than
 architects
 

The
 NCARB
 Standard
 Defines
 
“Responsible
 Control”
 

That
 amount
 of
 control
 over
 and
 detailed
 professional
 knowledge
 of
 
the
 content
 of
 technical
 submissions
 during
 their
 prepara3on
 as
 is
 
ordinarily
 exercised
 by
 a
 registered
 architect
 applying
 the
 required
 
professional
 standard
 of
 care,
 including
 but
 not
 limited
 to
 an
 
architect’s
 integra3on
 of
 informa3on
 from
 manufacturers,
 suppliers,
 
installers,
 the
 architect’s
 consultants,
 owners,
 contractors,
 or
 other
 
sources
 the
 architect
 reasonably
 trusts
 that
 is
 incidental
 to
 and
 
intended
 to
 be
 incorporated
 into
 the
 architect’s
 technical
 submissions
 if
 
the
 architect
 has
 coordinated
 and
 reviewed
 such
 informa3on.
 Other
 
review,
 or
 review
 and
 correc3on,
 of
 technical
 submissions
 aKer
 they
 
have
 been
 prepared
 by
 others
 does
 not
 cons3tute
 the
 exercise
 of
 
responsible
 control
 because
 the
 reviewer
 has
 neither
 control
 over
 nor
 
detailed
 professional
 knowledge
 of
 the
 content
 of
 such
 submissions
 
throughout
 their
 prepara3on.
 

 
 
 -­‐
 
 NCARB
 Model
 Regula2on
 Sec2on
 1
 

The
 NCARB
 Records
 Standards
 for
 
 
 
“Responsible
 Control”
 

Any
 registered
 architect
 signing
 or
 sealing
 technical
 
submissions
 not
 prepared
 by
 that
 architect
 but
 prepared
 
under
 the
 architect’s
 responsible
 control
 by
 persons
 not
 
regularly
 employed
 in
 the
 office
 where
 the
 architect
 is
 
resident,
 shall
 maintain
 and
 make
 available
 to
 the
 board
 
upon
 request
 for
 at
 least
 five
 years
 following
 such
 signing
 
and
 sealing,
 adequate
 and
 complete
 records
 
 
demonstra3ng
 the
 nature
 and
 extent
 of
 the
 architect’s
 
control
 over
 and
 detailed
 knowledge
 of
 such
 technical
 
submissions
 throughout
 their
 prepara3on.
 


 
 -­‐
 
 NCARB
 Model
 Regula2on
 Sec2on
 6
 

Actual
 Statutes/Regula2ons
 Vary
 
Widely
 

•  Simple
 impera2ve
 without
 defini2on.
 
•  Some
 expressly
 validate
 “proofing
 and
 

stamping”
 ager
 comple2on
 by
 others.
 
•  Some
 require
 ac2ve
 involvement
 during
 

design
 process
 
•  Some
 adopt
 a
 “nega2ve”
 defini2on
 by
 saying
 

what
 is
 not
 adequate
 or
 acceptable.
 
 
 

The
 Unrefined
 Impera2ve
 Approach
 

Simple
 assignment
 of
 personal
 responsibility/
accountability:
 
 “reviewed
 the
 document
 in
 
sufficient
 depth
 to
 fully
 coordinate
 and
 assume
 
responsibility
 for
 the
 plans
 prepared
 by
 another
 
licensed
 professional
 or
 land
 surveyor.”
 
 Alabama
 
Admin
 Code
 330-­‐X-­‐11-­‐.03(1)
 

Some
 Implicitly
 or
 Expressly
 Approve
 
 
Proofing
 &
 Stamping
 

Some
 impose
 strict
 requirements
 for
 what
 is
 to
 be
 done
 and
 
documented:
 
A
 licensee
 may
 seal,
 or
 sign
 and
 seal,
 documents
 not
 prepared
 by
 the
 
licensee
 or
 by
 an
 employee
 under
 the
 licensee's
 supervisory
 control,
 
provided
 the
 licensee
 shall
 prepare,
 and
 retain
 for
 a
 period
 of
 not
 less
 
than
 six
 years,
 a
 thorough
 wriNen
 evalua3on
 of
 the
 professional
 
services
 represented
 by
 the
 documents,
 including
 but
 not
 limited
 to,
 
drawings,
 specifica3ons,
 reports,
 design
 calcula3ons
 and
 references
 to
 
applicable
 codes
 and
 standards.
 Such
 wriNen
 evalua3on
 shall
 clearly
 
iden3fy
 the
 project
 and
 the
 documents
 to
 which
 it
 relates,
 the
 sources
 
of
 the
 documents
 and
 the
 name
 of
 the
 person
 or
 organiza3on
 for
 
which
 the
 wriNen
 evalua3on
 was
 conducted
 and
 the
 date
 of
 the
 
evalua3on;
 and
 the
 seal
 and
 signature
 of
 the
 licensee
 shall
 also
 be
 
affixed
 thereto.
 
 Connec2cut
 Regula2ons
 20-­‐300-­‐12(a)(4)
 


 
 (New
 York
 nearly
 iden2cal.)
 

Some
 Require
 Ac2ve
 Involvement
 
During
 Design
 

•  “A
 con2nuous
 process
 of
 examina2on,
 
evalua2on,
 and
 direc2on
 throughout
 the
 
development
 of
 the
 documents
 which
 
includes
 the
 ability
 to
 control
 the
 final
 
product.”
 
 
 

•  Washington
 Administra2ve
 Code
 308-­‐12-­‐150(8)
 

Some
 Simply
 Define
 What
 is
 Not
 
Adequate
 or
 Acceptable
 

–  Regular
 or
 con3nuous
 absence
 from
 office
 premises
 
where
 the
 services
 are
 rendered;
 or
 

–  Failure
 to
 personally
 inspect
 or
 review
 the
 work
 of
 
subordinates
 where
 necessary
 and
 appropriate;
 or
 
 

–  Rendering
 limited,
 cursory,
 or
 prefunctory
 review
 in
 
lieu
 of
 an
 appropriate
 detailed
 review;
 or
 

–  failure
 to
 personally
 be
 available
 on
 a
 reasonable
 
basis
 or
 with
 adequate
 advance
 no3ce
 for
 consulta3on
 
and
 inspec3on
 where
 circumstances
 require
 personal
 
availability.
 
 

•  New
 Jersey
 Statute
 45:8-­‐28(g)
 

Statutory
 Standards
 as
 to
 
Recordkeeping
 Vary
 as
 Well
 

•  Most
 are
 silent.
 
•  Some
 require:
 
 “a
 thorough
 wriNen
 evalua3on
 

of
 the
 professional
 services
 represented
 by
 the
 
documents,
 including
 but
 not
 limited
 to,
 
drawings,
 specifica3ons,
 reports,
 design
 
calcula3ons
 and
 references
 to
 applicable
 codes
 
and
 standards”
 
•  Maintained
 and
 producible
 on
 demand
 for
 as
 
much
 as
 six
 years.
 

Final
 Observa2ons
 on
 the
 
 
Statutory
 Systems
 

•  All
 essen2ally
 establish
 “personal”
 and
 
“professional”
 responsibility
 and
 accountability
 
for
 the
 person
 stamping/sealing
 

•  Under
 many
 systems,
 a
 major
 dis2nc2on
 is
 drawn
 
between
 employees
 under
 “direct
 supervision”
 
and
 outside
 preparers
 

•  Many,
 but
 not
 all,
 require
 actual,
 direct
 
involvement
 and
 control
 during
 process
 

•  Only
 a
 few
 have
 express
 requirements
 as
 to
 
documenta2on
 

Texas
 Administra2ve
 Code
 
131.81
 

“Direct
 supervision-­‐-­‐The
 control
 over
 and
 detailed
 
professional
 knowledge
 of
 the
 work
 prepared
 under
 
the
 engineer's
 supervision.
 The
 degree
 of
 control
 
should
 be
 such
 that
 the
 engineer
 personally
 makes
 
engineering
 decisions
 or
 personally
 reviews
 and
 
approves
 proposed
 decisions
 prior
 to
 their
 
implementa2on.
 The
 engineer
 must
 have
 control
 
over
 the
 decisions
 either
 through
 physical
 presence
 
or
 the
 use
 of
 communica2ons
 devices.”
 

Texas
 Two-­‐plus
 Step
 
Admin
 Code
 137.33
 

“Work
 performed
 by
 more
 than
 one
 license
 
holder
 shall
 be
 sealed
 in
 a
 manner
 such
 that
 all
 
engineering
 can
 be
 clearly
 atributed
 to
 the
 
responsible
 license
 holder
 or
 license
 holders.
 
When
 sealing
 plans
 or
 documents
 on
 which
 two
 
or
 more
 license
 holders
 have
 worked,
 the
 seal
 
and
 signature
 of
 each
 license
 holder
 shall
 be
 
placed
 on
 the
 plan
 or
 document
 with
 a
 nota2on
 
describing
 the
 work
 done
 under
 each
 license
 
holder's
 responsible
 charge.”
 

Statutes
 Are
 Only
 the
 Minimum
 
There
 is
 Also
 the
 Standard
 of
 Care
 

It
 is
 his
 further
 duty
 to
 use
 the
 care
 and
 skill
 
ordinarily
 used
 in
 like
 cases
 by
 reputable
 members
 
of
 his
 profession
 prac2cing
 in
 the
 same
 or
 similar
 
locality
 under
 similar
 circumstances,
 and
 to
 use
 
reasonable
 diligence
 and
 his
 best
 judgment
 in
 the
 
 
exercise
 of
 his
 professional
 skill
 and
 in
 the
 
applica2on
 of
 his
 learning,
 in
 an
 effort
 to
 
accomplish
 the
 purpose
 for
 which
 he
 was
 
employed.
 
 Clark
 v.
 City
 of
 Seward,
 659
 P.2d
 1227
 
(Alaska
 1983)
 

What
 Sa2sfies
 the
 Internal
 Firm
 
“Standard
 of
 Care”
 

•  Final
 Proofing
 
•  Periodic
 QA/QC
 Review
 
•  Direct
 &
 Con2nuous
 Involvement,
 Direc2on,
 &
 

Control
 

–  Does
 it
 mater
 whether
 the
 prepara2on
 is
 by
 a
 
licensed
 or
 unlicensed
 employee?
 
 Why?
 

What
 Sa2sfies
 the
 External
 Prepara2on
 
“Standard
 of
 Care”
 

•  Final
 Proofing
 
•  Periodic
 QA/QC
 Review
 
•  Direct
 &
 Con2nuous
 Involvement,
 Direc2on,
 &
 

Control
 

–  Does
 it
 mater
 whether
 the
 prepara2on
 is
 by
 
licensed
 professional,
 an
 independent
 contractor,
 
another
 firm,
 or
 “outsourced”?
 
 Why?
 

The
 Third
 Level
 of
 Exposure
 
Negligent/Inten2onal
 Misrepresenta2on
 

Negligent
 Misrepresenta2on
 –
 Five
 Elements:
 

 -­‐
 False
 statement
 

 -­‐
 Made
 without
 reasonable
 basis
 

 -­‐
 Intent
 that
 it
 be
 relied
 upon
 

 -­‐
 Relied
 on
 by
 third
 party
 

 -­‐
 Causes
 damages
 

Inten2onal
 Misrepresenta2on/Fraud
 simply
 
adds
 an
 actual
 knowledge
 of
 falsity
 

The
 Third
 Level
 of
 Exposure
 
Negligent/Inten2onal
 Misrepresenta2on
 

Stamping,
 sealing,
 and
 stamping
 design
 documents
 
prepared
 by
 others
 becomes
 an
 easy
 claim
 for
 
misrepresenta2on
 and
 fraud
 based
 on
 the
 
expecta2ons
 associated
 with
 the
 stamp/seal:
 
It
 assures
 the
 document’s
 recipient
 that
 the
 work
 
meets
 the
 standards
 of
 professionalism
 expected
 
of
 competent,
 experienced
 individuals
 who
 take
 
personal
 responsibility
 for
 their
 judgments
 and
 
decisions.
 –
 Ontario
 Professional
 Engineers
 

Building
 a
 “Best
 Prac2ces”
 Model
 
Review,
 Stamp,
 &
 Sign
 Not
 Enough
 

Although
 arguably
 permissible
 under
 some
 
statutes
 and
 regula2ons,
 simply
 reviewing/
proofing
 a
 completed
 product
 followed
 by
 
stamping
 and
 signing
 should
 not
 be
 
recommended
 or
 prac2ced.
 
-­‐  Diverges
 from
 client/public
 expecta2ons
 
-­‐  Creates
 personally
 &
 professional
 liability
 
-­‐  Risks
 license
 even
 if
 technically
 allowed
 

Best
 Prac2ces/Best
 Records
 

Ideally
 establish
 and
 document
 an
 internal
 
standard
 &
 procedure
 template.
 

Four
 Core
 Issues
 

 -­‐
 Preparer
 of
 Documents
 

 -­‐
 Timing
 &
 Depth
 of
 Review/Input
 

 -­‐
 Documenta2on
 

 -­‐
 Disclaimers
 

Classes
 of
 Preparers
 

•  Internal
 staff/team:
 
 “Direct
 Supervision”
 is
 the
 
key
 

–  Resident
 Office
 
–  Another
 Office
 
–  Internal
 Hierarchy
 

•  Outside
 Preparers:
 
 Professional
 Status
 Maters
 

–  Licensed
 vs.
 Unlicensed
 
–  Licensed
 in
 Project
 State
 v.
 Licensed
 Only
 Elsewhere
 
–  The
 more
 remote
 from
 an
 in-­‐state
 license,
 the
 more
 

con2nuous,
 ac2ve
 engagement
 recommended
 

Timing
 &
 Quality
 of
 Review/Input
 
 

•  Timing:
 
 Although
 allowed
 under
 some
 statutes,
 
stamping
 ager
 only
 a
 “proofing”
 of
 a
 final
 work
 
product
 is
 precarious.
 
 Consider
 establishing
 at
 
least
 significant
 milestones
 for
 review.
 

•  Quality:
 
 Should
 be
 varied
 dependent
 on
 status
 of
 
reviewer.
 
 Should
 go
 beyond
 a
 QA/QC
 valida2on
 
and
 should
 include
 professional
 judgment,
 
evalua2on,
 direc2on,
 and
 ul2mately
 “control”.
 
 
 

Documenta2on/Recordkeeping
 

•  Record
 2me
 even
 if
 not
 “billable”
 
•  Avoid
 records
 of
 the
 review/markups
 of
 drags
 

themselves.
 
•  Establish
 alternate
 record
 of
 milestone
 and
 

final
 review
 through
 a
 consistent
 template
 

Template
 for
 Review
 Records
 

•  Iden2fy
 as
 Alternate
 Milestones
 or
 Final
 

–  Phase/Milestone:____________
 or
 Final
 

•  Iden2fy
 Preparer(s)
 w/
 licensing
 &
 loca2on
 
•  Iden2fy
 Documents
 Reviewed
 
•  Summary
 Iden2fica2on
 of
 Outcome
 of
 Review
 

with
 Incorpora2on
 of
 Informa2on
 Reflec2ng
 
Professional
 Judgment
 and
 Evalua2on
 
•  Dated
 and
 Ini2aled
 

Disclaimers
 

•  Where
 por2ons
 of
 the
 plans
 have
 been
 
prepared
 by
 others,
 clearly
 iden2fy
 and
 
Disclaim.
 

•  This
 has
 become
 increasingly
 important
 and
 
recognized
 as
 a
 valid
 approach
 in
 light
 of
 
increased
 use
 of:
 

•  IPD
 
•  BIM
 
•  Design/Build
 

Disclaimer
 Text
 

Atached
 or
 Overstamped:
 
Engineer’s
 Professional
 Stamp
 and
 Seal
 shall
 
apply
 only
 to
 the
 por3ons
 of
 plans,
 
specifica3ons,
 surveys,
 reports,
 or
 other
 
documents
 specifically
 iden3fied
 or
 described
 
below.
 
 Engineer
 shall
 not
 be
 responsible
 for
 any
 
other
 associated
 documents.
 
-­‐
 Based
 on
 Missouri
 Rev.
 Statutes
 327.411
 

Acronym
 Ambiguity
 

Although
 not
 directly
 related
 to
 stamping
 &
 signing,
 
even
 reference
 as
 “architect”
 or
 “professional
 
engineer”
 can
 create
 licensing
 and
 liability
 issues:
 
Topaz
 v.
 Oregon
 Board
 of
 Examiners
 for
 Engineering
 
(2012)–
 


 -­‐
 Engineer
 licensed
 in
 another
 state
 used
 
“P.E.”
 on
 leters
 


 -­‐
 Found
 to
 be
 unauthorized
 prac2ce
 

 -­‐
 Suspended
 and
 fined.
 

Solu2ons
 for
 Title
 Blocks
 &
 Signatures
 

•  When
 using
 the
 2tle
 architect,
 engineer,
 or
 
land
 surveying
 in
 leterhead,
 signature
 lines,
 
or
 even
 e-­‐mail,
 if
 there
 is
 the
 poten2al
 for
 any
 
relevance
 to
 any
 state
 other
 than
 “home”
 
state,
 iden2fy
 the
 specific
 states
 of
 licensing
 
by
 serial
 lis2ng
 or
 footnote.
 

–  Avoids
 false
 representa2on
 
–  May
 actually
 validate
 or
 expand
 credibility/value
 

The
 
 Cer2fica2on
 Corollary
 

In
 addi2on
 to
 plans
 and
 specifica2ons
 at
 the
 
outset
 of
 a
 project,
 architects,
 engineers,
 and
 
land
 surveyors
 are
 ogen
 asked
 to
 “cer2fy”
 final
 
construc2on.
 
Such
 cer2fica2ons
 are
 ogen
 based
 on
 limited
 or
 
incomplete
 informa2on,
 but
 are
 issued,
 
requested,
 or
 expected
 to
 be
 comprehensive.
 
Creates
 frequent
 issues
 of
 liability
 and
 licensing.