Can Architect Stamp Mep Drawings
Engineers & Architects: Rules of Signing and Sealing of Technical Documents, by Robert Pellegrini, Esq.
The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) regulates the practice of "plan stamping". NCARB has provided several documents, available both to Engineers and Architects, regarding standards supporting their position on good architectural practice and responsible regulations. Below, I briefly touch upon NCARB's position on plan stamping, and provide limited comment to their position and, hopefully, some helpful suggestions and guidance to Massachusetts Architects and Engineers.
NCARB's position is based upon Rules 5.2 and 6 of their Rules of Conduct and Model Law. In pertinent part the rules provide that: "An Architect may sign and seal technical submissions only if it is (it can be any of these four): (i) prepared by an architect; (ii) prepared by persons under the architect's responsible control ; (iii) prepared by another registered architect if the architect has reviewed the work and has either coordinated the preparation of the work or has integrated the work into his own technical submission; or (iv) prepared by another architect registered in another U.S. jurisdiction and holding a certification by the NCARB if (a) the architect has reviewed the work and integrated the work into his own technical submissions, and (b) the other architect's submissions are prototypical building documents .
a) NCARB's definition of "responsible control": that amount of control over, and detailed professional knowledge of, the content of technical submissions during preparation as is ordinarily exercised by architects applying the required professional standard of care. Reviewing, or reviewing and correcting, after preparation does not meet NCARB's definition of responsible control.
b) Further guidance on "responsible control" can be found in 231 CMR 2.04: "Reviewing, or reviewing and correcting, technical submissions after they have been prepared by others shall not constitute the exercise of responsible control except as permitted by 231 CMR 4.01(5), which very closely resembles NCARB's language.
As provided above, in order to show "responsible control", the engineer/architect NCARB must have detailed information about the content throughout the preparation process. This position is supported by the decision in, Wamp v Tennessee State Board of Architectural & Engineering Examiners, 868 W.2d 273 (Tenn. 1993). NCARB's position is juxtaposed, however, by the Appeals Court of Maryland, in the State Board of Architects v. James Clark case (1997).
There is some case law that provides a more liberal approach. In Medlin v. Florida Board of Architecture, the Florida Appeals Court looked to Black's Law Dictionary for its definition of prepare when determining whether the architect prepared the documents. Black's Law Dictionary's definition: "to provide with necessary means, to make ready, to provide with what is appropriate or necessary". When deciding for the Appellant, the court found that Medlin's review and revisions were sufficient to avoid discipline for plan stamping. This position, however, is not supported by Massachusetts law, and therefore cannot be relied upon by Massachusetts professionals.
Other courts have ruled in favor of the architect/engineer, when there are specific facts supporting the professional. In The State Board of Architects v. James Clark, 689 A.2d 1247 (1997), James Clark appealed the State Board of Architects' suspension of his license, and was victorious in doing so. In brief, Mr. Clark's client, an experienced draftsman, prepared plans for both a doctor's office and a TCBY Yogurt store. After the plans were completed, Mr. Clark was hired to review the plans (and only after the local building official had asked that the plans be revised to reflect new changes in the building code). In its decision to suspend Clark's license, the Board of Architects ruled that Mr. Clark would have had to redraw the plans. However, the Appeals Court concentrated on the fact that Clark conducted a thorough review of the plans and made revisions where necessary. The fact that Clark had no involvement with the original plans until the original permits were granted seemed to be the final factor that swayed the court in favor of Clark. The court also found the Code of Maryland Regulations convincing, noting that the law there only required control of the drawings ; not over the person preparing them.
Responsible control is not needed for subsections (iii) and (iv) of NCARB's Rules of Conduct and Model Law —when the work is prepared by another architect. Rule 6, cited above, mirrors this important differentiation. It provides that NCARB will view things differently when the architect integrates another architect's work into his own, when the work is a prototypical drawing. The author was unable to find a definition of what a prototypical drawing is; however, NCARB provides detailed examples describing the typical architect's process and its expectations—minutely dissecting documents, and reviewing all the calculations involved. When the work does not necessarily have to be prepared by an architect or engineer, according to Rule 5.2, and 231 CMR 4.01(5)(c), an architect may sign and seal if the architect has reviewed the work and integrated it into her own submissions.
Despite NCARB's comment that "plan stampers" are typically in "marginal practices", in the author's experience, this is often not the case. Plan stamping more often occurs in situations where the architect has been working with a client for a period of time and has developed a working relationship. NCARB does not provide this scenario as specific example, but it seems that this would meet its standards. The non-architect is essentially using the architect's work, so this appears to meet NCARB's Rules and model law. However, whether or not the new product remains the engineer's work would most likely depend upon the particular facts supporting how closely the new plan resembles the original. If the architect's review of the new plan would require substantial new calculations, for example, the rules would most likely require a new plan.
No matter how all of this is interpreted, it is prudent for the architect to retain his work product (adequate and complete records) for a period of at least five years after the latest work is stamped. That said, drawings or work not required to be prepared by an architect can be integrated into the architect's work. And, if the original plan is prepared by the professional and later revisions are made to the design (especially ones not requiring new calculations or required to be performed by an architect) the architect should be permitted to stamp the resulting plan without violating the rules and model law. Otherwise, we suggest that the engineer conduct her own calculations and develop her own plans before applying her stamp.
About Attorney Robert Pellegrini
Prior to starting his private practice in Bridgewater, MA, Attorney Robert Pellegrini served as Senior Attorney for Cumberland Farms, Inc. and Gulf Oil (CFI), where he was primarily responsible for permitting, and real estate. At CFI, his role included site selection and acquisition, project team selection, schematic design, construction, contracts, and related litigation. Robert has represented clients before the Architectural Access Board (ADA issues) and with respect to the Petroleum Marketers Act.
Attorney Pellegrini has 18 years experience in real estate, land use and zoning and has steadily grown his practice across the Northeast region including office locations in Bridgewater, Stoughton, Dedham, and Newburyport. A Boston location is planned for 2015. He currently serves as a Corporator for Bridgewater Savings Bank, and is a member of the Real Estate Bar Association (REBA), MetroSouth Chamber of Commerce, and the Bridgewater Business Association.
Attorney Pellegrini enjoys outdoor activities with his two sons, Sam and Max, including boating, fishing and hiking. He is also an avid blogger on real estate matters, which can be found athttp://blog.rrpesq.com or Twitter @rrpesq.
December 31, 2020
Can Architect Stamp Mep Drawings
Source: https://mspe.com/2015/04/02/engineers-architects-rules-of-signing-and-sealing-of-technical-documents-by-robert-pellegrini-esq/