Blog Viewer

This is the fourth in a four-part series on this blog addressing sealing and signing of instruments of service by design professionals, comprised of: (a) Part 1 – Definition and Purpose of Seals; (b) Part 2 – Electronic Seals and Signatures; (c) Part 3 – Statutory Requirements Concerning Sealing and Signing of Documents; and (d) Part 4 – Practical Considerations Concerning Sealing and Signing. Statutory requirements concerning sealing and signing may vary by jurisdiction but are almost never quite as specific or clear as some practitioners might desire. For example, while laws and regulations typically require sealing and signing drawings and specifications, they rarely address documents such as addenda, construction contract modifications, and others. Specifics concerning the indication of responsible charge for technical reports, calculations, and even construction specifications may require more insight than is expressly indicated in the associated laws and regulations.

This article presents practical advice for architects, engineers, geologists, and other design professionals concerning the details of sealing and signing, in addition to the essential obligation of complying with statutory requirements.

Terms such as, “’[architect] [engineer] of record” and “’[architect] [engineer] -in-responsible-control” are typically construed as having the same meaning as, “’[architect] [engineer] -in-responsible-charge”. In many organizations, the terms are used interchangeably for a given design discipline. For convenience and uniformity, the term “responsible charge” is used in this article. Also, in this article, laws, rules, and regulations are referenced as either “laws and regulations” or “statutory requirements”. Furthermore, the term “instruments of service” means the collection of documents, drawings, specifications, calculations, and other tangible materials produced by design professionals during the various stages of a project. (Source: Understanding Instruments of Service (aiacontracts.com))

Reports and Recommendations Constituting the Practice of the Associated Design Profession

While it is commonly understood and accepted that construction drawings and specifications must be sealed and signed, it may be less well understood that, in some jurisdictions, other instruments of service also require sealing and signing. Such documents may include submittals required of the design professional during schematic design, design development, or preliminary design. In jurisdictions where such documents are not submitted to authorities having jurisdiction for permitting, sealing and signing may not be necessary. However, such documents must always be prepared under the responsible charge of an appropriately licensed and registered design professional.

In some cases, an engineer’s “preliminary design report”, also often known as a “basis of design report”, is required to secure necessary operating permits and, sometimes, permits to construct the project. In such locales, engineers’ preliminary design reports should typically be sealed and signed by the licensee serving in responsible charge.

Other reports and recommendations of a technical nature, constituting the statutory definition of the practice of the subject design profession, may also require sealing and signing. Reports and recommendations regarding optimization of processes and operations, whether at and industrial facility or a publicly owned water or wastewater treatment plant, should be sealed and signed in most jurisdictions. The potential exists that conceptual documents, such as capital improvement plans, may require sealing and signing. Such reports and recommendations may be lengthy, such as a multi-volume study addressing how to properly manage vehicular traffic around a major, new site development, or brief, such as a three-page “technical memorandum” presenting narrowly focused recommendations on a particular topic.

Of course, design professionals’ deliverables that do not constitute the applicable statutory definition of the practice of the subject design profession need not be sealed and signed, and need not be prepared under the responsible charge of an appropriate design professional. 

Calculations

Calculations for work that constitutes the statutory definition of the practice of engineering, geology, or architecture, must be prepared under the responsible charge of the appropriate design professional and, in many jurisdictions, often must be sealed and signed. Sealing and signing of calculations is often necessary when they are finalized, and is almost always necessary when submitting to authorities having jurisdiction. Statutes in some jurisdictions may require sealing and signing calculations regardless of whether they are submitted externally or are in interim form. When calculations are certified, seals and signatures are typically applied at a suitable location on the first page of the calculations.

In earlier years, calculations were often prepared by hand, on paper, and, therefore, were relatively easy to seal and sign when necessary. In contemporary practice, calculations are commonly prepared using third-party software applications, or electronic spreadsheets prepared either directly for the project or template-style spreadsheets developed by the design firm for customization on many projects. It can be more challenging and, therefore, easier to omit, sealing and signing electronically developed calculations, especially when they may potentially never be printed on paper. In such cases, an appropriate solution may be to print the calculations to a file in portable document format (“.pdf”), which can be sealed and signed for the design professional’s records. The sealed and signed calculations should always take precedence over calculations in native (executable) file formats, especially when seals and signatures are not applied to the native file formats. Furthermore, because native file formats can easily be modified, whether knowingly or unknowingly, by anyone with access rights to the location where such files are stored, it is usually unwise to apply an electronic seal, signature, or both, to calculations in native file format, unless the seal and signature are appropriately electronically certified. To reduce the potential for confusion, retaining multiple, alternative sets of calculations, especially those with seals and signatures, should be avoided. When previously sealed and signed calculations are superseded and, nevertheless, retained in the design professional’s file, they should be clearly marked as, “VOID” or, “SUPERSEDED”. 

Drawings

Drawings intended for permitting and construction virtually always require seals and signatures on each sheet. Because projects involving multiple design disciplines often apportion the drawings into various subsets by design discipline (e.g., civil, architectural, structural, fire suppression, plumbing, HVAC, process-mechanical, instrumentation and control, electrical, and possibly others), each sheet is typically sealed and signed by one person serving in responsible charge. When multiple individuals served in responsible charge, often for each design discipline, organizing the drawings into subsets by design discipline facilitates sealing and signing by the appropriate licensee. 

Because most sets of drawings include a cover sheet, some jurisdictions require sealing and signing the cover sheet, even though it is merely informational in nature. Some jurisdictions further require that the cover sheet be sealed and signed by each separate, individual design professional who served in responsible charge of some aspect of the project. When this is done, a brief notation adjacent to each seal and signature on the cover sheet should be included to indicate the specific design discipline(s) to which each applies, whether or not expressly required by statute. Certain states also require that the cover sheet be sealed and signed by a “coordinating design professional”, although the rationale for such a requirement is unclear.

All drawings, including those with details and schematics, need to be sealed and signed. When the project owner has its own standard construction detail drawings the design professional is required to use, the design professional should have the authority to make final revisions to the owner’s standard detail drawings, as necessary for the project. When an owner refuses such permission, the design professional should give appropriate consideration to whether such drawings, or parts of drawings, should be sealed and signed, given that they were not allowed to exercise responsible charge over them.

In certain, possibly rare circumstances, it may be necessary for more than one licensee to seal and sign a particular drawing, other than a cover sheet. In such cases, clear indication must be applied adjacent to each seal and signature designating the specific aspects of the work shown on that drawing to which it applies.

When the design team includes individuals from more than one design firm, especially in a prime consultant-subconsultant relationship, it is appropriate to indicate on the drawing the employer of the person serving in responsible charge. This may be accomplished using text adjacent to the location where the seal and signature will be applied, or by the subconsultant’s firm’s name and logo in the title block of the associated drawing. Some prime consultants may prefer their company name and logo be on every drawing, although this could have potential to communicate that the prime consultant had more than just coordination responsibility. The seal and signature is the principal means for communicating the individual in responsible charge, and therefore the licensee possessing the risk, but it is also wise to clearly communicate the design firm where they were employed.

Considerations regarding whether conformed construction documents (i.e., drawings and specifications revised following bidding/procurement/pricing and prior to construction to show and indicate changes made via addenda, post-bid negotiations, if any, and alternates, if any, awarded by the Owner) and record documents (i.e., drawings and specifications revised to show and indicate changes made via contract modifications during construction and field conditions encountered, as well as other changes, if any, made during construction) are a separate topic not addressed in this article. For more information on this matter, see, “What the Heck Are They, Really? Conformed Documents and Record Documents”, by Kevin O’Beirne, published in the newsletter of CSI’s Buffalo-Western New York Chapter, February 2018. 

Construction Specifications

Construction specifications must be sealed and signed, as discussed in “Part 3 – Statutory Requirements Concerning Sealing and Signing of Documents“ of this series (previously posted on this writer’s blog). However, requirements concerning the location of seals and signatures varies by jurisdiction. Some states require all seals and signatures on the cover of the specifications or project manual, whereas others may allow using a separate document for sealing and signing, typically bound close behind the manual’s cover. CSI’s MasterFormat assigns “00 01 07 – Seals Page”. MasterFormat further indicates that such a document, “includes: professional seals by design professionals and others responsible for preparing construction documents”. Requirements may further vary by state. For example, this writer understands that some jurisdictions require, either currently or previously, application of seals and signatures to the specifications’ table of contents (presumably with indication of the sections to which each seal and signature applies) or a second seals and signatures document bound immediately following the last section of the specifications. In some cases, seals and signatures may be applied to each, individual specifications section.

When multiple seals and signatures are indicated together, such as on the project manual’s cover or on a “seals and signatures” document, it is desirable (and, in some jurisdictions, required) to clearly indicate the specific portions of the specifications to which each seal and signature applies. This may be done by indicating an entire division of the specifications, individual sections, or specific portions of sections for each licensee. Vagueness in such designations, such as indicating, “the seal to the left applies to all mechanical work,” should be avoided. When licensees from multiple design firms, such as when the prime design consultant retains a sub-consultant, or when the designer is a joint venture, will seal and sign different specifications, the employer of each should be expressly indicated.  This writer’s employer often uses a “seals and signatures” document organized into a table with each row presenting space for one seal and signature, together with space to indicate the specifications to which it applies. The table may be comprised of multiple rows, depending on the number of individuals serving in responsible charge for various aspects of the project. An example of one of the rows is presented below.

Still other statutory requirements may apply to sealing and signing drawings and specifications. For example, the State of Nebraska requires indicating on drawings and the project manual cover, the appropriate “certificate of authority” or “certificate of authorization” (i.e., the design firm’s corporate license number).

In some cases, the project owner maintains its own system of master specifications that design consultants retained by the owner are obligated to use. In these circumstances, the design firm should have authority to make final revisions in such documents, as appropriate for the project. When the project owner refuses to allow the design firm permission to make final revisions in its master specifications being used for a project, the design firm and its individuals serving in responsible charge should carefully consider whether to seal and sign specifications, or parts of specifications, over which they were not allowed to exert appropriate responsible charge.

A notable example is the standard specifications of each state’s department of transportation (DOT). DOT standard specifications are typically published separately by the associated agency and are not adapted, edited, or reissued for a specific project. Therefore, consulting engineers retained to design projects for a state DOT do not seal and sign the DOT’s standard specifications. Rather, the individual in responsible charge identifies the appropriate item designations from the DOT standard specifications and expressly indicates them on the drawings, which are sealed and signed for the project.

Whether or not it is appropriate to incorporate state DOT standard specifications by reference into construction documents prepared for a third-party, whether a municipality or private owner, is unclear. Although it is relatively common for specifications prepared by design firms for work results such as aggregates (crushed stone and gravel), pavement materials, and perhaps other types of civil/site work, to reference the associated state DOT standard specifications for common material designations, such cross-references to the DOT standard specifications are often limited, and comprise a relatively modest extent of the project. Furthermore, references to state DOT standard specification items are typically included in a project specifications section that is sealed and signed by the design professional in responsible charge. In other cases, however, a project team may seek to avoid the necessity of developing its own specifications for a project by requiring wholesale or substantial compliance with the associated state DOT standard specifications. The extent to which this is acceptable when the project owner is other than the state DOT is worthy of consideration, given that the design firm has no authority to edit or adapt the DOT standard specifications for the specific project. This writer is not aware of any state licensing board disciplinary case that may have considered such practices.

Preparation of the documents that comprise “Division 00 – Procurement and Contracting Requirements” of the project manual do not constitute the statutory definition of the practice of any of the design professions. Indeed, it is fairly common for individuals who are neither design professionals nor working under their responsible charge, such as owners’ procurement personnel, a third-party construction manager as advisor, an owners’ program manager, or the owners’ legal counsel, to prepare “Division 00” documents. Furthermore, it is not unusual for such individuals, especially a construction manager as advisor, to develop certain specifications typically part of “Division 01 – General Requirements”. In such cases, the design professional in responsible charge should not seal or sign such Division 01 sections unless they have final revision/approval authority over them. For additional information concerning sealing and signing Divisions 00 and 01, see: “Sealing and Signing Divisions 00 and 01: Is it Architecture or Engineering?”, previously published on this writer’s blog. 

Addenda

Addenda are documents, typically issued during the bidding or procurement stage, that modify the bidding or procurement documents. Such changes can include revisions to the drawings, specifications, “Division 00” documents, and previously-issued addenda. Therefore, addenda are often used to change the project’s design, as reflected in the drawings and specifications.  Because they are issued separately from the rest of the bidding or procurement documents, it is important that addenda be sealed and signed by the associated design professional in responsible charge. In many jurisdictions, laws and regulations governing the design professions do not expressly require sealing and signing of addenda, however, to the best of this writer’s knowledge, all states’ statutory requirements governing architecture, engineering, and other design professions expressly forbid anyone not working under the responsible charge of the person who sealed and signed the instruments of service from revising them.

Accordingly, sealing and signing addenda which modify the drawings and specifications is implied. Each addendum should be sealed and signed by the person in responsible charge for those aspects of the drawings and specifications being revised via that addendum. Changes made to “Division 00” documents do not constitute the statutory definition of the practice of the various design professions and, therefore, it is not necessary or desirable to seal and sign addendum items that change elements of “Division 00” documents. For example, an addendum where the only change is to delay the due date for submittal of bids need not be sealed and signed, whereas and addendum that changes the layout of columns required for a new building or structure, or an addendum item that modifies the specifications relative to required performance of a new pump, should be sealed and signed. In practice, it is often easier to include on the first page of an addendum space for sealing and signing, adapting the seals and signatures format indicated above for Document 00 01 07. 

Construction Contract Modifications

Contract modifications issued after the construction contract is signed by both parties include change orders, change directives, and field orders or architect’s supplemental instructions. Like addenda, contract modifications may revise any aspect of the construction contract documents, including the drawings and specifications. No states’ statutory requirements known to this writer expressly require sealing and signing contract modifications.

Whether or not contract modifications should be sealed by the design professional in responsible charge may depend on the extent of the changes so directed and what documents, if any, are attached to the contract modification. For example, where drawings or specifications are modified and, perhaps, reissued, then it is likely both sealing and signing are required. However, when a contract modification that revises some element of the drawings or specifications is relatively brief and, perhaps, indicated only in the contract modification instrument itself, space to apply a seal may be unavailable. Whether such instruments should be sealed may perhaps depend on the scope or importance of the changes so ordered. 

Regardless of whether a contract modification bears the seal of the associated design professional when such a modification revises drawings or specifications, it is typically a requirement of the construction contract that the design professional sign the contract modification. The design professional’s employee whose signature appears on the change order or other modification instrument should be the design professional in responsible charge of the change so ordered. Therefore, contract modifications that revise the drawings, specifications, or other technical matters set forth in the construction contract documents should not be signed by a person who does not possess current, valid licensure and registration in the same jurisdiction as the project site, and who is not designated by their employer as serving in responsible charge for the affected design disciplines.

Where a contract modification does not modify drawings, specifications, or other technical matters, then it may be arguable whether a signature by the design professional for the purposes discussed in this paragraph is necessary from a statutory standpoint. Indeed, the Standard General Conditions of the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC) have expressly indicated this since 2013.

Although requests for interpretation or clarification (RFI) are not contract modifications, and should never be used to modify or extend the requirements of the construction contract, RFIs entail rendering professional judgement. Thus, when an RFI is regarding an interpretation or clarification of a technical matter, especially regarding some aspect of the drawings or specifications, the RFI response should be prepared under the supervision and control of the design professional in responsible charge. The design professional’s response to such RFIs should probably be signed by the design professional in responsible charge, although no laws or regulations governing the design professions, known to this writer, expressly address this, sealing of RFI responses has not been witnessed by this writer in any jurisdiction or circumstance. 

Other Administrative Forms and Certifications

The architect or engineer may be required or requested to sign and, perhaps, seal certain certifications and other administrative forms, whether directly associated with the construction documents or otherwise. For example, for the design-bid-build and construction manager at risk project delivery methods, the design professional is typically required to sign the certificate of substantial completion. Whether the signature of the person appearing on such a form should be that of the (or, perhaps, all) design professional(s) in responsible charge is not clearly addressed in any of the standard contract documents in widespread use in the United States, or in any laws or regulations governing the design professions known to this writer. When a construction project involves a third-party construction manager as advisor (CMa), the CMa will often be the entity signing a certificate of substantial completion, implying that it may not be mandatory for the design professional in responsible charge to do so.

Some forms, however, may expressly require application of the design professionals seal and signature. Such forms and certifications may come in a variety of forms and for various purposes. Among those encountered by this writer are health department certifications, necessary for permits required to operate substantially completed drinking water facilities, stating that, to the best of the engineer’s knowledge and belief, the facilities were completed in accordance with the construction documents approved by the health department prior to construction. In some jurisdictions, a design professional’s seal and signature may be required when a public owner will issue municipal bonds to finance a capital project; the likely reason for such a requirement is to assure the financing entity that a licensed design professional was involved in determining the project’s preliminary scope and budget. When a design professional’s seal and signature is required by their client or a financing entity on certifications needed for issuance of bonds, or other financing documents, the design professional should also consider obtaining advice from their own legal counsel on the certification language.

Regardless of the type of certification instrument to be sealed and signed by a design professional, the design professional must have final revision authority over the language to which their certification, seal, and signature applies. This writer has encountered certain owners, financing entities, and authorities having jurisdiction, who attempted to prohibit or restrict the design professional’s final revisions to the language of the instrument being certified. In effect, such prohibition or restriction, seeks to remove from the design professional the ability to condition their certification or modify it. Design professionals requested to apply their seal and signature under such circumstances should give careful, appropriate consideration as to whether the certification language, drafted entirely by others without the design professional’s input or revision, is appropriate, and the risks associated with applying the requested seal and signature. 

Other Documents

As discussed above, calculations constituting the practice of a design profession must be prepared under the responsible charge of a licensee, and sometimes must be sealed and signed, depending on their use and the jurisdiction of the project site. Other types of calculations, however, may not constitute the practice of architecture, engineering, or geology, and, therefore, need not be prepared under the supervision and control of a design professional and should not be sealed and signed. Examples include quantity estimates developed for construction cost estimating purposes, preparation of opinions of probable construction cost, and preparation of design-phase preliminary construction schedules. In fact, quantity estimates, cost estimates, and design-phase preliminary construction schedules are frequently developed by individuals who are not engineers or architects. Construction managers, professional construction cost estimators, contractors, scheduling consultants, and others commonly develop quantity estimates, cost estimates, and preliminary construction schedules. Therefore, such documents should typically not be sealed or signed by the licensee.

Contractor submittals, including shop drawings, product data, samples, quality control submittals, and others, that constitute the practice of a licensed design profession should be reviewed under the responsible charge of the appropriate licensee (for additional information, see, Shop Drawings and Submittals: Definition, Purpose, and Necessity and Shop Drawings and Submittals: Liability Associated with Submittal Reviews, previously published on this writer’s blog). The language of the design professional’s submittal review stamp is important (see Shop Drawings and Submittals—Submittal Review Stamps, and Shop Drawings and Submittals—Delegated Design Submittals, previously published on this writer’s blog). However, in no event should the design professional affix their professional seal to a contractor’s submittal (or facsimile thereof). Whether or not the design professional’s submittal review should be signed by the licensee in responsible charge may be debatable, although it is reasonably common for individuals not in responsible charge to perform submittal reviews and even sign them on behalf of the design firm. In many ways, reviewing submittals such as shop drawings, product data, samples, and quality control submittals is an extension of the architect’s or engineer’s design services and should be performed under the responsible charge of the individual who sealed and signed the associated drawings and specifications.

Reviewing construction contractors’ requests for payment is an extremely important administrative task that typically does not constitute the practice of engineering, architecture, or other design profession. Accordingly, reviewing applications for payment and associated documentation need not be performed under the responsible charge of a licensed design professional. However, when performed by an architect, engineer, or other design professional, such reviews should never be taken lightly. They represent an extremely important administrative function that should be performed by an experienced person, familiar with the progress and quality of the work and its compliance with the construction contract, who devotes appropriate attention to performing such reviews and, ultimately, certifies (AIA) or recommends (EJCDC) payment by the owner. Payment requests, whether or not signed by a licensee, are typically not sealed by a design professional. 

Applying Seals and Signatures

When it is necessary to apply the seal and signature of the design professional serving in responsible charge to instruments of service, security of the seal should be considered. When the deliverables are voluminous, such as sealing and signing 50 or 100 or more drawings, a busy professional engineer, registered architect, or other licensed design professional may be reluctant to take the time to sit in the conference room with the rubber stamp of their seal and an inkpad, applying their seal to each drawing. Often, there is temptation to hand the seal and inkpad to a junior staff member, such as a CAD/BIM operator, together with a request for them to spend the next 60 or 90 minutes in the monotonous task of repeatedly applying the seal. Such action is not necessarily counter to statutory requirements, but it may also not be good practice. A licensed design professional should always consider the need to maintain proper security concerning their seal, even with a trusted subordinate. Even when the subordinate has repeatedly proven their trustworthiness, upon completion of application of the seal, the seal should be immediately returned to its owner and not left unsecured in the conference room where the drawings were laid out.

In many cases, current, prevailing practice involves applying electronic seals and, often electronic signatures. In such cases, security concerns are elevated regarding electronic seals and signatures, because they are easy to reproduce, forward, and use in an unauthorized manner. Electronic seals and signatures, and their security, are addressed in, “Part 2 – Electronic Seals and Signatures” of this series.

Laws and regulations governing the design professions are rarely so specific as to mandate whether an original seal and signature is required on each copy of the associated instrument of service, or whether only the original document needs to bear an original seal and signature. Common practice is typically the latter, although persons serving in responsible charge should always be aware of, and comply with, applicable statutory requirements. Virtually by definition, using electronic seals or signatures means that only the “original” is sealed and signed. However, practices vary by design firm and the individual. In some cases, an electronic seal and signature may perhaps be included in the native (executable) file format, such as a “.dwg” file of a drawing, or a “.docx” file of the project manual or specifications. Alternatively, the seal and signature might be added only to a portable document format (“.pdf”) file, either printed on paper and sealed and signed and subsequently scanned to a “.pdf” file or saved as a .pdf and electronically sealed and signed. The latter is typical when sealing and signing using digital certification via an application such as Bluebeam Revu. Because “.pdf” files can typically be easily edited or converted into another editable file format, such as Microsoft Word or other executable file format. Consideration should be given to properly securing (electronically protecting) seals and signatures in “.pdf” files. When sealing and signing using a digital certification applied through Bluebeam Revu or a similar application, subsequent revisions of the certified document will result in removal of the seal and signature.

When applied, seals and signatures should always be legible. In particular, this means that “wet” seals should be applied using appropriate ink pads. Using old, dried-out ink pads that will result in an indistinct or faded-looking seal should be avoided, especially when such originals will be reproduced. Inked seals should always be firmly applied to create a distinct image. Common mistakes during application of inked seals include pressing too lightly, pressing too hard (thereby resulting in a “heavy” and possibly indistinct image), and twisting the seal while it is pressed on the paper (which may result in smudging or other reduced legibility). The same concerns are relevant when an electronic facsimile of a seal is created by scanning a paper copy of the seal and signature.

Signatures should be as clear and distinct as allowed by the handwriting of the individual. Laws and regulations governing the design professions typically require the signature be applied either directly adjacent to or over a portion of the associated seal. However, the applied signature should not cover or obliterate essential information communicated by the seal, such as the licensee’s name, license number, issuing jurisdiction, and type of license.

Even when not expressly required to do so by statute, it is advisable to clearly indicate the date the seal and signature was applied, typically directly adjacent to the seal and signature. Sealing and signing using a third-party digital certification typically results in a dated time stamp adjacent to the seal or signature. Some jurisdictions may further require explicit indication of the expiration date of the licensee’s current license or registration (as applicable) adjacent to the seal.

Seals and signatures should always be applied only on an appropriate background. They should not be applied over other text or graphics because doing so is very likely to obscure critical, required information indicated on the seal or signature and thus perhaps call its validity into question.

While physical or electronic stamps are likely most common, using an embossed, metal seal may be necessary in some instances. Such devices create a raised impression of the seal in the paper. Many of the same recommendations presented above for physical and electronic stamps apply to using embossed, metal seals. Raised seals should not be applied over other text or graphics. Where it will be necessary to reproduce the sealed document, including electronic copies, raised seals may not properly appear in copies. 

Non-compliance and Consequences

Many disciplinary cases considered by architecture and engineering licensing boards involve misuse or improper application of seals and signatures. This is likely because draft instruments of service remain, virtually by definition, preliminary until the time they are sealed and signed by the design professional in responsible charge. Therefore, it is possible that a licensing board might not consider disciplinary cases involving matters of responsible charge or inappropriate instruments of service unless the associated documents have been sealed and signed.

Examples of situations where seals or signatures were not properly used are discussed in “Ethics: Codes of Conduct for Design Professionals, Part 1 – Introduction and Ethical Dilemmas”, and, “Licensing Boards: Entities that Govern the Design Professions, Part 4 – Enforcement”, both previously published on this writer’s blog. Furthermore, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Board of Ethical Review posts on its website redacted summaries of selected cases. Regardless of whether one is an engineer, architect, or other design professional, these summaries are educational. While the NSPE summaries address many different ethics situations, the Board’s website allows visitors to filter the case summaries by predetermined topics. The Board’s cases involving sealing and signing-related matters are available here.

Non-compliance with laws and regulations concerning use of seals and signatures can be serious, with substantial consequences. Matters that typically constitute a violation of applicable statutory requirements, including misuse of seals and signatures, together with typical procedures for how licensing board disciplinary cases are handled, and potential consequences when a person is convicted of misconduct, are discussed in “Licensing Boards: Entities that Govern the Design Professions, Part 4 – Enforcement”. 

Conclusions

Laws and regulations governing the practice of the design professions in the United States are not always as clear or explicit as might perhaps be desired by practitioners. While sealing and signing of construction drawings, specifications, technical reports, and calculations required for permitting and approvals is typically necessary, statutory requirements often do not address details and nuances such as exactly which types of technical reports must be sealed and signed, sealing and signing of construction specifications, precisely how and when calculations should be sealed and signed (especially when they are developed using software applications and computer spreadsheets), and sealing and signing of other documents such as addenda, construction contract modifications, and administrative forms and certifications. Knowledge of the purpose of sealing and signing is often needed to obtain appropriate insights regarding how and when to properly seal and sign such documents. In the end, design professionals’ seals and signatures must be clearly and properly applied and used. Failure to do so has potential to result in significant consequences. 

Original text Copyright 2024 by Kevin O’Beirne
The content of this blog post is by the author alone and should not be attributed to any other individual or entity.
The author of this blog post is not an attorney and nothing in this blog post constitutes legal advice. Readers in need of legal advice should consult with a qualified, experienced attorney..

Kevin O’Beirne, PE, FCSI, CCS, CCCA is a professional engineer licensed in NY and PA with over 35 years of experience designing and constructing water and wastewater infrastructure for public and private clients.  He is the engineering specifications manager for a global engineering and architecture design firm.  He has been a member of various CSI national committees and is the certification chair of CSI’s Buffalo-Western New York Chapter.  He is an ACEC voting delegate in the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC) and lives and works in the Buffalo NY area.  Kevin O’Beirne’s LinkedIn page.