Hell, what *state* are they from?

True but some countries don't require engineers . . . .

Also the projects typically have to be rather small for certain states in the US to allow an architect to stamp any engineering drawings and even that is rare. 

U.S. / Florida. Perhaps the answer has to do with square footages & building types. Like I said I haven't been able to find a concrete answer.

Obviously residential is it's own thing with limited rules , so I suppose I'm speaking about commercial architecture.

What type of "engineer"? I don't know of any way to permit a commercial project without a structural engineer, for example. Hell, it's easier to do a small project without an Architect than without a structural engineer. Larger projects will have fully engineered MEP, but smaller projects often push it to a "Design-Build" subcontractor (of course they have their own engineers, but it's not "the architect" contracting one). Then you have civil, which may or may not be needed depending on the project scope. Beyond that you start to get into the more specialized fields. Acoustic engineers, for example, are never "required" by the state, though some owners (incidentally, government owners) require them in contracts. There are so many types of "Engineer"

Anyway, I guess my point is that maybe you're getting a long pause because it's a really difficult question to answer without a bunch of followup questions.

The query sprung from a conversation around a small, mostly repetitive, retail building & the need for a structural engineer outside of deflecting liability. The firm always has & always will hire engineers for that reason alone. But they had more of a "master builder" definition of an architects license.

Perhaps a better question would be, what can't an architect do? But I suppose that varies by country, state, etc.

As far as I was told, the ability of Engineers to make buildings without Architects and vice versa was part of the licensing push, as Engineers wouldn't have backed it otherwise.

Yes, but why would you when you can just take the 10% for coordination and move on with more specialized folks doing the job?

I wouldn't, because I'd rather go to bed at night knowing I didn't sign structural drawings that I don't fully understand. I'm just curious as to what the law says we can do.

Never forget that you're in no way shielded from liability, though.

True. I just never knew that bypassing them was an "option". I suppose perhaps I didn't truly understand the full breadth of an architectural license. I'm still not truly sure where that line is.

Also for reference, I still find it hard to believe that we don't need them per the letter of the law. So if anyone can find it feel free to share.

Only for certain project types in certain counties in certain states. The snip you posted above about CA - individual counties in CA can and do make the permitting process more stringent and require an engineer regardless of what the state says.

Aps, you're at odds with many firms with this opinion. This arrangement encourages Owners to engage in bad behavior, pitting teams who should be working together against each other in a race to the bottom.

Yeah, I like my consultants to be in my court.

We have been operating like that for decades - can't remember the last time we as architects hired our own engineers; unless they were on-staff. Now, in that case, I always said that we could get better service from an outside consulting firm than from our own staff...there is really no incentive for the engineers who work in the same place as you do to be extra diligent or co-operative since they will have a job tomorrow anyways, just like I will. If they're outside guys, they'll try harder to keep you as a someone to work with because you're the one that gave them the job, and might the next time. You guys still hire your own engineers? Maybe it works for you...

In my experience being on separate contracts has exacerbated the billing conflicts impact on the project, as our firm is held to a deadline which relies on information that is being withheld due to the consultants dispute with the owner, and since we have no contractual or financial leverage, they derail our work.

You're conflating hiring engineers on staff with hiring engineers as sub-consultants.

Not at all. Most places I worked at, we had our own staff engineers. Some, we had to hire outside consultants per job...and then, there were times where owners usually brought their own. I liked that the best - got most co-operation from the owner's guys. Funny, how it works better one way then other in different parts of the world.

I’m in agreement that it’s easier / better for the client to hire engineers, the question was more in regards to what we “can do”. Not what we “should do”. I never knew we had that much power, for better or worse.

I'm always wary of doing something only because it benefits the owner. Red flag #1. My experience with unscrupulous owner's reps is the main reason I prefer to have my own subconsultants.

I can see that. Fortunately, we didn't have such problems. I'm trying to think of the last time we hired our own outside consultants for a project...must have been in the mid 70's on a little dinky industrial building? On a house, we, as architects, would do all the engineering ourselves, and the authorities were OK with that. Large private clients - shopping centre developers, high rise condos, high rise office buildings, schools, hospitals, transportation facilities...they all brought their own consultants along, particularly the governments. Because our industry is relatively small - even across the World, many times we would end up working with the same consultants in many different places...had same Quantity Surveyors and Code consultants in Abu Dhabi as we did in Ontario or BC...so, we get to know each other no matter where we're working. It's a small World, it really is, and you cannot afford to screw somebody. Owners reps in our cases were mostly ex-architect friends or former co-workers.