So, i have a friend who has this problem (seriously)...she has pased all her exams yet has postponed actually getting her license because she currently works for a non-licensed person (interior designer). we often have this debate regarding what she should do, because i was in a very similar position in the past. the Architects Practice Act has some interesting nuggets of wisdom, which i have included here:
All persons preparing or being in responsible control of plans, specifications,and instruments of service for others shall sign those plans, specifications,and instruments of service and all contracts therefor, and if licensed under thischapter shall affix a stamp, which complies with subdivision (b), to those plans, specifications, and instruments of service, as evidence of the person's responsibility for those documents. Failure of any person to comply with this subdivision is a misdemeanor punishable as provided in Section 5536. This section shall not apply to employees of persons licensed under this chapter while acting within the course of their employment
An architect who associates with a person who is not a California licensed architect or civil or structural engineer or bona fide employee to jointly offer architectural design services shall, prior to offering architectural design services, enter into a written agreement of association with the unlicensed person whereby the architect agrees to be responsible for the preparation of the instruments of service and other phases of the work required by law which are not exempted from the provisions of chapter 3 (commencing with Section 5500) Division 3 of the Code ( "Architect Practice Act").
An architect shall undertake to perform professional services only when he or she, together with those whom the architect may engage as consultants, are qualified by education, training, and experience in the specific technical areas involved.
so the actual question is, since the office does occasionally do work that requires an architects stamp (stamped by permitting consultant) would she be required to stamp and sign the drawings she works on? does this make her liable?
so here are a couple of things: an architect working for an architect is not liable, because the architect/owner takes "responsible control" although if the owner/employer is not licensed is the employee supposed to take responsible control from the employer, this does not seem feasible.
so lets say they are supposed to wrest control of the project from their employer, how could one possibly be compensated for taking liability for a project forever. any claims would affect ones insurance premiums for a long period of time, and depending on the scale/amount of work being done in the future could represent a varied amount of increase in premiums. how would one go about putting a value on this added liability, in addition to the payment for the "actual work". this doesnt even start to talk about the fact that often the level of documentation (exposure to liability) is a function of money spent on labor, which is basically a business decision, and not really at the discretion of an employee.
Apr 16, 08 10:45 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
archtiect working for non-licensed person
So, i have a friend who has this problem (seriously)...she has pased all her exams yet has postponed actually getting her license because she currently works for a non-licensed person (interior designer). we often have this debate regarding what she should do, because i was in a very similar position in the past. the Architects Practice Act has some interesting nuggets of wisdom, which i have included here:
All persons preparing or being in responsible control of plans, specifications,and instruments of service for others shall sign those plans, specifications,and instruments of service and all contracts therefor, and if licensed under thischapter shall affix a stamp, which complies with subdivision (b), to those plans, specifications, and instruments of service, as evidence of the person's responsibility for those documents. Failure of any person to comply with this subdivision is a misdemeanor punishable as provided in Section 5536. This section shall not apply to employees of persons licensed under this chapter while acting within the course of their employment
An architect who associates with a person who is not a California licensed architect or civil or structural engineer or bona fide employee to jointly offer architectural design services shall, prior to offering architectural design services, enter into a written agreement of association with the unlicensed person whereby the architect agrees to be responsible for the preparation of the instruments of service and other phases of the work required by law which are not exempted from the provisions of chapter 3 (commencing with Section 5500) Division 3 of the Code ( "Architect Practice Act").
An architect shall undertake to perform professional services only when he or she, together with those whom the architect may engage as consultants, are qualified by education, training, and experience in the specific technical areas involved.
so the actual question is, since the office does occasionally do work that requires an architects stamp (stamped by permitting consultant) would she be required to stamp and sign the drawings she works on? does this make her liable?
of course and it makes her eligible for a raise too?
so here are a couple of things: an architect working for an architect is not liable, because the architect/owner takes "responsible control" although if the owner/employer is not licensed is the employee supposed to take responsible control from the employer, this does not seem feasible.
so lets say they are supposed to wrest control of the project from their employer, how could one possibly be compensated for taking liability for a project forever. any claims would affect ones insurance premiums for a long period of time, and depending on the scale/amount of work being done in the future could represent a varied amount of increase in premiums. how would one go about putting a value on this added liability, in addition to the payment for the "actual work". this doesnt even start to talk about the fact that often the level of documentation (exposure to liability) is a function of money spent on labor, which is basically a business decision, and not really at the discretion of an employee.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.