I've asked a number of Architects this question & I am often met with a long pause:
When are architects legally required to hire an engineer?
Chad Miller
Dec 14, 20 5:53 pm
What country are you from and how long have you been in the profession?
tduds
Dec 14, 20 5:53 pm
Hell, what *state* are they from?
Chad Miller
Dec 14, 20 5:54 pm
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.
RJ87
Dec 14, 20 6:03 pm
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.
thisisnotmyname
Dec 14, 20 5:55 pm
Most of the time it's because the laws where we work require documents prepared by an engineer to get a permit. The rest of the time when we don't legally have to, we'll hire an engineer because we find it risky and time inefficient to try and self-engineer something.
RJ87
Dec 14, 20 5:59 pm
I'm from Florida.
My understanding of the profession was that architects were required to hire engineers, but as I got deeper into the profession I've run across the notion that some architects feel that they only hire engineers to mitigate risk. If they "wanted to" they wouldn't have to at all.
I was just curious where that line actually fell in a legal sense. "Engineering services" seemed like a boundary but I couldn't find a good answer online. It seems very grey where the buck stops.
RJ87
Dec 14, 20 6:01 pm
Obviously residential is it's own thing with limited rules
, so I suppose I'm speaking about commercial architecture.
tduds
Dec 14, 20 6:05 pm
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.
RJ87
Dec 14, 20 6:12 pm
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.
SneakyPete
Dec 14, 20 6:22 pm
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.
According to this we can sign structural drawings in California. Which is counter to everything I thought I knew.
SneakyPete
Dec 14, 20 6:25 pm
Yes, but why would you when you can just take the 10% for coordination and move on with more specialized folks doing the job?
RJ87
Dec 14, 20 6:28 pm
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.
SneakyPete
Dec 14, 20 6:28 pm
Never forget that you're in no way shielded from liability, though.
RJ87
Dec 14, 20 6:32 pm
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.
Chad Miller
Dec 14, 20 6:54 pm
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.
apscoradiales
Dec 14, 20 7:19 pm
Irrespective of whether the authorities or the complexity of the project require engineers or not, you, as an architect, should try to get the client (or the Owner) to hire them.
You can still make recommendations or suggestions which person or company to hire, but let the Owner and the Consultants form their own agreement or contract. That way, you're off the hook - more or less - in case of billing or invoicing dispute(s).
SneakyPete
Dec 14, 20 7:23 pm
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.
tduds
Dec 14, 20 7:28 pm
Yeah, I like my consultants to be in my court.
apscoradiales
Dec 14, 20 7:37 pm
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...
SneakyPete
Dec 14, 20 7:38 pm
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.
SneakyPete
Dec 14, 20 7:39 pm
You're conflating hiring engineers on staff with hiring engineers as sub-consultants.
apscoradiales
Dec 14, 20 7:50 pm
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.
RJ87
Dec 14, 20 8:25 pm
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.
apscoradiales
Dec 14, 20 7:44 pm
SneakyPete,
we have never had problems with Owner-hired consultants battling it out with us architects. We have had problems with GC's complaining to the Owner that we're being difficult, that we're slowing them down, that we won't accept alternatives, that we're sitting on shop drawings, etc., but never with consultants. I think the owners, at least up here, prefer to bring their own engineers or consultants. From the owners perspective, we don't mark-up the consultants invoices, so they're a bit happier. Many times, when we would be doing a job in another town/province/country, the owner would already have engineers that they've used before, and they're happy with them. So, why change that...
SneakyPete
Dec 14, 20 7:48 pm
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.
apscoradiales
Dec 14, 20 8:08 pm
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.
atelier nobody
Dec 14, 20 8:14 pm
Ask your AHJ. I can't speak for FL, but here in CA, that is determined by the AHJ, not by the Architects' and Engineers' regulations.
(Example: Statewide, and architect can design any building of any size without any other engineers, but in the City and County of Los Angeles, a Structural Engineer may be required based on building height, and for DSA and OSHPD, all engineering disciplines are required for all projects of any size.
I've asked a number of Architects this question & I am often met with a long pause:
When are architects legally required to hire an engineer?
What country are you from and how long have you been in the profession?
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.
Most of the time it's because the laws where we work require documents prepared by an engineer to get a permit. The rest of the time when we don't legally have to, we'll hire an engineer because we find it risky and time inefficient to try and self-engineer something.
I'm from Florida.
My understanding of the profession was that architects were required to hire engineers, but as I got deeper into the profession I've run across the notion that some architects feel that they only hire engineers to mitigate risk. If they "wanted to" they wouldn't have to at all.
I was just curious where that line actually fell in a legal sense. "Engineering services" seemed like a boundary but I couldn't find a good answer online. It seems very grey where the buck stops.
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.
https://www.cab.ca.gov/docs/pu...
According to this we can sign structural drawings in California. Which is counter to everything I thought I knew.
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.
Irrespective of whether the authorities or the complexity of the project require engineers or not, you, as an architect, should try to get the client (or the Owner) to hire them.
You can still make recommendations or suggestions which person or company to hire, but let the Owner and the Consultants form their own agreement or contract. That way, you're off the hook - more or less - in case of billing or invoicing dispute(s).
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.
SneakyPete,
we have never had problems with Owner-hired consultants battling it out with us architects. We have had problems with GC's complaining to the Owner that we're being difficult, that we're slowing them down, that we won't accept alternatives, that we're sitting on shop drawings, etc., but never with consultants. I think the owners, at least up here, prefer to bring their own engineers or consultants. From the owners perspective, we don't mark-up the consultants invoices, so they're a bit happier. Many times, when we would be doing a job in another town/province/country, the owner would already have engineers that they've used before, and they're happy with them. So, why change that...
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.
Ask your AHJ. I can't speak for FL, but here in CA, that is determined by the AHJ, not by the Architects' and Engineers' regulations.
(Example: Statewide, and architect can design any building of any size without any other engineers, but in the City and County of Los Angeles, a Structural Engineer may be required based on building height, and for DSA and OSHPD, all engineering disciplines are required for all projects of any size.