"Responsible Charge?"

[7702]

I met with a prospective client a couple days ago to give him an estimate to perform a boundary survey in California. He informed me that he was getting two estimates, one from me and one from another survey/engineering firm in Oregon. I was familiar with the other firm and told the guy that I wasn't aware that the other firm was licensed to practice in Cal. He just shrugged and said he met with the surveyor at the firm (who is only licensed in Oregon) and was awaiting his estimate. I then called the other firm's office and asked if they were surveying in California now. The lady that answered said, yes, but it was limited to approximate surveys and monument recovery. She said their Oregon LS was licensed in California and had worked in Cal for several years. I told her that I didn't think he was licensed in
Cal and if he was, then they could do any kind of surveying they wanted. If he wasn't, then they shouldn't be doing any surveying. She then said that his Oregon license must carry over to allow some surveying in Cal. I requested that she have the office LS (Oregon) give me a call to explain. He soon called and said that the company was surveying in California, and had a Cal. LS "on staff". I asked if the Cal LS was a regular employee of the company. I was told that the Cal LS lives in a city over a hundred miles away (also in Oregon) and that this company uses him as needed to supervise California work, including the job I was giving an estimate for. The Oregon LS then told me that this California work did not include boundary surveying. I told him what he was saying didn't make sense to me that they would retain an LS for other than boundary work and then in the same sentence tell me they were using him for the boundary survey I was involved with. He seemed to think I was getting all excited about nothing. Sounds pretty fishy to me.

Please tell me if I am off base here. It is my opinion that the company is in violation of the PLS Act.

Thanks for your help,

Mark

[Jim Frame]

§8729(a)(1) would seem to be the pertinent code section to your situation. In order to practice in California, the firm must have a "land surveyor or civil engineer currently licensed in the state [who] is an owner, part owner, or officer in charge of the land surveying practice of the business." Unless their CA LS is much more deeply involved in the business than your post suggests, they're in violation of the statute. Proving non-compliance may be difficult, however, as it would be easy for the firm to adjust their man's title and job description to fit the situation.

If they persist in taking California work, and refuse to demonstrate bona fide compliance with the statute, a formal complaint to BPELS would help to clarify the situation.

[Bob Hart (home)]

Without the documentation the BPELS will not be able to do anything.

Sounds like you have an idea that an Oregon LS is performing boundary surveys in CA. When you get the particulars call the Board.

Good Luck.

Bob Hart

[lndbtchr]

Good luck with the Board.

They want copies of contracts, field notes, etc.

With what the board wants to do anything, you would have to set up a sting operation, and then be prepared to spend a lot of time as a witness.

[7702]

Good choice of words. It stings alright, knowing that I spent years of hard labor on the job and at college to become licensed and then have to compete with someone who isn't.

I spoke with the California LS today. He said that he doesn't work for that company, they work for him! Kind of does away with the "owner/officer of the company" defense.

He went on to confide in me that the Oregon company procures the California jobs and then contact him to stamp the maps. Makes me wonder, who is preparing the contracts and who is incurring the liability here?

I happened to drive by that California jobsite today, and there was the unlicensed surveyor on site. Still don't know which of us is going to be doing the job.

Since they couldn't get their stories straight, I invited BPELS to sort things out. Could take many months so I won't hold my breath.

Thanks for your responses.

Sincerely,

[PLS7393]

Good luck Mark, and I commend you in your efforts.
If there weren't licensed professionals to confront potential violators, our profession wound only be worse off then where we are today.

[dirtsurveyor]

A look at Section 6731.2 of the Engineers Act might be enlightening.

[7702]

Yes,

I did consider the Engineer factor as a possible defense, but I've always considered "incidental" survey work to be part of the main engineering project. Such as needing to determine the boundaries incidental to requested design work.

Does anyone know how "incidental" is defined?

If they do have a California Engineer on staff and are legally authorized to practice surveying/engineering, then they could have avoided a BPELS inquiry with a simple explanation. I would have offered my sincerest apologies as well. (Personally, It wouldn't bother me a bit if somebody wanted me to prove that I was legit--that's what our little BPELS "credit cards" are for.)

Anyway, the Engineer would have to be an owner or officer in charge of the Engineering services in order to legally practice.

Also, to comply with the PLS/PE Act, the Engineer would have to have a company organization record on file with BPELS. Last I checked, BPELS had no record on file for the subject company.

Furthermore, said company advertises in the newspaper that they serve Oregon only. No mention of California.

Like I said previously, they couldn't get their stories straight, so I invited BPELS to sort it out.

To those who support my efforts, I thank you.

Sincerely,