Designer of plans that seeks a license

[RickAstoria]

In California and I would expect other states, building designers have no legal status.An architect or engineer who works on a project with a building designer needs to be careful or he/she may end up accepting more liability than was the original intention.

Mark K,

Most building designers who undergoes certification are competent and knows the building codes and follows them. They are as good as many architects who practices in residential in most cases. After all, many of them do have many years of experience and that statistical difference in quality is just not there. We do have a legal status, it is in the exemption. In fact, California has precedence because California actually had a registered building designer program which recognized building designer certification. Can it have more legal recognition... yes.

NOTE: This is a little excursion from the thread topic.

I can propose some minor language changes for the I-codes. A few modifications in 106.1/R106.1, add "Certified Design Professionals" as a definition and some minor amendments. It means ICC and state/local jurisdictions maintains a list of qualified certification programs. Little language tweaks and take care of the matters where it matters. There are times where an engineer is appropriate.

An architect license allows that person who is licensed essentially an unlimited practice of architecture.

I suggest some level of codified recognition of building designers who are certified under a certification that its certification exam includes building codes, HSW subject matters and other pertinent subject matters relating to the domain of health, safety and welfare and competent design of buildings and structures. Although there is a technical legal recognition of unlicensed designers but there is some non-codified legal recognition in practice. I propose some codified recognition of those certified by a qualified certification program.

There are projects that are exempt that a certified professional building designer is competent to design but some people are not and that a building official could simply say, "come back to us with a set of plans prepared by or under the responsible supervision of a certified design professional or a registered design professional." In some instances, certain drawings should be prepared by an engineer and that would still be authorized.

This kind of diverges from the topic some but that is what I think we should have because most certified design professionals are professionals. Although, we are not undergoing a state licensure program but pursue 'self-regulation' through certification. I think it is an area the professions can explore together. Right now, architects competing with certified professional building designers are not a problem.

That is one way more legal recognition can be established without changing the licensing laws for architects or engineers and an added option for the building department when it comes to exempt project. When a project is required by statutes of the jurisdiction that requires an architect or engineer, then an architect or engineer is required for preparation of plans and other documents for such project.

Demographically, a certified professional building designer is more competent than those who are not certified (or licensed).

I do agree with you about the liability. In addition, it can also flip back because in Oregon, if I was an in an independent contractor relationship, I would still be liable for your work as well but it would be a joint liability scenario. If I was an employee, that's a different situation. If I contracted you to do certain design, I can still be liable. If I was certified, the certification would in the eyes of the court raise the bar and I wouldn't just be able to use ignorance as an excuse. I would be expected to be held to a higher standard of expectation.

What we would end up with is a joint liability scenario.

 

[RickAstoria]

More than that; an architect or engineer that stamps plans that he/she does not prepare or have direct control over their production is in violation of his/her licensure.

Agree. I am not suggesting that.

 

[mark handler]

http://www.cab.ca.gov;cab@dca.ca.gov.

The design and construction of public schools is regulated by the Division of the State Architect (DSA). Any questions regarding Education Code section 17302 should be directed to DSA

at 1102 Q Street, Suite 5100, Sacramento, CA, 95811; (916) 445-8100; http://www.dsa.ca.gov.

The design and construction of hospitals is regulated by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). Any questions regarding Health and Safety Code

section 129805 should be directed to OSHPD at 1600 9th Street, Room 420, Sacramento, CA, 95814; (916) 654-3362; http://www.oshpd.ca.gov.

In CA registered building designers are not licensed they are UNLICENSED INDIVIDUALS

CA at this time, has no registered building designers.

 

[RickAstoria]

Um.... CA Registered building designers were grandfathered into architects if they were lucky enough while some pretty much are now 'certified professional building designers as California discontinued the registered building designer program. This was back in the late 1980s if I recall correctly.

I was talking about something that might have predated you but it goes back to Cliff May's time.

I do have an idea on how to add some legal recognition for those that are certified. Splitting the hair between uncertified and certified UNLICENSED INDIVIDUALS. Some unlicensed individuals are essentially as competent as architects in the domain of exempt buildings. I'm not suggesting any changes to the exemption under the architectural/engineering licensing law but I am suggesting something at the building code level where some projects maybe beyond the competency of many people who would fall under the unlicensed individuals. There are competent professionals in that category. Those who are certified are tested and they are customarily competent professionals. We all know that talent and skills vary from individual to individual and there are every so often a bad apple.

 

[mark handler]

Um.... CA Registered building designers were grandfathered into architects if they were lucky enough while some pretty much are now 'certified professional building designers as California discontinued the registered building designer program. This was back in the late 1980s if I recall correctly.I was talking about something that might have predated you but it goes back to Cliff May's time.

No it does not predate me Some became Architects, some did not. I worked for a building designer while in school.

There are NO "certified professional building designers" in CA

A person is Licensed or unlicensed

http://www.cab.ca.gov/apa/bpc/division_3/chapter_3/article_3/section_5536.shtml

It is a misdemeanor, punishable as specified in subdivision (a), for any person to advertise or represent that he or she is a "registered building designer" or is registered or otherwise licensed by the state as a building designer.

 

[RickAstoria]

No it does not predate me Some became Architects, some did not. I worked for a building designer while in school.There are NO "certified professional building designers" in CA

A person is Licensed or unlicensed

Yes. I didn't say the certification has to be a state certification program. It shouldn't have to be. When you take the ARE to become an architect, you are not tested on california amended building codes. The testing is about knowing how to research the code and solving. Any of us who is in the profession knows the code is amended from ICC model code to some degree by the state and sometimes further by local jurisdiction.

There are certified professional building designers in California. AIBD and the NCBDC certification program is what I am talking about.

http://ncbdc.com/index.php

There is like 23 or so active CPBDs in California. There are many more who could qualify.

 

[mark handler]

Yes. I didn't say the certification has to be a state certification program. It shouldn't have to be. When you take the ARE to become an architect, you are not tested on california amended building codes. The testing is about knowing how to research the code and solving. Any of us who is in the profession knows the code is amended from ICC model code to some degree by the state and sometimes further by local jurisdiction.There are certified professional building designers in California. AIBD and the NCBDC certification program is what I am talking about.

http://ncbdc.com/index.php

There is like 23 or so active CPBDs in California. There are many more who could qualify.

http://www.cab.ca.gov/apa/bpc/divisi...ion_5536.shtml

It is a misdemeanor, punishable as specified in subdivision (a), for any person to advertise or represent that he or she is a "registered building designer" or is registered or otherwise licensed by the state as a building designer.

 

[RickAstoria]

http://www.cab.ca.gov/apa/bpc/division_3/chapter_3/article_3/section_5536.shtml

It is a misdemeanor, punishable as specified in subdivision (a), for any person to advertise or represent that he or she is a "registered building designer" or is registered or otherwise licensed by the state as a building designer.

certified and registered are two different things. I agree with you but I was pointing out that there is precedence. As for those who hadn't pursued becoming architects, they continued as NCBDC certified. It doesn't mean they are any less professional. Why would a definition for 'certified design professional' (that can be added to the building code) has to be a state program. Why not a national third-party certification that meets at least some basic standards?

It just adds a little more regulation on the 'unregulated' exempt buildings realm.

For example: Certified Interior Designer? The person might be certified by NCIDQ but not registered by the state.

 

[mark handler]

This is how the court will see it.

certified synonyms: accredit, recognize, license, authorize, approve, warrant

 

[RickAstoria]

What would be a violation:

"registered building designer" (quote not necessarily included)

"CA Registered building Designer" (CA or California)

"CA Licensed Building Designer"

"CA Certified Building Designer"

Just saying "Certified Professional Building Designer" would not violate the state law. If you make it sound like you are licensed/registered or certified by the State of California then you have a problem.

For building codes to define a person under a building code definition as "Certified Design Professional" needs to only be defined in Chapter 2 to mean a person certified by a qualified certification program of a certification organization. The certification organization does not need to be a state agency.

At least, that is how I would propose it.

 

[RickAstoria]

This is how the court will see it.certified synonyms: accredit, recognize, license, authorize, approve, warrant

It's a little more complicated than that. California had already been down this road. AIBD and its NCBDC program has been around for a very long time. AIBD's California chapter which pre-existed AIBD since before the 1950s had a certification program. Certifications do not have to be from state agencies. Courts knows this for over 100 years.

NCBDC is a certification entity and Certified Professional Building Designer is a federally registered Certification Mark.

 

[mark handler]

No legal standing in CA

Business and professions code, A person is Licensed or unlicensed

See post #27

 

[RickAstoria]

"It is a misdemeanor, punishable as specified in subdivision (a), for any person to advertise or represent that he or she is a "registered building designer" or is registered or otherwise licensed by the state as a building designer."

Remember, it forbids someone using the title "registered building designer" or someone advertising or representing that they are registered or licensed by the state as a building designer.

Example sentence: John Smith, Building Designer is a licensed as a building designer in California.

VIOLATION! (unless licensed as an architect or engineer)

Example sentence: John Smith, Building Designer is registered by California to practice building design.

VIOLATION! ( Unless licensed as an architect or engineer )

Example sentence: John Smith, Registered Building Designer

VIOLATION! ( Unless licensed/registered as an architect or engineer ).

Example: John Smith, Certified Professional Building Designer

NOT A VIOLATION!

Example: John Smith, CPBD

NOT A VIOLATION!

Example: John Smith is a certified professional building designer (CPBD).

Not a violation.

Example: John Smith is certified by the NCBDC.

Not a violation.

Example: John Smith, CPBD is a licensed/registered by California.

Is a violation unless the person is in fact registered or licensed in California as an architect or engineer.

Even then, they would not want architects or engineers saying they are registered or licensed as a building designer as that would be a false representation as there is no state registration or licensing program for 'building design' anymore and that can be problematic.

Just because a person is a certified professional building designer does not mean they are licensed or registered by the state but that their certification is through a private sector certification by a certification organization.

 

[RickAstoria]

No legal standing in CA

Legal standing has a specific legal definition which you should be careful in use.

Legal standing exists regardless of whether a profession is regulated by a state licensing agency. Some professions chooses to self regulate. I would still have legal standing in the court of law if what I do is legal. This is why I can still collect on fees for any services I provide whether in California or any other state.

In an actual technical legal sense, the exemption is a de facto 'license' or authorization..... authorizing any person to design and practice exempt buildings. The intent of law of the section, you quoted, is that unlicensed design professionals should not represent or cause the public and their clients to think they are licensed as architects or engineers.

However, that only applies to the licensing board and their enforcement of the licensing law. When it comes adding legal recognition of building design certifications in the building codes, that can be done by code amendment. It is separate bodies of laws.

 

[mark handler]

Call youself what you want, In CA registered or certified building designers are not licensed they are UNLICENSED INDIVIDUALS without legal status, unless they are designing one of the projects listed in my previous post.

 

[RickAstoria]

Little off-topic from the original thread topic:

Legal standing derived from the Federal level but also applies in state and local laws as well under the Constitution of the jurisdiction. For a point of reference:

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WhatIsStanding.pdf

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/standing/

http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-standing/

Now for California specifics.... at state level, it has something a little different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#California

Basically, Jus Tertii.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/h034441.pdf

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H034441.DOC

http://calconst.blogspot.com/2010/01/california-law-imposes-no-standing.html

In which case things would more be a matter of substantive laws.

 

[RickAstoria]

Call youself what you want, In CA registered or certified building designers are not licensed they are UNLICENSED INDIVIDUALS without legal status, unless they are designing one of the projects listed in my previous post.

You're not practicing architecture unless you are designing a project. So what's the point. If you are not doing anything, you pretty much would not have any legal right to sue as you are not a party to the case matter. You are non-existent and irrelevant as far as the court is concerned. If you are in contract then you would have legal status. Even then, the judges of a court in cases of tort or negligence is going to take your background into consideration. It would be part of the facts brought before a case. It is going to be because your client's attorney will point out things like education, certification, etc. as prima facie evidence to support their argument in a case.

 

[mark handler]

You're not practicing architecture unless you are designing a project. So what's the point. If you are not doing anything, you pretty much would not have any legal right to sue as you are not a party to the case matter. You are non-existent and irrelevant as far as the court is concerned. If you are in contract then you would have legal status. Even then, the judges of a court in cases of tort or negligence is going to take your background into consideration. It would be part of the facts brought before a case. It is going to be because your client's attorney will point out things like education, certification, etc. as prima facie evidence to support their argument in a case.

I disagree with you definition of an Architect.

But, per your definition, I am an Architect. I do have three project "on the boards".

By my definition, and the states I am licensed in, I am an Architect until I give up my license.

Per the internet:

An architect is a person who plans, designs, and oversees the construction of buildings. To practice architecture means to provide services in connection with the design and construction of buildings and the space within the site surrounding the buildings, that have as their principal purpose human occupancy or use.

As you see there is more than"designing" a project.

 

[RickAstoria]

I disagree with you definition of an Architect. But, per your definition, I am an Architect. I do have three project "on the boards".

By my definition, and the states I am licensed in, I am an Architect until I give up my license.

Per the internet:

An architect is a person who plans, designs, and oversees the construction of buildings. To practice architecture means to provide services in connection with the design and construction of buildings and the space within the site surrounding the buildings, that have as their principal purpose human occupancy or use.

As you see there is more than"designing" a project.

Yeah. I do just that as well. Building designers also do: make plans, designs, and oversees the construction of buildings.

To practice building design means to provide services in connection with the design and construction of buildings and the space within the site surrounding the buildings, that have as their principal purpose human occupancy or use.

Considering we also do landscape design as well as it is lapping domain. I do that. In Oregon, that is entirely legal for me to do. So am I an 'architect' by that definition or the historically correct definition which you find in an old dictionary from before say... 1890s when Illinois adopted licensing.

Personally, you can be licensed authorizing you to practice architecture and to market as such but if you literally don't do anything, you are not practicing architecture. Just having a license doesn't mean you are practicing the profession. That's my point. You are only really an architect when you engage the activity of the practice of architecture. If you don't doing anything, you're not really practicing as one and therefore not engaged in the role of an architect. Architect title only applies to you and what you do when you are engaged in the role of architect.

Otherwise, you are wasting money on a piece of paper with a number on it.

I'm getting past the licensing law right to the law of reality.

I'm sure if we continue debating along this line we would be losing track of the original discussion.

 

[mark handler]

I have researched everywhere and my question still remains...I am a designer of the plans (not an archtect or an engineer) and I do not see where I can obtain a license that seems to come up at the building department. I do plans for 2 contractors to install industrial equipment such as spray booths. Please advise where I can obtain such a license. I'm at a loss.

I'm sure if we continue debating along this line we would be losing track of the original discussion.

No he is an Unlicensed person looking for a license, you are saying he can get "certified" and I am saying It does not matter; It still is not a license.

 

[RickAstoria]

No he is an Unlicensed person looking for a license, you are saying he can get "certified" and I am saying It does not matter; It still is not a license.

That's fine but why bother getting a license. If the guy has a successful construction business it will mean he will commit business suicide. There is no way that a person can sustain a construction company, being active and go through the architectural licensing process. It will kill his revenue. It will put him financially in debt in loans. You just can't do both full-time. Architecture school requires overtime commitment to pass at a grade level they demand. You been there... right? If you aren't enrolled by the age 25, you might as well forget architecture through a degree path. Architecture school is for fresh out of high school kids. It's geared that way with so much demand on time.

If you are trying to run a business, you just can't commit the time needed to be successful doing both. You can either do terrible in the business and do well in class or you fail in the school and do well in the business. There is just not enough hours in a week to do it.

Certification is more achievable and it will simply aid defending ones competence to a building official who will take consideration of a person's background. Some building officials who don't know a person will be eager to have that person have their plans prepared by an architect or engineer but even a certified building designer is probably enough to calm the concerns of a building official.

A building official mainly wants well prepared plans submitted. The process of certifications like licensing will normally aid in that process. Add to that, codes may at some point further recognize certified design professionals.

If we want to reign in and curb incompetence in the domain of unlicensed realm then we need to recognize certifications as it is a process which its purpose is to encourage professional development in the process of certification and afterwards.

If the builder wants to pursue architectural license, the builder should prepare to close his/her business. Add to that, architects are not interested in being partners unless they are in complete charge and keep majority of the money. Additionally, most architectural firms do not allow employees (interns) to moonlight. That is to have their own business. If they find out, the intern is fired/laid off.

That is why I suggest to forget pursuing the architect license if he has a successful business. It just doesn't work because architects aren't the kind of cats to be subordinate to others.

 

[mark handler]

You want the party line:

Hiring an architect saves time and money, minimize bumps, streamline the building process, and provide an accurate picture of how the project will turn out before a single nail has been driven.

http://www.aiacc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Client-Best-Practices-5.pdf

I've been in the buisness for thirty five years. I've worked for the good and bad.

Some So called "licensed"Architects don't know how a building goes together, nor what a code book is.

But as a Building official; 90 percent of the problems i've seen on the plans and in construction were by Unlicensed Designers and draftsmen.

 

[mark handler]

http://www.cab.ca.gov/pdf/publications/consumers_guide.pdf

California Consumer's Guide to Hiring an Architect

 

[RickAstoria]

90% of that is coming from home owners doing their own work and moonlighting interns and so forth before they have any experience. Lets keep in mind that there is probably 9 to 10 interns and drafters (some fresh out of college) with less than 5 years of education/experience. Remember, builders often grabs cheap students taking a 1 year or 2 year degree in drafting and those just freshly graduated because those with experience or even certifications would cost them more than what they want to spend. There are a lot of them. A lot more than there are architects. There are more architects than there are CPBDs.

Then you have the DIYers doing their own plans which is quite a bit. Even builders who are good at construction are horrible in preparing plans because they have no training in designing. They don't have architectural education or full-time experience designing buildings so they aren't necessarily the same quality.

Sure, the party line is nothing new to me. Certified professional building designers will do the same thing (usually). They'll often save the client time and money, minimize bumps, streamline the building process and provide an accurate picture of how the project will turn out before a single nail has been driven to a practical extent.... yes that is moderately true for both as no one is perfect.

The point to encourage unlicensed designers to undergo certification as one option in addition to options like licensure is so they can learn what they don't know because until they are revealed to the matters when undergoing certification examination, it serves to make them better designers.

A certification is better than no certification in many cases. Not everyone can pursue licensing as an architect because the process is too damn expensive and firms these days tends to not be flexible for people who are builders for example. Architecture school isn't. Firms tends to hire only those who graduate from an NAAB accredited school. For many of us, we have to learn this through autodidactic learning methods. I been in the study and business for a decade plus some years.

I don't see the path as financially viable. Do you really foresee tmtpermits willing to shut down his/her business for like 10 years to get through licensing as architecture school will not provide any credit for construction experience at all. Then there is IDP. I just don't see that being realistic.

Whereas, the person may develop experience as a building designer in construction and working under supervision of an architect or engineer and get through certification. It can help as a business to market as well as the process of certification can help improve the person as a building design professional and with certification includes continuing education which is career long learning and improving. This is something that you should encourage those who it is unrealistic that they will become licensed as an architect. In addition, certified designers tends to be of higher calibre than the run of the mill.