Digital seals and signatures

[Yankee Chronicler]

I've found a few previous discussions that touched on this, but nothing specific to my question, so here goes:

For design professionals and code officials, does your state have any specific requirements pertaining to the use of digital seals and/or signatures on construction documents (plans)?

My state does. Buried in the agency regulations for architects and for professional engineers is the requirement for them to have and use a seal. Under that, the regulations were revised about 20 years ago to allow for the use of digital seals/signatures rather than live ("wet') seals and signatures, BUT both the architects' regulations and the engineers' regulations then include specific criteria for what constitutes a digital seal. The important factor is that it has to be verifiable through a third-party authentication service, and it has to be such that if the underlying document is edited in any way after having been signed and sealed, either a flag is placed advising that the document was revised after it was signed, OR the digital seal/signature has to disappear.

What we still see in probably 90% of applications (or more) is just a scan of the design professional's seal and signature, pasted onto the title block. With paper prints, this is obvious when the signature is exactly the same on every sheet in the set, and falls in exactly the same relationship to the seal. With PDF digital drawings, it's even easier to spot -- when a document containing a proper digital signature is opened in most PDF readers (Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Reader, Fox-It, even FreePDF) there's a notice announcing that the document was digitally signed by [____] on [_date_] at [_time_] and that the digital signature is valid.

For us, it's in state law, so the same applies to every municipality throughout the state. What's the situation in other states? Does your code and underlying legislation allow digital seals and signatures? If so, do your laws or regulations require third-party authentication, or can design professionals just make a scan of their seal and signature and paste it onto their title block?

 

[jar546]

I've found a few previous discussions that touched on this, but nothing specific to my question, so here goes:

For design professionals and code officials, does your state have any specific requirements pertaining to the use of digital seals and/or signatures on construction documents (plans)?

My state does. Buried in the agency regulations for architects and for professional engineers is the requirement for them to have and use a seal. Under that, the regulations were revised about 20 years ago to allow for the use of digital seals/signatures rather than live ("wet') seals and signatures, BUT both the architects' regulations and the engineers' regulations then include specific criteria for what constitutes a digital seal. The important factor is that it has to be verifiable through a third-party authentication service, and it has to be such that if the underlying document is edited in any way after having been signed and sealed, either a flag is placed advising that the document was revised after it was signed, OR the digital seal/signature has to disappear.

What we still see in probably 90% of applications (or more) is just a scan of the design professional's seal and signature, pasted onto the title block. With paper prints, this is obvious when the signature is exactly the same on every sheet in the set, and falls in exactly the same relationship to the seal. With PDF digital drawings, it's even easier to spot -- when a document containing a proper digital signature is opened in most PDF readers (Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Reader, Fox-It, even FreePDF) there's a notice announcing that the document was digitally signed by [____] on [_date_] at [_time_] and that the digital signature is valid.

For us, it's in state law, so the same applies to every municipality throughout the state. What's the situation in other states? Does your code and underlying legislation allow digital seals and signatures? If so, do your laws or regulations require third-party authentication, or can design professionals just make a scan of their seal and signature and paste it onto their title block?

We use Bluebeam for plan review and verification of digital signatures through a limited number of 3rd parties. We have to enforce it and will not accept scanned drawings. If you want to discuss this over the phone, I would be happy to. DM me. Way too much to type about this subject.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

We use Bluebeam for plan review and verification of digital signatures through a limited number of 3rd parties. We have to enforce it and will not accept scanned drawings. If you want to discuss this over the phone, I would be happy to. DM me. Way too much to type about this subject.

Thanks. I know Bluebeam also has the capability to show if a document carries a third-party authenticated digital signature. I have used Bluebeam in another setting, but we don't have it in the town where I currently work so I tend to forget about it when discussing PDF readers.

What I'm really interested in isn't so much how BOs check for this (although I'm happy to know about that, as well), but rather whether or not the laws of each jurisdiction require third-party authentication for digital seals, or if a simple scan or photo of a seal and signature pasted onto a drawing satisfies the law in some jurisdictions. If the laws in your jurisdiction require third-party authentication for digital seals ... do you enforce that?

The basic requirement in the 2021 IBC is as follows:

[A] 107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of
construction documents, statement of special inspections,
geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or
more sets, or in a digital format where allowed by the building
official, with each permit application. The construction documents
shall be prepared by a registered design professional
where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the
project is to be constructed. Where special conditions exist, the
building official is authorized to require additional construction
documents to be prepared by a registered design
professional.

The corresponding Commentary then says (in part):

This section also requires the building official to
determine that any state professional registration laws
be complied with as they apply to the preparation of
construction documents.

This means that the code itself is not the determiner of what a jurisdiction requires or allows in terms of seals, signatures, and digital seals/signatures. To figure that out, we have to look at statutes and regulations. In my state, the information is in regulations adopted by the Department of Consumer Protection, which is the agency that licenses architects and engineers. We have an architectural licensing board, which promulgates regulations addressing digital seals for architects. We have a separate board for licensing PEs and land surveyors, which promulgates the regulations governing the use of digital seals by PEs and land surveyors. The requirements are slightly different in detail, but they agree in requiring third party authentication, and in requiring that if a document is edited after having been digitally signed, either the digital signature must be removed automatically or a digital notice must appear announcing that the document was edited after signing.

This has been in our regulations for over 20 years (I actually think it's closer to 30 years), and it boggles my mind how many architects and PEs either don't know about it, or claim not to know about it. We routinely receive digital (PDF) submittals of plans that are NOT third-party authenticated. They have a seal and signature which is obviously nothing more than a scanned image of the design professional's rubber seal and his/her signature, without any digital authentication.

That's simply not legal in my state. I'd like to know if there are jurisdictions in the U.S. where that IS legally acceptable.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It appears from some on-line research that most states make provision for digital seals and signatures, but the specific requirements vary considerably. I found a site that provides an overview for PEs -- I'd be very interested in building officials or design professionals in various states would comment as to whether or not the information on this site is correct and accurate.

 

[jar546]

Building officials in Florida have a critical responsibility to ensure that submitted documents comply with applicable statutes and rules governing architects and engineers. This responsibility is outlined clearly in [A] 107.1 of the Florida Building Code and reinforced by Florida Statutes and Administrative Codes. The section states:

[A] 107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted with each permit application in accordance with Florida Statute 553.79. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by Chapter 471, Florida Statutes & 61G15 Florida Administrative Code or Chapter 481, Florida Statutes & 61G1 Florida Administrative Code. Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional.

The language here leaves no ambiguity. It directly ties the building official’s authority to the compliance of construction documents with the professional statutes and rules for architects and engineers. Chapter 471 and 481, Florida Statutes, along with their corresponding administrative codes, outline the specific requirements for the preparation of documents by registered design professionals, including seals, signatures, and technical standards. When "special conditions exist," [A] 107.1 explicitly authorizes the building official to request additional documents, ensuring they align with these legal and professional requirements.

It is important to emphasize that the responsibility of the building official does not change based on the format of the documents submitted. Whether the documents are physically printed with a raised seal and wet stamp or digitally signed and sealed, the building official’s duty remains the same. Paper drawings without a raised seal or wet stamp would not be accepted, and there is no difference in the level of compliance required for digitally signed and sealed documents. Both formats must meet the same legal and professional standards outlined in the statutes and administrative codes. This ensures that construction documents are not only procedurally correct but also substantively compliant with the law before a permit is issued.

The question, then, is whether this section places the burden of compliance solely on the design professional or extends that responsibility to the building official. In my view, the answer is clear. The administrative code makes the building official directly responsible for verifying that the documents submitted meet the statutes and rules governing architects and engineers. This ensures that all documents—whether wet-stamped or digitally signed—are treated equally and reviewed with the same level of diligence. This is a written, codified responsibility, not an optional interpretation.

Do you agree that [A] 107.1 establishes the building official's role as a gatekeeper for compliance, or do you interpret the responsibility differently? From my perspective, this section reinforces the importance of a thorough review process, aligning with our shared goal of maintaining public safety and accountability in the permitting process.

 

[jar546]

The International Building Code (IBC) reinforces the same principle of building official responsibility for ensuring compliance with submittal documents, echoing the language of Florida’s specific statutes and rules. The relevant section of the IBC, [A] 107.1, states:

[A] 107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets, or in a digital format where allowed by the building official, with each permit application. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed. Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional.

This language places the same responsibility on the building official to ensure submitted documents comply with the statutes and rules of the jurisdiction. The requirement for documents to be prepared by a registered design professional where mandated by law is not optional. Furthermore, the building official retains the authority to request additional documentation when "special conditions exist," underscoring the role of the building official as the gatekeeper of compliance and quality.

The IBC also highlights that the format of submission—whether physical sets of documents or digital files—is at the discretion of the building official. Regardless of the format, the standards remain the same: the construction documents must meet the jurisdiction’s statutory requirements for preparation by registered design professionals. This ensures that the permitting process maintains its integrity, whether handling paper drawings or digital submittals.

In my opinion, the IBC language confirms that building officials have a codified responsibility to verify compliance, just as is stated in Florida-specific statutes. Whether it’s through Florida’s statutory requirements or the IBC’s jurisdictional provisions, the building official plays a crucial role in upholding public safety and ensuring that all submittals meet the required standards.

Do you agree that the IBC, like Florida’s specific statutes, places this responsibility on the building official? From my perspective, the language of [A] 107.1 clearly supports the role of the building official as an essential checkpoint in the permitting process.

 

[jar546]

In addition, we've had a lot of training in Florida over the years to educate us on our responsibilities to ensure compliance with digitally signed and sealed documents.

 

[jar546]

The process for handling digitally signed and sealed documents submitted by registered design professionals (RDPs), such as architects and engineers, is a critical aspect of modern permitting. Here’s how the system is designed to work effectively, ensuring both compliance and protection for all parties involved:

1. Creation and Security of Documents: The RDP creates the construction documents, flattens them, and applies their digital signature and seal. Security settings are configured to allow markups for the municipality while preventing unauthorized alterations.
2. Submission to the Municipality: The RDP or contractor uploads the unaltered, digitally signed and sealed documents to the municipal permitting portal. These documents are now in the possession of the municipality in their original, unaltered form.
3. Verification of Authenticity: The municipality can verify the authenticity of the digitally signed and sealed documents, ensuring they meet the statutory requirements before beginning the review process.
4. Approval and Stamping by the Building Department: Upon approval, the building department places its seal or stamp on the documents, indicating that they have been reviewed and approved. The stamped version is then flattened and made available for the contractor. This version can be printed for use on the job site, as required by Chapter 1 of the building code.
5. Preservation of Original Documents: Although placing the building department’s stamp technically voids the digital signature, this is irrelevant because both the RDP and the municipality retain the original, digitally signed and sealed documents. This system ensures that the integrity of the RDP’s work is maintained, and the approved documents are appropriately marked for job site use.
6. Field Access to Documents: Most permitting software allows field access to approved documents, which can sometimes eliminate the need for printing entirely. Inspectors and contractors can view the approved plans digitally, streamlining the process and reducing the potential for errors or lost documents.

It’s also worth noting that in all permitting software I’ve encountered, the original digitally signed and sealed documents remain preserved in their unaltered form. The approved, stamped version is actually a copy, ensuring the RDP is fully protected. Both the municipality and the RDP maintain possession of the original documents, safeguarding the design professional’s work while meeting all permitting requirements.

This system, when properly implemented, strikes a balance between efficiency, security, and compliance. It ensures the authenticity of documents while providing the necessary tools for municipalities and contractors to manage approved plans effectively.

Do you agree that this process addresses the concerns of document integrity and compliance? From my perspective, this system is a practical solution for modern permitting and works exactly as intended.

---

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

This system, when properly implemented, strikes a balance between efficiency, security, and compliance. It ensures the authenticity of documents while providing the necessary tools for municipalities and contractors to manage approved plans effectively.

Do you agree that this process addresses the concerns of document integrity and compliance? From my perspective, this system is a practical solution for modern permitting and works exactly as intended.

---

The key is "when properly implemented." If digital signatures are properly third-party authenticated, it virtually eliminates the possibility of stolen or pirated seals. The issue of stolen seals has been a problem for at least as long as I've been an architect.

At my very first job after I graduated from architecture school, we did a 300,000 s.f. factory in a rural setting where there was no public utilities infrastructure other than electricity and telephone. Water was from an on-site well, and the waste system was an on-site, underground septic system. Because of the size of the building and the occupant load, the septic system fell under State Health Department jurisdiction. It was designed by a civil engineer and was a "dosing" system, which meant that it had a large holding tank with pumps that gradually released effluent to the leaching field on a timed basis, 24/7. During construction, we got a phone call from an irate inspector from the State, demanding to know why we had changed the design of the septic system without submitting the changes for review.

The boss was out, so I took the call. And I honestly told the guy that we hadn't made any changes, and that I had the original, unamended drawings in the flat file next to my desk. It didn't take much investigation to reveal that the contractor's project manager had made a sepia copy of the approved print, complete with the civil engineer's seal and signature, completely changed the design of the septic system, and then took prints of the revised drawing to the site.

Years later, at my previous building department job, I was reviewing drawings for an in-ground swimming pool. The prints were poor quality and the engineer's seal and signature were virtually unreadable. I was able to make out part of the name and most of the license number, and with that I called the woman at the engineers' licensing board to ask for her help in tracking down the engineer. She called me back a day later. "I have some good news, and I have some bad news," she said.

The good news was that she had identified the engineer. The bad news was that he had retired to Florida several years before, and that he had died a year before the date on the drawings.

When I receive digital construction documents, the first thing I do is open them in Adobe Acrobat and Foxit Reader to verify that both report a valid digital signature. If not -- we have a problem. Unfortunately (which is what led to this discussion), in a very large percentage of cases the digital drawings we receive DON'T carry a proper digital signature. All they have is a scanned image of a seal and signature -- no evidence that the document was digitally signed, and no flag indicating a third-party verified digital signature.

 

[Inspector Gift]

Oregon has been been allowing Digitally Signed Stamps on both Engineering and Architectural plans since 2008. (The requirements are very similar to Florida.)

Initially it was a major pain to verify and enforce, and less than 5% of the jurisdictions verified if the digital signature was uniquely authentic for that document. Now that the State Building Codes Division has mandated that all jurisdictions must accept Electronic Plans, the State provides jurisdictions with a license for Bluebeam for any jurisdiction.

DIGITAL SIGNATURE

(5) A digital signature, as an option to a handwritten signature in permanent ink is acceptable for final documents.

(a) The digital signature must be:

(A) Unique to the registrant using it; and

(B) Capable of verification; and

(C) Under the sole control of the registrant using it; and

(D) Linked to a document in such a manner that the digital signature is invalidated if any data in the document is changed.

(b) Documents signed using a digital signature will bear the phrase “digital signature” in place of the handwritten signature.

 

[jar546]

Just as a reminder, an electronic signature through Adobe by itself is not considered digitally signed and sealed in almost every single state in the union. The identity of the signer must be verified through a third-party company such as Identrust, Global Sign, etc.

 

[steveray]

Just as a reminder, an electronic signature through Adobe by itself is not considered digitally signed and sealed in almost every single state in the union. The identity of the signer must be verified through a third-party company such as Identrust, Global Sign, etc.

SealPact I think is another one we had a presentation on and is free for AHJ use to verify I believe...

 

[Yikes]

In California, it is left very vague.
It can be an "electronically generated representation" with "the signature applied... electronically... in a manner such that all work can be clearly attributed to the licensee(s)".
We've been doing it this way for decades now, and in practice all local municipalities have recognized that seals and signatures that:

(a) come from a printer or plotter, or​

(b) are sent as a pdf​

meet the "electronically generated / electronically applied" requirements.
No one has pushed back on the "clear attribution" to require any additional digital verification.

Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologist - California Code of Regulations Title 16, Division 5 §§ 411- Seal and Signatures:

(e) The seal shall be capable of leaving a permanent ink representation, a permanent impression, or an electronically-generated representation on the documents. The signature may be applied to the documents electronically.
(f) Preprinting of blank forms with the seal or signature, the use of decals of the seal or signature, or the use of a rubber stamp of the signature is prohibited.
(g) (1) All professional engineering plans, specifications, reports, or documents (hereinafter referred to as “documents”) shall be signed and sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Professional Engineers Act and any other laws related to the practice of professional engineering and shall be signed and sealed in a manner such that all work can be clearly attributed to the licensee(s) in responsible charge of the work.
(g) (2) All maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other professional land surveying documents (hereinafter referred to as “documents”) shall be signed and sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act and any other laws related to the practice of professional land surveying and shall be signed and sealed in a manner such that all work can be clearly attributed to the licensee(s) in responsible charge of work.
(g) (3) When signing and sealing documents containing work done by, or under the responsible charge of two or more licensees, the signature and seal of each licensee in responsible charge shall be placed on the documents with a notation describing the work done under each licensee’s responsible charge.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Just as a reminder, an electronic signature through Adobe by itself is not considered digitally signed and sealed in almost every single state in the union. The identity of the signer must be verified through a third-party company such as Identrust, Global Sign, etc.

True. There is a distinction between an "electronic" signature and a "digital" signature. Adobe Acrobat (but not Adobe Reader) allows users to affix an electronic signature to a PDF document. Both FoxIt and FoxIt Reader allow users to affix an electronic signature to a PDF. Microsoft Word allows users to electronically sign documents. However, unless the signer subscribes to a third-party authentication service, when an electronically signed document is opened in a PDF reader the software will report that the electronic signature cannot be verified.

I would say that the intent of California's regulation -- "that all work can be clearly attributed to the licensee(s)" -- implies third party authentication as set forth for Oregon (see Inspector Gift's post, above). My state's regulations are very similar to Oregon's:

Sec. 20-289-7a. Seals

(a) Each person granted a license shall use a seal, the design, arrangement, size and wording of which shall be prescribed by the board.

(b) Each corporation granted a certificate of authorization for the practice of architecture, or limited liability company granted a license for the joint practice of architecture, shall use a seal, the design, arrangement, size and wording of which shall be prescribed by the board.

(c) An embossing seal, rubber stamp or electronic seal conforming to the seals prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of this section may be used by the licensee. Any other seal or rubber stamp, or any variation thereof, is disapproved and shall not be used.

(d) An electronic seal shall be permitted on electronic documents if all the following criteria are met:

(1) It is unique to the architect;
(2) It is verifiable;
(3) It is under the architect's direct and exclusive control;
(4) It is linked to the electronic document in such a manner that causes changes to be easily determined and visually displayed if any data in the electronic document file is changed subsequent to the electronic seal having been affixed to the electronic document;
(5) Any attempt to change the electronic document after the electronic seal is affixed shall cause the electronic seal to be removed or altered significantly enough to invalidate the electronic seal; and
(6) Any time the electronic document is to be electronically transmitted, the electronic document shall be converted to a read-only format.

Without third-party authentication, anyone can make a scan or take a photo of a design professional's seal and signature, and just paste it onto any drawing or document they want. There's no way to be certain it was placed by the design professional to whom the seal nominally belongs.

 

[Yikes]

I would say that the intent of California's regulation -- "that all work can be clearly attributed to the licensee(s)" -- implies third party authentication as set forth for Oregon (see Inspector Gift's post, above). My state's regulations are very similar to Oregon's:

"All professional engineering plans, specifications, reports, or documents (hereinafter referred to as “documents”) shall be signed and sealed in accordance with the requirements of the Professional Engineers Act and any other laws related to the practice of professional engineering and shall be signed and sealed in a manner such that all work can be clearly attributed to the licensee(s) in responsible charge of the work."

My own impression of the intent of this wording, in context, is not an emphasis on digital authentication technologies. Rather, I think the focus of the statement was to make it clear which DPOR is taking responsibility for which document.
For example, if a single plan sheet has both a fire wall detail prepared by an architect and a structural wall detail prepared by an engineer, then the separate stamp would need to be applied to the author's detail, rather than having two stamps side-by-side in the title block, with no idea who is taking ultimate responsibility for each separate detail.

I say this because digital authentication was in its infancy when this portion of the engineer's act was written. Of course, the wording can be read expansively. But my point in post #13 is that I've not found any municipality in California that has required any special signature authentication, such as Docusign.

 

[PCianc02]

I've found a few previous discussions that touched on this, but nothing specific to my question, so here goes:

For design professionals and code officials, does your state have any specific requirements pertaining to the use of digital seals and/or signatures on construction documents (plans)?

My state does. Buried in the agency regulations for architects and for professional engineers is the requirement for them to have and use a seal. Under that, the regulations were revised about 20 years ago to allow for the use of digital seals/signatures rather than live ("wet') seals and signatures, BUT both the architects' regulations and the engineers' regulations then include specific criteria for what constitutes a digital seal. The important factor is that it has to be verifiable through a third-party authentication service, and it has to be such that if the underlying document is edited in any way after having been signed and sealed, either a flag is placed advising that the document was revised after it was signed, OR the digital seal/signature has to disappear.

What we still see in probably 90% of applications (or more) is just a scan of the design professional's seal and signature, pasted onto the title block. With paper prints, this is obvious when the signature is exactly the same on every sheet in the set, and falls in exactly the same relationship to the seal. With PDF digital drawings, it's even easier to spot -- when a document containing a proper digital signature is opened in most PDF readers (Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Reader, Fox-It, even FreePDF) there's a notice announcing that the document was digitally signed by [____] on [_date_] at [_time_] and that the digital signature is valid.

For us, it's in state law, so the same applies to every municipality throughout the state. What's the situation in other states? Does your code and underlying legislation allow digital seals and signatures? If so, do your laws or regulations require third-party authentication, or can design professionals just make a scan of their seal and signature and paste it onto their title block?

Advertising Deleted

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

While valuable in many ways, here are the 3 big takeaways I wanted to quickly share:

1. SealPact’s dynamic seals give architects and engineers more control over their sealed deliverables than ever before (i.e. we can manually invalidate seals for any reason of your choosing, such as lack of payment from client, revisions, etc.).
2. SealPact’s static layer helps architects and engineers comply with their state statutes in a user-friendly manner that specifically targets our AEC niche.
3. SealPact’s extended 3-month free trial for design professionals we work with (no credit card needed) and $169.95 annual subscription after this trial is lower than any other legacy b2b web-based signatures.

​

I am not a lawyer, but I have read the regulations pertaining to architects' and engineers' seals in my state (which I believe is also your home state). The law requires a PE to apply a seal to basically anything that leaves his/her office for any professional purpose -- drawings, calculations, reports, etc. There is NO provision in the law for disabling or removing a seal and signature for any reason, including non-payment of fees. If you are actually doing this, I respectfully submit that you (and the design professional) are breaking the law.

 

[PCianc02]

Hi Yankee Chronicler, The law requires anything that is submitted electronically to be digitally signed to ensure the file can't be tampered with. As you have touched on, there are some variances between states, but that is the main principle in most states. SealPact, along with other software, has that feature. The dynamic function is a separate feature, that allows for invalidation of a sealed deliverable. This already happens, when drawings are revised, or contracts are terminated (it's just a more cumbersome process right now). Building departments actually love this feature, because too often, contractors are working off an outdated set of sealed drawings. Now, contractors and building departments can be confident they are working off the latest, most accurate, updated set of drawings. It makes life for the building official easier. We have met with both state level and local building departments in many states regarding this very feature. To our knowledge (and theirs), there's nothing in the law that prohibits invalidated of a sealed file. Again, it's actually part of the natural process when files are revised. I would be happy to discuss this more with you. If you are interested, let me know the best way to reach out to you.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Mr. Cianci -

I believe you are based in Connecticut. Section 20-304 of Connecticut General Statutes says:

Sec. 20-304. Licenses and seals. Acceptance by the state and political subdivisions of the state of final drawings, specifications, plots, reports, papers, documents, etc., when sealed and submitted on behalf of an employer. The Department of Consumer Protection shall issue a license, upon payment of a fee as provided in section 20-305, to any applicant who has satisfactorily met all the requirements of this chapter. The issuance of a license by the department shall be evidence that the person named in such license is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a licensed professional engineer, or of a licensed land surveyor, while such license remains valid. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as permitting a person licensed only as a land surveyor to practice any other branch of the profession of engineering nor as permitting a licensed professional engineer to practice land surveying unless such person is a holder of a valid combined license as professional engineer and land surveyor. The Commissioner of Consumer Protection, with the advice and assistance of the board, may adopt regulations, in accordance with chapter 54, pertaining to the design and use of seals by licensees under this chapter. Each agency, department, board or commission of the state or political subdivision of the state shall accept, subject to review for conformance with all approved policies and standards, any final drawings, specifications, plots, reports, papers or documents relative to the practice of a licensed professional engineer or land surveyor when sealed and submitted on behalf of an employer by a licensed professional engineer or licensed land surveyor.

So the statute says that the licensing board shall adopt regulations governing the use of the seal. The statute also says that government agencies (which includes building departments) "shall accept, subject to review for conformance with all approved policies and standards, any final drawings, specifications, plots, reports, papers or documents relative to the practice of a licensed professional engineer or land surveyor when sealed and submitted on behalf of an employer by a licensed professional engineer or licensed land surveyor."

Once we accept any sealed document for review, that document is a public record. Tampering with a public record is a crime. The whole point of third party authentication of digital seals/signatures is to provide a mechanism to flag if/when a document has been altered after the seal and signature wee applied. If a document has a valid digital seal when we accept it, the public record doesn't care whether or not the engineer received payment from the client. If you remotely invalidate the digital seal even though the document has NOT been altered, as far as I'm concerned that's a violation of the laws pertaining to tampering with public records.

Then let's look at the engineers' regulations regarding seals and signatures:

Sec. 20-300-10. License seals and stamps

(a) Each licensee, upon notification of licensure, will be authorized to obtain an
official seal of a size and design prescribed by the Board. The seal shall be applied
to all plans, maps, surveys, sketches, drawings, specifications, and documents per-
taining to any project submitted by the licensee to his or her client. Where drawings
or documents are bound together, the application of the seal on one sheet or page shall
be considered sufficient, except in filing plans for building permits and appurtenant
structures where each sheet shall be sealed.

The purpose of applying the seal is to attest that the document(s) in question were prepared by the engineer, or under his/her direct supervision. It doesn't allow the engineer to withdraw that attestation in the event of non-payment. Whether or not you got paid, you prepared the document, and that's what your seal indicates. If you wet sealed and signed a set of construction documents, do you think you could walk into a building department and be allowed to physically cut your seal and signature off the drawings in the building department's files? That's what you are saying you will do digitally.

I don't think that's legal. Suppose my department approved your structural plans and issued a building permit, based on plans bearing a valid digital seal/signature. Down the road there's a question. Lawyers want to know what we approved, and why we approved it. We call up the digital plans we approved, but now they no longer display a valid digital seal and signature. They did when we approved them. You will have tampered with a public record.

IMHO, you're on VERY thin ice if you actually do this.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I recognize that the above discussion has gotten WAY off the original topic of this thread.

I'm writing a book, a guide for design professionals to avoid having their work rejected when they apply for building permits. One of the issues I see almost daily is construction documents that have scanned images of a seal and signature, but they are NOT third-party authenticated digital seals/signatures.

This book needs to be a resource for design professionals in all states. That's why I am asking for feedback on what each state requires. I don't care how the design professionals achieve it. I would like to know what each state requires and, for the building officials, I would also like to know how you enforce your state's laws or regulations on digital seals, and how often you receive construction documents that don't comply with your state's laws pertaining thereto.

 

[PCianc02]

Mr. Cianci -

I believe you are based in Connecticut. Section 20-304 of Connecticut General Statutes says:



So the statute says that the licensing board shall adopt regulations governing the use of the seal. The statute also says that government agencies (which includes building departments) "shall accept, subject to review for conformance with all approved policies and standards, any final drawings, specifications, plots, reports, papers or documents relative to the practice of a licensed professional engineer or land surveyor when sealed and submitted on behalf of an employer by a licensed professional engineer or licensed land surveyor."

Once we accept any sealed document for review, that document is a public record. Tampering with a public record is a crime. The whole point of third party authentication of digital seals/signatures is to provide a mechanism to flag if/when a document has been altered after the seal and signature wee applied. If a document has a valid digital seal when we accept it, the public record doesn't care whether or not the engineer received payment from the client. If you remotely invalidate the digital seal even though the document has NOT been altered, as far as I'm concerned that's a violation of the laws pertaining to tampering with public records.

Then let's look at the engineers' regulations regarding seals and signatures:



The purpose of applying the seal is to attest that the document(s) in question were prepared by the engineer, or under his/her direct supervision. It doesn't allow the engineer to withdraw that attestation in the event of non-payment. Whether or not you got paid, you prepared the document, and that's what your seal indicates. If you wet sealed and signed a set of construction documents, do you think you could walk into a building department and be allowed to physically cut your seal and signature off the drawings in the building department's files? That's what you are saying you will do digitally.

I don't think that's legal. Suppose my department approved your structural plans and issued a building permit, based on plans bearing a valid digital seal/signature. Down the road there's a question. Lawyers want to know what we approved, and why we approved it. We call up the digital plans we approved, but now they no longer display a valid digital seal and signature. They did when we approved them. You will have tampered with a public record.

IMHO, you're on VERY thin ice if you actually do this.

Hi Yankee - first off, in regards to your original post (which I'm sorry I got off topic), this document from NSPE may be helpful to you. I have a copy, but it's copyrighted. However, I think you can purchase a copy for $10. Here's the link: https://www.nspe.org/shop/product/digital-signing-and-sealing-engineering-documents. It breaks down summaries of these statutes for each state.

As far as this thread, you bring up some good points and yes, it appears we are from the same state (small world!). I do think you misunderstood (likely due to poor explanation on my part), the digital signatures with SealPact. Like any other third party digital solution, you can always make sure that a file has not been tampered if it has been digitally signed with SealPact (that doesn't change). The main objective of SealPact is we found that many people were just using images of seals on plans, which is not secure/compliant in most states, and we wanted to create a more user-friendly way to apply secure digital seals for design professionals in our niche.

The dynamic feature, is a separate check (mutually exclusive) which allows for engineers to confirm this sealed file is still up to date (i.e. not revised). Currently, engineers can revoke seals for a multitude of reasons (the most common being that there is a revised file, or perhaps a mistake, and they don't want people working off an incorrect or outdated file). In that case, the submitted file is still there, however, the engineer can submit that he/she revokes the seal, and the building department can determine if it's OK to do so. In the example you gave, both files (old and new), if submitted to the town, will still be on record and show whether or not they have been tampered with (hopefully both are not tampered with). The dynamic features is separate, and allows for the engineer to send an automatic email to whomever he/she chooses that states that this file is now outdated. Perhaps, maybe the building official never got the revised/updated file, and now can be aware, and follow up, if they choose. It will also show a separate check that shows that the engineer no longer considers that file valid, for the reason the engineer states (unrelated to the static check that's also available to meet state statutes). Long story short, I'm hoping that with this additional explanation, you can see that not only is this feature legal, but it's actually valued by building officials (both in our state of CT, and elsewhere). We have actually consulted with building officials on other dynamic features, such as whether there's quality control, Special Inspections, etc., to help increase transparency and reduce miscommunications in the field. Again, I emphasize that this is all outside of the static, PKI checks, which are not affected by these other features.

You seem very knowledgeable on this, and I respect that you are writing a book on all of the state statutes, I would love to catch up more off line to discuss both that endeavor, as well as get your take on some other items. While the link I provided you above is a little outdated, I can tell you that most states have not updated since then, and can provide more feedback on which states require what from my experiences across the country.

Paul

 

[steveray]

Paul did a great class for CBOA a few years back…Good to see him here…

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

As far as this thread, you bring up some good points and yes, it appears we are from the same state (small world!). I do think you misunderstood (likely due to poor explanation on my part), the digital signatures with SealPact. Like any other third party digital solution, you can always make sure that a file has not been tampered if it has been digitally signed with SealPact (that doesn't change). The main objective of SealPact is we found that many people were just using images of seals on plans, which is not secure/compliant in most states, and we wanted to create a more user-friendly way to apply secure digital seals for design professionals in our niche.

The scanned images of seals/signatures is exactly why the department I work for has to reject so many construction documents submittals. This problem is not limited to small forms and it's not limited to design professionals from my state, which is why I will address it in the book I'm writing. In my state, the requirements for third-party authentication of seals/signatures have been in state law since the 1990s, so I find it mind-boggling that so many design professionals don't seem to have a clue what we're talking about when we cite it. I have taken to attaching a copy of the pertinent licensing board regulation to plan reviews -- and even then we get push-back.

 

[PCianc02]

The scanned images of seals/signatures is exactly why the department I work for has to reject so many construction documents submittals. This problem is not limited to small forms and it's not limited to design professionals from my state, which is why I will address it in the book I'm writing. In my state, the requirements for third-party authentication of seals/signatures have been in state law since the 1990s, so I find it mind-boggling that so many design professionals don't seem to have a clue what we're talking about when we cite it. I have taken to attaching a copy of the pertinent licensing board regulation to plan reviews -- and even then we get push-back.

I completely agree. I am shocked that the high percentage of design professionals who regularly use just a scanned image, as well as the small percentage of building departments who enforce the digital signature requirement from the state statutes (with no security to the file). Did you check out the link I sent you that summarizes all 50 states requirements? As you can see, most states are very similar with the wording, with some states, such as Florida (touched on above by jar546). In those states, your identity must be verified by a third party (i.e. submitting photo ID, as well as other mechanisms). This is in addition to the technology that prohibits the document from being altered that most other states require. However, even within Florida, I find it's enforced differently throughout various counties.