Policy Advisory Request No. 50 Re: Response to Request for Policy

Policy Advisory Request No. 50

e: Response to Request for Policy Advisory Request Regarding the Ability to Sign and Seal Modifiable

Electronic Engineering Plans

he Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors Policy Advisory Opinion Committee (Committee)

met in public session on February 25, 2021 and approved this response.

equest:

Mr. Guillermo Guerrero, P.E. with Burns & McDonnell seeks guidance on the following issues:

1. Does the Board consider digital model-based systems as a form of electronic engineering work?

2. Can a digital model-based system be used to replace in its entirety, or supplement in part, a paper-based

stem?

3. For digital model-based systems, can sealing requirements be satisfied by sealing the Transmittal sheet

used to transmit the model?

ackground:

The Policy Advisory Opinion process allows the Board to issue interpretations of the Texas Engineering Practice

Act (the Act) and Board Rules to address specific questions. Consistent with the requirements of the Texas

Engineering Practice Act, Subchapter M, relating to Advisory Opinions, the Committee reviewed this request and

determined to accept it as Policy Advisory Opinion on May 23, 2019. The Committee directed Board staff to

further study the issues in the request and form a workgroup to gather stakeholder input. The workgroup

consisted of approximately 20 individuals and met three times in January, July, and November 2020. Based on

feedback from the workgroup, the Board offers the following response.

esponse:

The answer to the first two questions is addressed in the Act. The Board does consider digital model-based

systems to fall under the definition of the practice of engineering as found in Section 1001.003 of the Act, relating

to the Practice of Engineering. Since the Act is silent on the exact format engineering work takes, a digital model-

based system is an acceptable method to transmit engineering work, as is a paper-based system. Digital models

should be signed and sealed as any other engineering work should be.

he third question is not clearly addressed by the Act or Board rules. The current signing and sealing rules were

written with traditional paper or PDF type files in mind, not a large electronic file or digital model. The current

rules do not specifically address the methodology to seal a large, modifiable file or set of files. The Board

recognizes that there are many electronic programs or packages used to generate models, files, or other digital

engineering work and that technology changes very quickly. It is also not the role of the Board to endorse or

require any specific software package or vendor as part of its rules or policies. Therefore, the Board offers the

following performance standards to consider when sealing and transmitting a large electronic file.

hen transmitting a file or software package as the engineering work product, the engineer shall ensure the file

meets the following criteria, each of which will be discussed in more detail below:

• The design professional’s identity is clearly indicated and confirmable.

• The version of the file being sealed is identified and saved.

• All responsible parties and design professionals are clearly identified.

• Consideration has been given to address tracking of modifications.

The Design Professional’s Identity is Indicated and Confirmable

The purpose of an engineer’s signature and seal is to convey to all parties that the work product is final, compliant

with all applicable regulations and codes, and has been created in a manner consistent with generally accepted

principles of the engineering profession. Further, the signature and seal communicates that the sealed work

product was done either by the sealing engineer or under his or her direct supervision. Lastly, the engineer’s seal

provides a unique identifier that allows interested parties to identify and locate the design professional when

Page 2 of 2

needed. Ideally, the signature and seal will be embedded somewhere in the electronic file itself. However, we

understand that such a process may not be readily available with many engineering design software packages. If

you are unable to embed a seal and signature, a transmittal sheet that is signed and sealed that notates the unique

version of the model that is being sealed is an acceptable alternative until such time the software allows the

embedding of seal and signature.

Version Control

If you decide to transmit an electronic file as your engineering work product, care must be taken to be able to

readily identify the exact version of the file that is being signed and sealed. Possible methods to identify the signed

and sealed version include notating the date and time the sealed file was saved, the file size, a unique version

number or through other security methods including hashing or block chain. By identifying the version that was

signed and sealed, the responsible design professional can clearly identify any subsequent changes to the file that

were not part of the signed and sealed version. Any engineering modifications after the signed and sealed version

would not be considered official unless they are signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer. Further, if

an unlicensed person made modifications and tried to reissue the file, it would be identifiable, and the Board could

investigate the matter for the potential unlicensed practice of engineering. Lastly, a copy of the signed and sealed

version should be maintained by the responsible party to address any complaints or compliance questions.

Responsible Parties

If multiple design professionals work on a project that is transmitted as an electronic file, the identity of the design

professional and which part of the design he or she responsible for should be indicated and embedded in the file.

Similar to the seal and signature, if the software does not allow this information to be directly embedded in the

electronic file, it can be captured on a transmittal memo until such time the software allows for the embedding of

this information.

Modification Tracking and Notification

The electronic file and software should be capable of tracking modifications or indicating that changes have been

made to the original work product. If a change has been made, subsequent design professionals would need to

either sign and seal the modifications, or if the revisions necessitated changes outside of his or her area of

expertise, to notify the original design professional to review the changes. Note, this responsibility is on the

subsequent design professional, not the original designer. The original designer is not responsible for any

modification made to his or her signed and sealed design but should be aware that follow-up from subsequent

design professional may become necessary. An example of this circumstance is an electrical engineer needing to

make a tweak to a signed and sealed design that would necessitate a structural design change to the building. If

the electrical engineer does not have the expertise to evaluate the structural change, the electrical engineer should

contact the structural engineer who originally signed and sealed the design to review the change.

Stakeholder Feedback

To solicit feedback from stakeholders and interested parties, the Board published a draft version of this response

in December 2020 in both the Texas Register and on the Board’s website for a 30-day comment period. No

comments were received.

Summary

The Board recognizes that technology evolves quickly and as a result, the method of transmitting engineering

designs is also evolving. This Policy Advisory is intended to provide guidance to professional engineers that wish

to transmit their work through electronic files. The Board will continue to monitor technological advances and

will update this guidance as needed.