In recent years, tremendous strides have been made in engineering licensure in the U.S. to promote mobility and expedited comity licensure for individual PE licenses. In many states, a PE who meets the definition of a Model Law Engineer, and has an up to date “Council Record” through the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, can obtain a license in a new state in less than a week. This is all well and good, and works like a charm, but only if that engineer’s firm can also meet that state’s requirement for firm certifications in a similar time frame.
That same level of progress has not been made in all states with respect to firm certifications, of which there are two types. In many states, the PE board issues a certificate of authorization, of various names in different states, authorizing the firm to provide engineering services. In some states, there is a requirement for the firm to be “registered” in various fashions with the Secretary of State or the State Department of the Treasury. The types of approvals by state as reported by the state PE board are listed here and here.
These certifications are required in many states for valid statutory reasons, for instance, to assure that taxes are paid and/or to provide a local agent, thus assuring that the venue for dispute resolution is in that state, and not in federal or another state court. Many states require that firms offering engineering services have at least one full-time professional engineer in each office in the state, to preclude plan-stamping of non-PEs’ work by part-time professional engineers.
Some in the engineering profession believe that mobility of engineering firms is an issue that primarily affects large engineering firms. That isn’t the case. Firm certifications, which serve as barriers to mobility, actually are more of a problem for small firms, which make up the vast majority of consulting engineering firms in the U.S., than for large firms. Larger firms have administrative personnel who keep track of certifications and renewals in all states where the firms practice or might practice. Small firms (less than 100) can’t reasonably do that; and they need to react quickly, typically well within 30 days, when a project presents itself through an RFP or otherwise in a state where the firm has not practiced in the past.
The licensing board survey provided online by NCEES indicates the time it takes, reported by each board, for a firm to obtain required certifications to practice. The following states indicate that it takes 30 days or more to obtain firm certifications: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island. In those states, the opportunity to respond to an RFP has come and gone before a firm can obtain a certification. I suspect that things don’t always work as fast as indicated on that table in other states. If any of you reading this have any experiences of being delayed awaiting firm certifications, leave a comment below.
The other mobility barrier related to firm certifications, other than time, consists of state requirements for the ownership of firms that are authorized to practice in their state. The ownership requirements for each state are indicated here. Most states either have no ownership requirements, or reasonably require that at least one principal of the firm be licensed in that state. There are at least two very significant exceptions.
In Michigan, for a firm that is based (i.e., incorporated) in another state to practice in Michigan, two-thirds of the firm’s principals need to be licensed as professional engineers, architects, or surveyors, in Michigan. For a firm with 10, or 50, or 1,000 professional engineers, proposing to do one or two projects in Michigan, this is a significant barrier. It would make no sense to have two-thirds of principals licensed to deal with one or several projects.
New York State’s barriers in this regard are also formidable and long-standing. New York requires that 100% of principals be licensed professional engineers. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently signed legislation to ease this to 75%, but I understand that the new bill pertains only to new firms based in New York. Firms based in other states, still have to meet the 100% requirement. Many engineering firms have surveyors, or geologists, or construction inspectors, or marketing/human resources/management staff who are part owners of firms along with professional engineers. For such firms to practice in New York, they need to set up a new, separate corporation, meeting New York State’s ownership requirements—even to do one project in New York. And the new flexibility doesn’t apply to out of state firms.
Mobility of professional engineers and of engineering firms is in the public interest. A number of years ago, a member of a PE board in a large northeastern state asked me why his state should be concerned with whether or not engineers from other states could practice there in a reasonable amount of time. Why make it easier for out of state firms? I responded, “Let’s say, there was a rare air quality problem experienced in a ventilation system in your state that had only been addressed previously by an engineer who happened to practice in Seattle. You would want that engineer’s input as soon as possible.” That PE board member said, “I get it.” Again, mobility is in the public interest.
The information reported herein indicates that firm certifications do not function as a barrier in most states.
State societies of NSPE, and state PE boards, should review their firm certification requirements and assure that certifications can be obtained quickly, in less than two weeks. That is in the public interest.
If you have war stories of difficulties in obtaining timely certifications, or in having to set up new corporations simply to practice in a given state, please make a comment below.
Editorial input on this item was provided by Bernard R. Berson, P.E., F.NSPE, and L. Robert Smith, P.E., F.NSPE.
The author is a Fellow of NSPE and ACEC, a Distinguished Member of ASCE, a Board Certified Environmental Engineer, the Chair of the NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee, and a member of the ABET Board of Directors. The opinions expressed herein are his own and do not reflect the views of any of these organizations.
