Yes, construction staking for surveyors is on the way out. Many of these larger firms have licensed civils on staff who can take responsible charge of the work. I have a friend who works doing this same thing for a large general engineering contractor. Whether or not the licensed civils at the firm actually have responsible charge is a valid question. All they need the surveyor for is to set control, and then maybe do an as-built way down the road. This subject has come up often in the national land surveying community (magazines and other forums) and in many states you do not need a license to practice construction staking. If construction staking is the bread and butter of your firm then watch out because this is something that probably won't change anytime soon.
One of the biggest issues this brings up is one of liability. No longer can the contractor say that the surveyor put the stake in the wrong place (unless the control was bad). I don't mind giving up the liability, but are these firms willing to accept it? Do they know and understand how many things can go wrong using GPS and RTK? Hopefully whoever is running the show doesn't just accept the data mindlessly.
A couple of years ago the board addressed an issue such as this. From my recollection a letter went out from the board stating that unlicensed individuals practicing construction staking were in violation of the LS act. The company in question was a general engineering firm doing construction staking. Not soon after the first letter went out a second letter went out from the board saying that this judgement and the first letter was not to be taken as a blanket statement for all firms doing this, and that each and every case would need to be evaluated on its own merit. So much for a simple solution. I'm sure that after the first letter went out the construction lobby piped up and said wait a minute, maybe whats happening isn't necessarily "construction staking". Needless to say the issue is clouded. I don't know if the board has been involved in any cases such as this recently, but be aware, those who produce gps equipment, and those in the general engineering construction industry will fight tooth and nail to keep their gps, its more money in their pocket, and if they can get away with it by not calling it construction staking, then they will.
Construction Staking using GPS by Non-Surveyors
-
Ric7308
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm
Wouldn't you imagine that if a grading contractor had a CE (Grading and model development) or LS (staking) on staff in responsible charge of the work, then that firm would be required to have an Organization Record on file with the Board, see B&P Code, Section 8729(i)...or 6738(i)?
Something to think about...
Something to think about...
-
PE_PLS
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:00 pm
I agree that if an unlicensed person is doing construction staking then there is a violation, but unless boundary is involved then post 82 CE's should be allowed to do the certification as well. If a post 82 CE can stake it, then they should be able to certify it. Usually ADA issues have to do with slope and grade which any LS or CE (pre and post 82) should be able to handle.
-
Jim Frame
- Posts: 1588
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
- Location: Davis, CA
- Contact:
A Losing Battle
I believe that trying to prevent unlicensed persons from using machine control -- GPS or conventional -- in construction is just rearranging the deck chairs on a rapidly sinking ship. It was a reasonable response in the early days of machine control technology, but the hardware and software have matured to the point that it's no longer reasonable to consider machine control a restricted practice.
In a related thread a couple of years ago I suggested that the statutory definition of land surveying as it relates to construction -- specifically 8726(a) -- is outdated and needs to be revised to accommodate current conditions. "Locates...the alignment or elevation...for fixed works" is such a broad definition that a strict interpretation doesn't even allow a gradesetter to transfer grade from an offset stake to the point of construction with a hand level and rag tape. I indicated that a more rational criterion for determining when a construction practice requires a license is the use of tools that are not in common usage by tradesmen to obtain reliable results.
As others have suggested, machine control is a reality now, and trying to turn back the clock is destined to fail on economic grounds alone. The danger in trying to retain control over something that doesn't legitimately require licensure is that the construction industry will bring its considerable weight to bear upon legislative changes, and the result may go much farther than any of us would like to see.
For the curious, here's a link to the thread I mentioned above:
http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... php?t=1350
.
In a related thread a couple of years ago I suggested that the statutory definition of land surveying as it relates to construction -- specifically 8726(a) -- is outdated and needs to be revised to accommodate current conditions. "Locates...the alignment or elevation...for fixed works" is such a broad definition that a strict interpretation doesn't even allow a gradesetter to transfer grade from an offset stake to the point of construction with a hand level and rag tape. I indicated that a more rational criterion for determining when a construction practice requires a license is the use of tools that are not in common usage by tradesmen to obtain reliable results.
As others have suggested, machine control is a reality now, and trying to turn back the clock is destined to fail on economic grounds alone. The danger in trying to retain control over something that doesn't legitimately require licensure is that the construction industry will bring its considerable weight to bear upon legislative changes, and the result may go much farther than any of us would like to see.
For the curious, here's a link to the thread I mentioned above:
http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... php?t=1350
.
-
Ric7308
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm
Okay, I will respectively bite on the subject of "A Losing Battle".
What battle? Outside of a few (relatively speaking) Land Surveyors lamenting the demise of the profession due to Machine Guidance and contractors taking over the profession, I don't see where we are standing up for ourselves? In this forum and in others (POB), there was quite a bit of discussion over the last few years and from what I've heard, a meeting at the recent ACSM Conference on this subject.
I know that at least one member of the State CLSA Leg. Committee has some very strong thoughts on the subject and I know it has been discussed by the LSTAC at their meetings. But those individuals need more support by you, me, us, the land surveying community. And not just complaining or talking about it.
I can tell you that the Board has received less than a handful of inquiries or complaints that regarded this subject. Surprised? I am. Most of these inquiries could not understand how we couldn't just appear at the job site and make the contractors "cease and desist" from their operations. Too many individuals think that the Board exists to enact regulation and that is not the purpose.
Jim has made some good points in his response and that I believe could be very helpful in the support. Dave, as well as others in the past (yes, that includes Ian), have posted on ways to modify their business practices in adjustment of these technologies, but I believe we need to approach that more on a group level. This is where the power of CLSA comes in. The power of the professional organization.
Another thing I have noticed is how many seminars, articles, etc. have been presented to contractors on how to implement this technology, sell it, effectively use it to conduct business, etc. by software and hardware manufacturers, contractors trade magazines, trade shows, even heavy equipment suppliers. Not to mention how the technology was promoted by the contractors community themselves.
Tell me, how many of those same educational and marketing avenues are we, the land surveying community, employing that directly targets Land Surveyors (and yes, civil engineers) with those same topics? "How to coexist with Machine Guidance contractors" "How to make a profit in the 3D world" "How to ensure that your design is interpreted correctly"
I agree that times have changed and the construction staking that we all have come to know and love (or in my case, detest) is not the same. For my part, I am happy it is really changing, not just my perspective of it as I get older. But why can't Land Surveyors grow and change with it?
Why can't we actually have a battle on the subject? I don't necessarily buy into the fact that the contractors are too big and powerful. I believe that just like everyone else, they have a small percentage that actually do the battling. It is just that a small percentage of them is larger than the same small percentage of us. It can be done.
Ric
What battle? Outside of a few (relatively speaking) Land Surveyors lamenting the demise of the profession due to Machine Guidance and contractors taking over the profession, I don't see where we are standing up for ourselves? In this forum and in others (POB), there was quite a bit of discussion over the last few years and from what I've heard, a meeting at the recent ACSM Conference on this subject.
I know that at least one member of the State CLSA Leg. Committee has some very strong thoughts on the subject and I know it has been discussed by the LSTAC at their meetings. But those individuals need more support by you, me, us, the land surveying community. And not just complaining or talking about it.
I can tell you that the Board has received less than a handful of inquiries or complaints that regarded this subject. Surprised? I am. Most of these inquiries could not understand how we couldn't just appear at the job site and make the contractors "cease and desist" from their operations. Too many individuals think that the Board exists to enact regulation and that is not the purpose.
Jim has made some good points in his response and that I believe could be very helpful in the support. Dave, as well as others in the past (yes, that includes Ian), have posted on ways to modify their business practices in adjustment of these technologies, but I believe we need to approach that more on a group level. This is where the power of CLSA comes in. The power of the professional organization.
Another thing I have noticed is how many seminars, articles, etc. have been presented to contractors on how to implement this technology, sell it, effectively use it to conduct business, etc. by software and hardware manufacturers, contractors trade magazines, trade shows, even heavy equipment suppliers. Not to mention how the technology was promoted by the contractors community themselves.
Tell me, how many of those same educational and marketing avenues are we, the land surveying community, employing that directly targets Land Surveyors (and yes, civil engineers) with those same topics? "How to coexist with Machine Guidance contractors" "How to make a profit in the 3D world" "How to ensure that your design is interpreted correctly"
I agree that times have changed and the construction staking that we all have come to know and love (or in my case, detest) is not the same. For my part, I am happy it is really changing, not just my perspective of it as I get older. But why can't Land Surveyors grow and change with it?
Why can't we actually have a battle on the subject? I don't necessarily buy into the fact that the contractors are too big and powerful. I believe that just like everyone else, they have a small percentage that actually do the battling. It is just that a small percentage of them is larger than the same small percentage of us. It can be done.
Ric
-
RasterMaster
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:25 pm
The way sites are prepared today is no different than what was done yesterday, its just measured differently. Nobody has a problem with the grade setter pulling in his own points based on the parcel/final map or when the contractor sets up his site laser level and grades away or after the corners are set the foundation guy sets his own column points, its all the same. With today’s technology the contractor only needs us to set site control and he can take it from there.
The money is in the contractors pocket, help that guy out with the new technologies, he is going to need your help. The MCG is hear to stay and only get tighter, so study up on Real Time Networks and the Emerging Measurement Styles.
The train is leaving the station, still time to hop on...All-a-board!!!
Not like the GIS train that has already left the station.
Might as well get tickets for the LiDAR/Scanner train as it is getting ready to leave the station right after the MCG train.
RM
The money is in the contractors pocket, help that guy out with the new technologies, he is going to need your help. The MCG is hear to stay and only get tighter, so study up on Real Time Networks and the Emerging Measurement Styles.
The train is leaving the station, still time to hop on...All-a-board!!!
Not like the GIS train that has already left the station.
Might as well get tickets for the LiDAR/Scanner train as it is getting ready to leave the station right after the MCG train.
RM
-
goodgps
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
- Location: Modesto, Ca
I've always thought that Engineers could do their own construction staking, interior of a boundary, which must be determined by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Pre-Civil.
It never mattered what tool they were using, they are simply "engineers helpers"
What about general contractors and grade setters who use levels and rods ?
to determine grades and tapes to determine positions. Are all these guys practicing illegally ??
GPS is a tool, a very dangerous tool in the wrong hands but a tool none the less. We use string lines and chalk lines to establish positions sometimes. Are all those pavement stripers illegal ?
I agree, that construction staking is becoming a lost art to land surveyors.
A DTM can literally be loaded into machine control units and an entire site can be graded, trenched and curbed without stakes. The only thing needed is a good boundary.
They will NEVER replace us for boundary work. ONLY when Lawyers are banned will we be in jeopardy.
Remember what I said last year ? We are being regulated to boundary, topo and legal description writing. The rest can actually be done by computors (even the ones shaped like D11's)
Sad
"Good" :~(
It never mattered what tool they were using, they are simply "engineers helpers"
What about general contractors and grade setters who use levels and rods ?
to determine grades and tapes to determine positions. Are all these guys practicing illegally ??
GPS is a tool, a very dangerous tool in the wrong hands but a tool none the less. We use string lines and chalk lines to establish positions sometimes. Are all those pavement stripers illegal ?
I agree, that construction staking is becoming a lost art to land surveyors.
A DTM can literally be loaded into machine control units and an entire site can be graded, trenched and curbed without stakes. The only thing needed is a good boundary.
They will NEVER replace us for boundary work. ONLY when Lawyers are banned will we be in jeopardy.
Remember what I said last year ? We are being regulated to boundary, topo and legal description writing. The rest can actually be done by computors (even the ones shaped like D11's)
Sad
"Good" :~(
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2141
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
Local agencies have no desire to act as an enforcement arm of BPELS. It is not the local agencies, but the State which mandates the license when it comes to filed maps. The local reviewing agencies may seem as if they are the local enforcers of this, but that is only because they are mandated by State law to ensure that the map is technically correct and that all the proper statements are on there, including the Surveyor's/engineer's Statement.
It is the County Surveyor's office that reviews the maps, and they are the ones mandated to sign off on the technical correctness and statutory content of the Final Map.
It is the Planning and Building Departments that review construction related plans and as-builts. For the most part, counter people and inspectors are not licensed as surveyors or as engineers, are ignorant of the laws governing the practice of those fields, and don't really want to know about them. Even if there are engineers in management, they don't want their department and their staff to be responsible for knowing what activities are licensed and ensuring that a properly licensed person is performing or supervising those activities. The most that they will do is tell their staff that certain documents require a professional stamp. Often they don't even care what type of stamp. As long as it looks official, it's OK.
Unless a State law is enacted to mandate that the local agencies ensure that properly licensed individuals are performing functions within the practice of those professions, there is no way (with very few exceptions) that local agencies will step up to do it. I would bet that many would not even care to have their staff educated on the matter.
No, this is something that surveyors, to remain relevant, will need to proactively redifine their role in, and be willing to police themselves and the activities.
If we are really all that concerned about unlicensed practice in this facet of surveying, perhaps §8726 needs to be updated to address machine guidance control, QC, and as-built certifications. If we are concerned about unlicensed practice in general, perhaps we should work to get BPELS more authority over the practice of Surveying and engineering rather than just authority over the licensed practitioners.
The ability to have a phone turned off and levy nominal fines which are either ignored or are small enough to be absorbed as a cost of doing business is not sufficient authority.
It is the County Surveyor's office that reviews the maps, and they are the ones mandated to sign off on the technical correctness and statutory content of the Final Map.
It is the Planning and Building Departments that review construction related plans and as-builts. For the most part, counter people and inspectors are not licensed as surveyors or as engineers, are ignorant of the laws governing the practice of those fields, and don't really want to know about them. Even if there are engineers in management, they don't want their department and their staff to be responsible for knowing what activities are licensed and ensuring that a properly licensed person is performing or supervising those activities. The most that they will do is tell their staff that certain documents require a professional stamp. Often they don't even care what type of stamp. As long as it looks official, it's OK.
Unless a State law is enacted to mandate that the local agencies ensure that properly licensed individuals are performing functions within the practice of those professions, there is no way (with very few exceptions) that local agencies will step up to do it. I would bet that many would not even care to have their staff educated on the matter.
No, this is something that surveyors, to remain relevant, will need to proactively redifine their role in, and be willing to police themselves and the activities.
If we are really all that concerned about unlicensed practice in this facet of surveying, perhaps §8726 needs to be updated to address machine guidance control, QC, and as-built certifications. If we are concerned about unlicensed practice in general, perhaps we should work to get BPELS more authority over the practice of Surveying and engineering rather than just authority over the licensed practitioners.
The ability to have a phone turned off and levy nominal fines which are either ignored or are small enough to be absorbed as a cost of doing business is not sufficient authority.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist