North Carolina

December 14, 2011 - Board Policy Statement

BP-0501-1Rev.1 dated 12/14/2011

"Commissioning of those systems that are engineered systems falls under the practice of engineering and must be performed under the responsible charge of a professional engineer."



The Board has applied disciplinary proceedings on a number of companies that have attempted to provide commissioning services without being properly licensed as engineering firms including the following cases:

DISCIPLINARY CASE NO. V05-123
Commissioning & Green Building Services, LLC d/b/a CxGBS, unlicensed
Buford, GA
VIOLATION: Offered to practice engineering in violation of G.S. 89C-24, 57C and 55B.
BOARD ACTION: Issued letter to cause respondent to cease and desist offering to practice or practicing engineering including commissioning services, until licensed with the NC Board.

DISCIPLINARY CASE NO. V2014-011
Recon Independent Assessments, LLC [non-licensed]
Casselberry, FL
VIOLATION: Practiced or offered to practice engineering in North Carolina without being licensed in violation of G.S. 89C-
24, 57C and 55B.
BOARD ACTION: Board issued letter to cause respondent to cease and desist offering or practicing engineering to include but not limited to analysis or recommendations that utilize engineering knowledge or commissioning of engineered systems, including wall and roof systems, until such time as the company becomes licensed with the Board.

DISCIPLINARY CASE NO. V09-008
Avtec-USA, LLC, unlicensed
Madison, NC
VIOLATION: Practiced or offered to practice engineering in NC without being licensed with the NC Board in violation of G.S. 89C-24, 57C and 55B.
BOARD ACTION: Issued letter to cause respondent to cease and desist offering or practicing engineering in NC, to include but not limited to, design services, including electrical, mechanical and PLC programming and commissioning work until such time as the company becomes properly licensed with the NC Board. Such services must be properly contracted to licensed engineering firms and all marketing materials and contracts must clearly disclose this to prospective clients as to any project located in NC.

DISCIPLINARY CASE NO. V05-121
Aramark Facility Services, unlicensed
Madison, CT
VIOLATION: Practiced or offered to practice engineering in violation of G.S. 89C-24 and 55B.
BOARD ACTION: Issued letter to cause respondent to cease and desist offering to practice or practicing engineering including commissioning services in NC until individuals and the company are licensed with the Board.

DISCIPLINARY CASE NO. V06-026
e-nTech Independent Testing Services, Inc., unlicensed
Winston-Salem, NC
VIOLATION: Practiced or offered to practice engineering in violation of G.S. 89C-24 and 55B.
BOARD ACTION: Issued letter to cause respondent to cease and desist offering or practicing engineering in NC, including but not limited to, design validation that certifies that the installation conforms to the initial engineering design; the start-up and turnover of facilities, systems, and equipment to the owner in a manner that ensures a safe and functional environment that meets established design requirements (commissioning); and corrective actions taken during validation that require design changes and/or re-commissioning that require the education, training or experience of an engineer to successfully perform, until licensed with the Board.

DISCIPLINARY CASE NO. V2011-093
Yonkers Industries, Inc. [unlicensed]
Cary, NC
VIOLATION: Practiced or offered to practice engineering in NC without being licensed with the NC Board [G.S. 89C-23, 24 and 55B]
BOARD ACTION: Issued letter to cause respondent to cease and desist practicing or offering to practice engineering in NC, to include but not limited to project support services, start-up, commissioning and validation support services for the building or engineered systems, until licensed with the NC Board.

January 18, 2005 - Original Ruling

Dear Ms. Weseman, 
 
This letter is in response to your presentation to the Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors on December 9, 2004, at which time you asked the Board: "Do commissioning reports require a PE seal?"

The Board referred the issue to the Engineering Committee for consideration. At the January 13, 2005 regularly scheduled Board
meeting the Engineering Committee recommended and
the full Board concurred that the commissioning reports constitute the practice of engineering, and therefore, do require a Professional Engineer"s seal. 

July 18, 2005 - Follow-up Ruling Letter

Dear Ms. Weseman, 

This letter is the Board's response to your letter dated July 7. 2005 and your presentation to the Board on July 14, 2005 concerning engineering services in validation and commissioning within the pharmaceutical industry.

The Board referred the issue to the Engineering Committee for consideration. The Board adopted the recommendation of the Engineering Committee to issue the following Board policy based upon recommendations from your letter:

1. Commissioning work must be done under the responsible charge of a professional engineer. This is consistent with the previous determination at the January 13. 2005 Board meeting where the Engineering Committee recommended and the full Board concurred that building commissioning reports constitute the practice of engineering and require a Professional Engineer's seal.

2. Validation of pharmaceutical manufacturing systems does not require the responsible charge of an engineer.

3. Corrective action undertaken as a result of the validation process may require the responsible charge of a professional engineer if design changes or re-commissioning is required.

4. Activities, including, but not limited to, design validation that certifies that the installation conforms to the initial engineering design; the start-up and turnover of facilities, systems. and equipment to the owner in a manner that ensures a safe and functional environment that meets established design requirements (commissioning); and corrective actions taken during validation that require design changes and/or recommissioning that require the education, training or experience of an engineer to successfully perform must all be done under the responsible charge of a North Carolina professional engineer and as applicable, by a North Carolina licensed engineering company.

Under separate cover letters, copies of this letter will be sent to the pharmaceutical validation firms that were found in violation of G.8. 89C-24 and were sent letters on December 15, 2004. The third paragraph of those letters will be deemed modified consistent with item # 4 in this letter as to what activities are engineering.
 
 
Posted by David G. Venters, PE, CPMP
Performance Engineering Group, Inc.
Ċ
David Venters, PE,
May 22, 2011, 11:23 AM
Ċ
David Venters, PE,
Mar 18, 2015, 10:31 AM
Ċ
David Venters, PE,
May 17, 2011, 1:59 PM
Comments