Sealing an Unverified As-Built Set for a Friend

What I do. I decline to sign and seal the drawings today. I would say so clearly, in writing, and copy the project manager, so that my position is on record rather than left as a conversation.

Basis.

1. I have not supervised the work. Signing and sealing is an assertion that the work was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I have reviewed it and accept professional responsibility for it. None of those things is true of drawings produced by a drafting technician in my absence, with no calculations.
2. I cannot verify the design. There is no load schedule, no short-circuit study and no voltage-drop study. I cannot confirm the 800 A switchboard is adequate, that the protective devices will clear a fault, or that the installation is safe. A seal without that verification is a false statement to the building owner, the utility and the public.
3. Level of authority and competence. Signing and sealing of electrical plans is a privilege exercised by the Professional Electrical Engineer under the electrical engineering law and its implementing rules. As an REE, I work under the PEE's authority for this class of document, and the absence of the PEE is not a delegation of that privilege to me.
4. Professional code. The code of ethics requires that I undertake only work within my competence and for which I can be responsible, that I place public safety ahead of commercial interest, and that I do not issue a document I cannot stand behind. A friend's request and a fee above the normal rate are not engineering justification.

What I offer instead. A realistic route: inspect the installation, build the load schedule, run the short-circuit and voltage-drop calculations, correct the drawings and submit them for the PEE's review and signature when he returns. If the owner cannot wait, I say so plainly - the delay is the cost of doing it properly, and it is far smaller than the cost of an energised building that has never been calculated.

Handle it as a technical finding, not a bargaining point. The mismatch must be quantified before any signature discussion, and it must be reported to the client and the project manager in writing whether or not the job is accepted.

Preliminary check. 500 kVA of air-conditioning at 400 V three-phase is:

I = 500,000 / (√3 × 400) = 722 A

Adding lighting, pumps and general power for five storeys at, conservatively, another 150–250 A of diversified demand puts the total in the range of 850–950 A before applying the 125 % continuous-load factor to the largest motor and the air-conditioning demand. An 800 A switchboard is therefore very likely undersized, and the main breaker cannot protect it for a load above its rating.

What that means. An undersized main switchboard is not a documentation defect; it is an installation defect. It means the main device will operate on overload under normal occupancy, the busbar will run hot, and the installation has no design margin. It also means the service entrance rating, the metering and the utility coordination may all be wrong.

What I do. Prepare a proper load schedule with demand factors, run the short-circuit study to confirm the switchboard's withstand, and issue a written technical finding stating the calculated demand against the equipment rating, the options (reduce connected load, replace the switchboard, or both), and the fact that I cannot certify the installation as shown. If the owner chooses to proceed without correcting it, that decision is theirs, but it must be documented as theirs - and I still do not seal the drawings. Silence on a known defect is worse than the original drafting error, because from that point it is mine.

The fee. An unusually generous fee tied to a specific signature is a conflict of interest and, in substance, an inducement to a particular professional opinion. The correct response is to decline it, state why, and propose the normal fee for the work actually required - inspection, calculation, drawing correction and review. If the client genuinely values the extra work, the fee should follow the scope, not the outcome. Accepting it would compromise my independence and would be indefensible if the installation later failed.

The PEE will sign it next month. That is not a justification; it is a prediction about someone else's conduct that I cannot rely on and should not facilitate. Two points matter:

1. It does not transfer my responsibility. If I put my signature on it now, it is my signature and my liability, whatever anyone signs later. A subsequent signature does not cure a seal that was false when applied.
2. It is not my decision to make on his behalf. If the PEE later reviews the drawings properly, produces the calculations and satisfies himself of the design, that is his professional judgement and his responsibility. What I must not do is pre-empt it by sealing first and letting him ratify afterwards.

What I record. I document the request, the offered fee and the project manager's statement in a contemporaneous file note, and I confirm my position in writing to the firm. If pressure continues - signing documents outside my authority, or being asked to certify work I have not reviewed - the matter is reportable through the firm's professional channels and, if unresolved, to the professional regulatory body. Withdrawing from the engagement is the last resort but a legitimate one.