A Technician in the Resident Engineer's Chair on a Donor-Funded Road
On a 24 km rural road financed by an international donor, the works contract requires the contractor's resident engineer to be a Registered Engineer with at least eight years' post-registration experience. The contractor has fielded Mr. Sani Adamu, who holds an HND in Civil Engineering obtained in 2011 and is registered with Council as a Registered Engineering Technician. He signs daily site instructions, approves concrete pour cards, and appears on the contractor's organogram as 'Project Engineer'; his nameplate reads 'Engr. S. Adamu'. The supervising consultant's pavement specialist has just completed an inspection and also notes that the pavement design revision was prepared by a 2023 B.Eng graduate who has not yet applied for registration. The mid-term donor review is in three weeks and the contractor argues that removing Adamu will stop the works. The consultant must decide what to certify, what to report, and what to require.
1. Is Adamu in breach, and what falls legitimately within a Registered Engineering Technician's scope on this site?
Read the worked answer
Breaches, in order of seriousness.
- Using the title 'Engr.' on the nameplate is a misrepresentation independent of competence. The title is reserved for registered engineers.
- Holding the resident engineer's position, where the contract expressly requires a Registered Engineer, presents him as something he is not. The contract term is the employer's protection, not a formality.
- Approving pour cards and issuing engineering instructions without supervision crosses from execution into engineering judgement.
What is legitimately within scope. A Registered Engineering Technician works on execution and technical functions under the supervision of a registered engineer: setting out, workmanship inspection, record-keeping, sampling and testing, monitoring quantities, and reporting non-conformances. Much of what Adamu signs daily is probably routine and within that scope. The problem is not that he is incompetent; it is that his registration category does not match the position, and the supervision that would legitimise his technical work is absent.
Do not overcorrect. Council should not discipline him for doing site supervision. It should address the title, the position and the unsupervised engineering approvals. The proportionate response is a direction to correct designation and to place him under a registered engineer, with a disciplinary warning reserved for a repeat. His twelve years of experience are real and useful - the issue is authorisation, not ability.
2. What is the correct upgrading pathway for Adamu, and how should the contractor be brought into compliance before the donor review?
Read the worked answer
Pathway. His HND places him in the technician category. To move to the engineer category he must ordinarily complete an accredited engineering degree or an approved top-up/conversion route, then satisfy the experience requirement under a registered engineer, then sit the professional interview and be entered in the Register before obtaining a licence. His 2011 HND plus twelve years of site experience does not substitute for that, though it may shorten the post-qualification experience he needs after the academic route. He should also be told that a Council-accredited top-up programme is not the same as any degree; the programme must be on the recognised schedule.
Interim compliance for the contract. The contractor must, within a stated period and certainly before the mid-term review:
- appoint a Registered Engineer as resident engineer meeting the eight-year requirement;
- redeploy Adamu as site supervisor or deputy, under that engineer's supervision, with his designation corrected on the organogram;
- remove 'Engr.' from the nameplate and all documents immediately - this can be done today and is not a resourcing problem;
- submit the new engineer's registration certificate and licence for verification against Council's records.
On the contractor's objection that removal stops the works: the contract already required this. A short mobilisation delay caused by the contractor's own non-compliance is the contractor's risk, not a reason to waive the requirement. The consultant should record the date the non-compliance was notified.
3. What must the supervising consultant do about the pavement design prepared by the unregistered 2023 graduate, and what should it certify and report?
Read the worked answer
On the design. A design revision must be prepared or checked and certified by a currently licensed registered engineer. A 2023 graduate may draft and calculate under supervision, but the deliverable cannot be accepted as an approved design without a registered engineer's check and signature. The consultant should return the revision with a written non-conformance, require re-submission with a named registered engineer's certification and check calculations, and not accept pavement construction on the strength of the uncertified revision.
What to certify. Certify only work whose materials, workmanship and supervision the consultant has actually verified. Where supervision was non-compliant but the work itself tests satisfactorily, certification may be possible with a note; where verification is impossible, withhold that item and say so. Do not withhold the whole interim certificate as leverage - that is disproportionate and may itself breach the contract.
What to report. Issue a non-conformance report to the contractor, notify the employer, and inform Council of the registration issues (position held by a technician, unregistered designer, title misrepresentation). For the donor review, present a dated compliance chronology: what was found, when it was notified, what was required, what was corrected. Donors respond to documented process, not to assurances.
Proportionality. Every requirement should be tied to a safety or contract provision; a regulator or consultant who imposes requirements without a basis gives the contractor a grievance to hide behind.