§ 32.1-163.6 of the Code of Virginia includes a requirement for compliance with standard engineering practice and then goes on to state that an engineer’s design shall “reflect that degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by licensed members of the engineering profession practicing at the time of performance”. This uniform standard of care language is universal in the design profession industry. It does not require additional embellishment or definition, as there is a mountain of precedent on this subject.

 

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that scientific [e.g. engineering] knowledge is derived from sound scientific methodology using the scientific method, which includes:

1.                  Empirical testing of the scientific theory

2.                  Subject to peer review and publication

3.                  Account for the known or potential error

4.                  Have existing standards and controls, and

5.                  A reliance on theory and technique that is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

 

Or, as put into practice, the scientific (or engineering) practice must be based on sufficient facts or data, be a product of reliable principals and methods, and, the relevant application of those principals and methods.

 

For our purposes (as related to 32.1-163.6) all of the above are incorporated into “standard engineering practice”. Of course there maybe instances of disagreement between the designer and the regulator, which is the underlying reason for the Engineering Design Review Panel (EDRP). This panel, made of 4 professional engineers, acts as the arbiter for what qualifies as standard engineering practice when such a disagreement occurs.

 

The theory behind the “standard engineering practice” and the EDPR is two fold – it acts as an independent panel to judge the merits of an engineer’s design as it relates to standard engineering practice, and it allows for the practice of engineering to adopt innovation when applied appropriately thus allowing engineering practice to evolve. The end result is that as technology improves, it can be incorporated into designs without going through the cumbersome process of rewriting prescriptive regulations and rules.