In Washington, when does a building plan have to be stamped by an architect, when can an engineer stamp it, and who decides?
Plain-English summary
Senator Jim Honeyford asked AG Bob Ferguson to draw a clearer line between architectural and engineering work on building permit submittals, especially for non-residential and non-agricultural buildings over 4,000 square feet. The short answer: Washington law does not draw that line for you. Both architects and engineers, by statute, do "design" work as part of their scope of practice, and the two scopes overlap.
For engineers, the practice covers any "professional service or creative work requiring engineering education, training, and experience and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences" applied to consultation, design, and supervision of construction (RCW 18.43.020(8)(a)). For architects, it covers "the rendering of any service or related work requiring architectural education, training, and experience, in connection with the art and science of building design" for construction or alteration of structures (RCW 18.08.320(12)). Both definitions reach building design. Both professionals can stamp design documents within their own scope.
There are two narrow places where the legislature has drawn a clearer line: structural design of "significant structures" and "essential facilities" (hospitals, fire and police stations, water tanks, aviation control towers) must be done by a structural engineer (RCW 18.43.020(12); RCW 18.43.040(1)(a)(iv)). Otherwise, the AG declines to draw a bright line and points to the local building official as the decision-maker. RCW 19.27.095(2) gives local jurisdictions the authority to decide what documents constitute a complete permit application, and that authority lets local officials require either architectural or engineering stamps based on the project at hand.
On the second question (whether an engineer needs an exemption from the Architect's Act to stamp design documents), the AG says no. RCW 18.08.410(1) provides that the architecture chapter "shall not affect or prevent" the practice of engineering. Engineers practice under their own statute, RCW 18.43, and do not need an architectural exemption to do so.
The opinion also acknowledges the unsettled history. AGO 1990 No. 9 had relied on architectural exemptions that the 2010 legislature removed. AGO 2021 No. 2 corrected the record on that point but did not address scope-of-practice overlap. This 2022 opinion fills in the rest: there is no neat statutory test, the two professions genuinely overlap, and local building officials are in the best position to evaluate the specific project.
What this means for you
If you are a local building official
You are the line-drawer for any given permit. The AG opinion explicitly says so. If a complete set of design documents is signed and stamped by a Washington-licensed engineer and the work falls within an engineer's scope of practice, the engineer's stamp is legally sufficient even if an architect could have done the same work. Conversely, if the project's substantive design challenges are about the art and science of building design (form, occupant experience, building envelope as architecture rather than as physics), you can require an architect's stamp.
For "essential facilities" like hospitals, fire and police stations, water tanks, and aviation control towers, the structural design must come from a structural engineer (RCW 18.43.040). That is one of the few hard rules. Beyond that, document your local code requirements and apply them consistently.
If you are a professional engineer in Washington
You can stamp design documents that fall within your scope of practice under RCW 18.43.020(8)(a) without needing any architectural exemption. The phrase to remember is "engineering education, training, and experience and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences." If your design work fits that, your stamp is enough, even when an architect could have done the same job. You do not need to argue from the Architect Act's exemption provisions.
What you cannot do: stamp work that is plainly within an architect's exclusive scope but not yours. There is no bright line, but the joint working group of the Board of Registration of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (BRPELS) and the Washington State Board of Architects has weighed in: each project is evaluated by the local permit office.
If you are a Washington-licensed architect
The Architect's Act still defines your scope of practice as "the art and science of building design" (RCW 18.08.320(12)). That includes predesign, schematic design, design development, construction documents, and contract administration. The 2022 opinion does not reduce your scope. It simply confirms that the engineering scope overlaps with yours when the design work also draws on engineering education and the mathematical and physical sciences. If a local building official accepts an engineer's stamp for a project you would have stamped, that is within the official's authority.
If you are a project owner or developer
Ask the local building official up front what they require, and budget for the right consultant. Do not assume that the same document type will be accepted across jurisdictions. A medium-sized commercial building in Seattle may need a different stamping mix than the same building in Yakima or Kent. Get the local requirements in writing as part of the pre-application conference, and structure your design contracts around those requirements.
If you are a Washington state legislator
The opinion notes that the statutes do not provide a workable bright-line rule and that local building officials are the de facto deciders. If you want a uniform statewide rule, that requires legislation. The opinion is a polite signal that the current scheme leaves room for inconsistency between jurisdictions.
Common questions
So who actually decides whether my drawings need an architect's stamp or an engineer's stamp?
The local building official, applying the local building code, the IBC and IRC as adopted in Washington, and any project-specific requirements. The AG explicitly punts to local officials and confirms they have the authority under RCW 19.27.095(2).
Are there any projects where the law really does require an engineer?
Yes. Structural design of "significant structures" and "essential facilities" must be done by a structural engineer. RCW 18.43.020(12); RCW 18.43.040(1)(a)(iv). Examples include hospitals, fire and police stations, water tanks, and aviation control towers.
Are there projects where the law clearly requires an architect?
The Architect's Act has a few carve-outs that make architectural licensing unnecessary: residential buildings of four or fewer dwelling units, farm buildings, buildings not exceeding 4,000 square feet, and interior design services that don't affect public health or safety (RCW 18.08.410). Outside those exemptions, if the work is the practice of architecture as defined in RCW 18.08.320(12), it has to be done by an architect, but the same work can often be done by an engineer if it also fits the engineering definition. There is no project type where the statute says "an architect, and only an architect, may do this."
Do engineers need an exemption from the Architect's Act to stamp drawings?
No. RCW 18.08.410(1) says the architecture chapter does not affect or prevent the practice of engineering. The Architect's Act lives alongside the Engineer's Act. Engineers do their work under RCW 18.43 and do not need to find a hook in RCW 18.08.
Has this been the rule the whole time?
No. AGO 1990 No. 9 read the law as letting engineers stamp work under specific exemptions in the Architect's Act. The legislature removed those exemptions in 2010 (Laws of 2010, ch. 129, § 8). AGO 2021 No. 2 then corrected the 1990 opinion but did not say which work belonged to whom. The 2022 opinion fills the gap by confirming that engineers stamp under their own statute, with overlap, and the local official decides.
What if I think the local building official is being inconsistent?
You can challenge the official's interpretation through the local appeal process for the building code (varies by jurisdiction). The AG opinion is not binding precedent and does not give you a statewide enforcement hook. It does, however, confirm the local official's authority, so a challenge generally needs to be framed in terms of local code, not state law.
Where does this leave joint architect-engineer projects?
Larger projects often have both: the architect stamps the architectural drawings, and the engineer stamps the structural and MEP drawings. The opinion does not change that. It does confirm that for the design-overlap zone, the local official decides whether one stamp is enough or both are required.
Background and statutory framework
Washington has adopted the International Building Code and International Residential Code as its state building code (RCW 19.27.031(1); WAC 51-50; WAC 51-51), with cities and counties allowed to amend the code so long as they do not weaken minimum performance standards (RCW 19.27.040). The State Building Code Council reviews and adopts amendments, and approves or denies city and county amendments to the residential code (RCW 19.27.074(1)). Importantly for this opinion, RCW 19.27.095(2) gives local jurisdictions the authority to define what constitutes a complete building permit application. That is the statutory hook for letting local officials decide whether a project requires an architect's stamp, an engineer's stamp, or both.
The two scope-of-practice statutes are RCW 18.43.020 (engineering) and RCW 18.08.320(12) (architecture). Both reach "design." The engineering definition is keyed to engineering education and the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences. The architecture definition is keyed to architectural education and the art and science of building design. These are different gates, but they admit overlapping work.
Architects stamp under RCW 18.08.370(3). Engineers stamp under RCW 18.43.070, with formatting requirements in WAC 196-23-020. The "no need for architectural exemption" rule comes from RCW 18.08.410(1): the architecture chapter shall not affect or prevent the practice of engineering as authorized in RCW 18.43.
The history matters because the AG had to clean up its own prior position. AGO 1990 No. 9 read the architecture statute's exemptions as the source of authority for engineers to stamp. The 2010 legislature removed those exemptions (Laws of 2010, ch. 129, § 8). AGO 2021 No. 2 said building officials could no longer rely on AGO 1990 No. 9, and that the stamping of architectural drawings by non-architects is a violation of the Architect's Act. But that 2021 opinion did not say what counts as architectural versus engineering. The 2022 opinion fills in the missing piece by saying the answer is fact-specific and primarily for local officials.
Citations
The opinion does not rely on case law. It works entirely from the statutory definitions of engineering practice (RCW 18.43.020), architectural practice (RCW 18.08.320), and the local-jurisdiction authority over permit application contents (RCW 19.27.095(2)). The "no exemption needed" conclusion rests on the plain text of RCW 18.08.410(1). The structural-engineer requirement for essential facilities draws on RCW 18.43.040(1)(a)(iv) and RCW 18.43.020(12). The opinion also cites the joint comment from a working group of BRPELS and the Washington State Board of Architects, which agreed that there is no bright line and local building officials are best positioned to decide.
Source
- Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/authority-engineers-and-architects-stamp-and-sign-drawings-submission-building-permits
Original opinion text
Attorney General Bob Ferguson
ARCHITECTS—ENGINEERS—Authority Of Engineers And Architects To Stamp And Sign Drawings For Submission For Building Permits
Washington law provides no bright line rule for distinguishing between design documents that must be completed by an architect and those that must be completed by an engineer. In general, design work falls within an engineer's scope of practice when it requires "engineering education, training, and experience and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences," and design work falls within an architect's scope of practice when it requires "architectural education, training, and experience, in connection with the art and science of building design[.]" It is primarily up to local building officials to determine which types of documents are required or sufficient as part of the local jurisdiction's building permit processes.
If design work falls within an engineer's scope of practice, such work does not require an exemption from the practice of architecture to be lawful, even if the work would simultaneously fall within an architect's scope of practice.
May 24, 2022
The Honorable Jim Honeyford
State Senator, District 15
PO Box 40415
Olympia, WA 98504-0415
Cite As:
AGO 2022 No. 3
Dear Senator Honeyford:
By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested our opinion to further clarify when design documents submitted to local building officials may be stamped by engineers as opposed to when they must be stamped by architects. We paraphrase your questions and answer them as follows:
QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND BRIEF ANSWERS
- When does a complete set of design documents created by an engineer for a non-agricultural and non-residential building that exceeds four thousand square feet amount to the practice of engineering as authorized by RCW 18.43?
There is no bright line rule in Washington law for when design documents are engineering or architectural in nature, both professions may engage in building design as part of their scope of practice. Design work completed by an engineer falls within an engineer's scope of practice when it requires "engineering education, training, and experience and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences[.]" RCW 18.43.020(8)(a). In contrast, design work falls within an architect's scope of practice when it requires "architectural education, training, and experience, in connection with the art and science of building design[.]" RCW 18.08.320(12). These two definitions have the potential for substantial overlap, as both contemplate building design. It is primarily up to the local building officials to determine which types of documents are acceptable for any given project on a case by case basis.
- If a complete set of design documents is considered the practice of engineering as authorized by RCW 18.43, would those documents fall under the exemption to architectural licensing provided in RCW 18.08.410(1)?
Engineers do not require an exemption from the practice of architecture to practice their profession. RCW 18.08.410(1) states that RCW 18.08, the chapter regulating the practice of architecture, "shall not affect or prevent" the practice of engineering. Thus design documents completed within the scope of an engineer's practice do not need to fall under an exemption to the practice of architecture to be lawfully submitted by an engineer.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
To promote the health, safety, and welfare of building occupants or users, Washington has adopted a state building code that sets minimum requirements and standards for construction. RCW 19.27.020. As its building code, Washington has adopted the International Building Code and International Residential Code, both published by the International Code Council, Inc. RCW 19.27.031(1) (adopting codes); WAC 51-50 (adoption and amendment of the International Building Code); WAC 51-51 (adoption and amendment of International Residential Code). Cities and counties have the authority to amend the state building code within their jurisdiction so long as they do not diminish the code's minimum performance standards. RCW 19.27.040. The State Building Code Council regularly reviews the state building codes and adopts amendments as appropriate. RCW 19.27.074(1); see WAC Title 51. The Council also approves or denies city and county amendments when the local amendments apply to single-family or multifamily residential buildings. RCW 19.27.074(1)(b).
In order to receive a permit to build or change certain structures, a building owner may be required to submit to local building officials drawings that have been prepared and stamped by either a licensed architect, professional engineer, or both. See, e.g., Residential Garage: Document Submittal Requirements (Kent, WA effective Feb. 2, 2021) (specifying documental submittal requirements and minimum requirements for drawings and plans for construction of residential garage). See generally RCW 19.27.095(2) ("The requirements for a fully completed [building permit] application shall be defined by local ordinance[.]"); WAC 51-05-200 ("Building permit shall mean a permit issued by a city or a county to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of any building or structure regulated by the International Building Code . . . or by the International Residential Code[.]"). When and how those drawings are prepared, stamped, and submitted is governed by statute and local building codes, but the law is less clear about when a building project will require either engineering or architectural drawings.
In 1990, this office issued a formal opinion on the issue of when and how a registered professional architect or professional engineer must sign and stamp a drawing being submitted for building permits. AGO 1990 No. 9. The Opinion correctly noted that the stamping and submission of architectural drawings constitutes the practice of architecture which requires registration as an architect, but cited exemptions that allowed engineers to stamp plans and design work created by non-architects. AGO 1990 No. 9. The legislature removed those exemptions in 2010. Laws of 2010, ch. 129, § 8 (amending RCW 18.08.410).
In early 2021, citing ongoing confusion on the matter, Representative Walen requested an opinion about whether engineers may continue to stamp plans submitted to local building officials. In response, this office issued another formal opinion, AGO 2021 No. 2. That Opinion reiterated that the stamping of architectural drawings by non-architects is a violation of the Architect's Act and possibly the unlicensed practice of architecture. We clarified that to the extent AGO 1990 No. 9 conflicted with current law, building officials may not rely on AGO 1990 No. 9. AGO 2021 No. 2. But our 2021 Opinion did not opine on when drawings are architectural or engineering in nature. Nor did it preclude an engineer from stamping design documents that fall within an engineer's scope of practice.
Based on your letter, we understand that concerns continue to be raised over when design work constitutes the practice of engineering and when design work constitutes the practice of architecture, and you are seeking clarification.
ANALYSIS
The scope of practice of engineering and architecture are related yet independent from one another. As the prior opinions and your current request suggest, it is difficult to draw a bright line rule that delineates when design documents created and stamped by an engineer are sufficient, or when a project requires design documents created and stamped by an architect, and vice versa. The best we can say based on the statutes is that engineers may design when that work requires "engineering education, training, and experience and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences[.]" RCW 18.43.020(8)(a). Likewise, architects may stamp design documents that require "architectural education, training, and experience, in connection with the art and science of building design[.]" RCW 18.08.320(12). As explained below, we continue to take the position this issue is highly fact-specific and not amenable to a bright line rule.
A. Who may Create and Stamp Designs is Fact-Specific and Subject to Local Building Codes
Your first question seeks a clear delineation between design work falling within an architect's scope of practice and design work falling within an engineer's scope of practice. The statutes, however, do not provide us with any such bright line. Instead, they suggest that there may be some overlap between design work completed by the two professions, dependent on whether the design work falls within the education, training, and experience of either or both professions. Additionally, as mentioned above, local building codes may further define the nature of design work required for any given project. Thus, a determination of whether any design document falls within the scope of practice of an architect, engineer, or both will be highly-fact specific.
Each of the statutes defining the scope of practice for architecture and for engineering contemplate that the respective practice includes building design work. The scope of the practice of architecture is defined by statute as:
[T]he rendering of any service or related work requiring architectural education, training, and experience, in connection with the art and science of building design for construction of any structure or grouping of structures and the use of space within and surrounding the structures or the design for construction of alterations or additions to the structures, including but not specifically limited to predesign services, schematic design, design development, preparation of construction contract documents, and administration of the construction contract.
RCW 18.08.320(12) (emphases added). Architects seal and sign (stamp) documents pursuant to RCW 18.08.370(3). Pertinent here, RCW 18.08.410(1) states that the scope of the practice of architecture does not affect or prevent the practice of engineering as authorized by RCW 18.43.
RCW 18.43.020 defines the practice of engineering as:
[A]ny professional service or creative work requiring engineering education, training, and experience and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design, and supervision of construction for the purpose of assuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works, or projects.
RCW 18.43.020(8)(a) (emphasis added). Engineers stamp design documents pursuant to RCW 18.43.070. See also WAC 196-23-020 (setting forth requirements for stamp usage on plan sets submitted by engineers). Thus, both of the statutes governing the scope of practice for architecture and engineering contemplate signed and stamped design work. RCW 18.08.320(12); RCW 18.43.020(8)(a).
We are aware of two statutes that specifically require the design work of an engineer. See RCW 18.43.040(1)(a)(iv); RCW 18.43.020(12). Those statutes clarify that designs of significant structures, which include essential facilities, e.g., hospitals, fire and police stations, water tanks, or aviation control towers, must be performed by structural engineers. Otherwise, there is no bright line rule in statute, case law, or administrative rule generally governing when design work is architectural or engineering in nature.
The primary statutory difference appears to lie in whether the work requires the education of an engineer or that of an architect. Engineers may design when that work "require[s] engineering education, training, and experience and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences[.]" RCW 18.43.020(8)(a). An architect may design as a part of "any service or related work requiring architectural education, training, and experience, in connection with the art and science of building design[.]" RCW 18.08.320(12). Thus both engineers and architects create, stamp, and submit design documents for submission to planning offices. Whether a project will require design documents stamped by an architect, engineer, or both will be very fact-specific based on the needs of the project.
The legislature has determined that local building officials have the authority to determine what documents must be submitted for approval according to local building codes. RCW 19.27.095(2) (requirements for fully completed application defined by local ordinance). Local building codes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction across the state and we assume that each local jurisdiction has enacted codes responsive to local needs and concerns. Thus, local building officials will be in the best position to evaluate whether design documents submitted in conjunction with a specific project meet building code requirements.
This conclusion is supported by the comment provided by members of the Washington State Board of Registration of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (BRPELS) and the Washington State Board of Architects, who put together a joint working group to discuss this opinion request. The overall conclusion of that working group, and the subsequently submitted comment, is that there is no bright line rule because each project has specific needs and requirements; thus the local permitting office is in the best position to understand each project and make a determination of whether a project will require architectural or engineering designs (or both).
B. The Practice of Engineering Does Not Require an Exemption from the Practice of Architecture to be Lawful
Turning to your second question, you ask whether design documents that are considered the practice of engineering under RCW 18.43 would fall under an exemption to architectural licensing. The answer is "no" because engineers do not require an exemption to practice engineering: RCW 18.08.410(1) provides that RCW 18.08, governing architects, "shall not affect or prevent . . . engineering as authorized in chapter 18.43 RCW[.]" Thus, nothing in the law governing architects impedes an engineer from practicing their own profession.
This conclusion is also supported by the comment submitted by the working group of members from BRPELS and the Washington State Board of Architects. That comment affirms that when an engineer submits design documents, they do so under the authority of RCW 18.43.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, there may be differences in projects that might require either architectural or engineering design work or both, but these differences are not easy or practical to define in a general sense. Absent more specific statutes, local planning offices are in the best position to make these determinations based on local building codes and the specifications of each project.
We trust that the foregoing will be useful to you.
ROBERT W. FERGUSON
Attorney General
R. JULY SIMPSON
Assistant Attorney General
RCW 18.08.410 states that the scope of the practice of architecture does not affect or prevent all design related activities. Design related activities that are not defined as the practice of architecture include: design work for residential buildings with four or fewer dwelling units, design work for farm buildings, design work for buildings not exceeding four thousand square feet, and interior design services not affecting public health or safety. RCW 18.08.410(1), (5), (6), (7). You ask specifically about design related activity that would not fall within the exemptions in RCW 18.08.410(6), so I discuss these exemptions no further.