California Surveyors Forums

State law dictates land surveyors are professionals in the Little Brooks Act and therefore, are selected by the qualification based selection process. Specifically, Government Code 4525:

For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meaning:

(a) "Firm" means any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity permitted by law to practice the
profession of architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, environmental services, land surveying, or construction project management.

(b) "State agency head" means the secretary, administrator, or head of a department, agency, or bureau of the State of California
authorized to contract for architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, environmental, land surveying, and construction project management services.

(c) "Local agency head" means the secretary, administrator, or head of a department, agency, or bureau of any city, county, city and
county, whether general law or chartered, or any district which is authorized to contract for architectural, landscape architectural,
engineering, environmental, land surveying, and construction project management services.

(d) "Architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, environmental, and land surveying services" includes those professional services of an architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, environmental, or land surveying nature as well as incidental services that members of these professions and those in their employ may logically or justifiably perform.

Collectively, the above named professions are known as "design professionals".

And yet, Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) - which legally do not apply to professions/professionals exclude land surveyors (and inspectors) by name - making land surveyors, legally, tradesman, not professionals.

The California Labor Code section 1720 states:

a) As used in this chapter, “public works” means all of the following:

(1) Construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds, except work done directly by a public utility company pursuant to order of the Public Utilities Commission or other public authority. For purposes of this paragraph, “construction” includes work performed during the design, site assessment, feasibility study, and other preconstruction phases of construction, including, but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work, regardless of whether any further construction work is conducted, and work performed during the postconstruction phases of construction, including, but not limited to, all cleanup work at the jobsite. For purposes of this paragraph, “installation” includes, but is not limited to, the assembly and disassembly of freestanding and affixed modular office systems.

The cited California Labor Code section is exclusive to the trades. Trades get their work, according to the California Public Contract Code, by "the lowest responsible bid", not QBS. Are land surveyors a low bid trade or QBS professional? Another question, how is work that does not lead to construction i.e. "regardless of whether any further construction work is conducted" classified as construction?

Keep in mind, Operating Engineers wrote a letter stating [field] land surveyors are not "professionals, subprofessionals or semiprofessionals". The law recognizes land surveyors, there is no distinguishment, rightfully, in the law between a field or office land surveyor, simply, land surveyor.

Does anyone see any issues with these conflicts in California law? Much to the chagrin of our sprinter community, I think this conflict should be resolved legislatively in the favor of land surveyors being professionals. In the alternative, is the community resolved to surrendering professional status and becoming a low-bid trade?

Lastly, a separate but related issue, some folks may be inclined to equivocate or rationalize as allowable the deregulation of land surveying in the PLAs or in the Labor Code as benefits of being signatory to the union. If you are one of these folks, how is it a benefit for the union to allow other unions i.e. carpenters and laborers to write land surveying into their master labor agreements? Also, how is it a benefit when the union dispatches your former employees directly to contractors subverting and circumventing your business model?

DWoolley

This is a major conflict.

The Professional Land Surveyors' Act states
"8701. Professional land surveyor
“Professional land surveyor” refers to one who practices or offers to practice land surveying. Whenever reference is made to a land surveyor by any statute, it shall be construed as referring to a professional land surveyor."

So a statue that refers to land surveyors in any other way other than Professional Land Surveyor, is incorrect.

so The California Labor Code section 1720 has an internal conflict with other state laws and needs to be corrected. based on the definition above. (And the Little Brooks Act)

The question is how do we get this corrected? Not should it be corrected.

That definition uses the term "construed" to effect the meaning of related statutes. Look at B&P 8751.

Warren

It says ANY STATUTE.

The point is not that the verbage is wrong, it is that the work of land surveying is PROFESSIONAL.

Even the layout of fixed works is PROFESSIONAL.

8726 Land Surveying Defined
(a)(1)
Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces the alignment or elevation for any of the fixed works embraced within the practice of civil engineering, as described in Section 6731.


for reference:
"8751. Representing self as licensed
No person shall represent himself or herself as, or use the title of, or any abbreviation or combination of the words in the title of, professional land surveyor, licensed land surveyor, land surveyor, land survey engineer, survey engineer, geodetic engineer, geomatics engineer, or
geometronic engineer unless he or she is the holder of a valid, unsuspended, and unrevoked license."

So it appears that Land surveying is classified as labor when performing public works field operations related to land surveying. Section 1720 limits itself to those activities, and does not deal with defining land surveying as a whole. Am I reading that correctly?

Maybe 1720 need to have a housekeeping amendment to read "land surveying technician tasks" or something similar, to pinpoint just a component of surveying they probably meant to have in there to start with.
Excluding all of surveying, especially boundary and control work, and even some construction tasks, defies common sense.

CBarrett wrote: Wed Jul 26, 2023 2:02 pm So it appears that Land surveying is classified as labor when performing public works field operations related to land surveying. Section 1720 limits itself to those activities, and does not deal with defining land surveying as a whole. Am I reading that correctly?

Maybe 1720 need to have a housekeeping amendment to read "land surveying technician tasks" or something similar, to pinpoint just a component of surveying they probably meant to have in there to start with.
Excluding all of surveying, especially boundary and control work, and even some construction tasks, defies common sense.

Like engineering technicians, architects technicians, attorney technicians? Funny they aren't in the law that way.
Can we bifurcate a profession? Isn't land surveying either a profession or a trade? The Business and Professions Code defines the practice as a land surveyor and land surveying, no mention of field surveyor doing X or office surveyor doing Y. Sincerely, reading Polaris's citation, what am I missing? How can we be QBS and be laborers?

Based on the other thread on the opposition to setting monuments and filing maps, this faux professional thing really needs to end. I am having a hard time earnestly pointing fingers at Crownholm.

DWoolley

The questions I am asking are not rhetorical.

"Like engineering technicians, architects technicians, attorney technicians? Funny they aren't in the law that way. "

Most of these technicians don't do field work on consistent basis, that's probably why they are not included. You seem to have assumed that I am opposing this. That is not the case, I am asking questions.

1720 Law has already segmented public works surveying out as technicians, and apparently before the 4525 was enacted. Unless you change the 1720 it will have seniority over any other newly implemented law which may conflict with it, so in reality you haven't fixed much, and left more things for case law to settle and judges to opine on. Just 1720 like it has seniority over 4525. Changing 1720 to survey technicians only you are beginning to close the gap and it may be easier to pass then removing it all together.

Start cracking that door open by modifying 1720 Land Surveyors to Land Survey technicians, that will weaken the law, see if it is possible to pull it off all together. Possibly you already know who is likely to oppose it. I can't say that I do, so I am wondering what the process would look like.

To really remedy it you need to remove mention of Land Surveying from 1720 all together. Not layer a new junior law from some other code on top of it. How do we make that happen? Is it passable?

What are you proposing as a solution?

My 2 cents. 1720 omits the fact that 'land surveying work' is required to be under the direct supervision of a Licensed Surveyor per 8725, therefor 1720 should omit land survey work.

Jason Kinnie

"Measurement is Dead" so the saying goes. Is science therefore dead? "Boil that dust speck!!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE7dYhpI_bI

Was Horton a professional in a jungle of tradesmen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie-zLW_OGyk

"Yopp!"

Depends on who is asking...........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE7dYhpI_bI

LMAO, Clark! Ya think Adam is a little anal? Which is the sign of a good machinist.