Structural engineer asks board to reopen review of opposing engineer's certificate of merit in pool dispute

During the board's public-comment period a Houston-area structural engineer asked the board to reopen its review of a certificate of merit filed in related litigation concerning a residential pool.

Why it matters: Certificates of merit can be central to professional-liability litigation and to board complaints. The commenter alleged the certificate filed by the opposing expert lacked relevant experience, contained no supporting calculations and reached conclusions he said contradicted observed field performance; he asked the board to re-evaluate whether that certificate met the statutory requirements for professional engineering merit.

What the commenter said The speaker identified himself at the meeting and described his background as a structural engineer who has practiced since the early 1970s, runs a small firm and performs many residential and commercial projects. He described a dispute over a South Austin pool and said the opposing side produced a certificate of merit that, in his view, had three flaws: the certifying engineer had no experience in pool design, provided no calculations to support the certificate and reached conclusions that the speaker said were the opposite of observed field behavior (the speaker said the pool in question had both settling and uplift but that the opposing certificate predicted only uplift).

The speaker said he had sent the board materials and asked that the board staff or an appropriate reviewer take a closer look at the certificate of merit and request the opposing side to provide focused materials (experience records, calculations and field evidence related specifically to the pool) rather than the broad set of documents he said the opposing party produced.

How the board responded Board members allowed the three-minute public comment and a short extension for the speaker to finish. The chair and staff did not commit to a specific outcome at the meeting; the speaker's request was recorded for staff follow-up. At the meeting staff noted the board had previously determined the certificate of merit was valid; the commenter asked the board to revisit that determination with specific focus on experience and technical calculations.

Ending Staff will retain the public comment and the requested materials in the complaint record and follow the board's usual processes for complaint review and enforcement. The meeting record shows the commenter asked the board to "reopen that review of the certificate of merit," and staff acknowledged receipt of documents during the public-comment exchange.