Southeastern Reprographics, Inc., Now Known as The Davey Resource Group v. BPOA, The State Registration Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists
139 A.3d 323
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- In 2006 Central Electric Cooperative (CEC) contracted with Southeastern Reprographics, Inc. (now The Davey Resource Group, DRG) to perform a GIS field inventory of ~100,000 asset locations across multiple counties to create a GIS database and base map.
- DRG field crews used mapping-grade GPS/GIS technology and maps to locate electrical assets (poles, transformers, meters, etc.) to sub‑meter accuracy, inventory equipment at each site, tag assets, and transmit x-y coordinates to CEC for mapping.
- The State Registration Board found DRG (unlicensed) performed engineering land surveys and geodetic surveys under the Engineer, Land Surveyor and Geologist Registration Law and ordered cessation and a civil penalty; DRG obtained a supersedeas and appealed.
- The legal question was whether locating and cataloging fixed assets with GPS for a non‑development purpose constitutes an "engineering land survey" or otherwise the unlicensed practice of land surveying/engineering under the Law.
- The Board relied on DRG’s use of GPS, post‑processing, state coordinate systems, and testimony about survey methods to conclude DRG measured positions of fixed objects and performed geodetic work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DRG) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DRG’s asset‑location/inventory constituted an "engineering land survey" under the Law | Locating assets for a GIS database is a non‑survey field inventory unrelated to property/boundary determination or engineering design, so it is not an engineering land survey | Use of GPS to determine positions of fixed objects and post‑processing measurements fits the §2(j)(ii) definition of engineering land survey | Court held it was not an engineering land survey because it was not performed in connection with engineering design or land survey functions as defined by statute |
| Whether DRG’s conduct violated the prohibition on offering to practice land surveying/engineering without licensure | DRG argued it did not offer licensed services; it offered mapping/inventory, not engineering or boundary surveys | Board argued DRG held itself out (website, services) and performed surveying functions | Court held DRG did not offer or intend to offer engineering or land surveying services requiring licensure |
| Whether the use of GPS/GIS tools alone converts activity into regulated land surveying | DRG: tools are neutral; many professions use geospatial tech without constituting land surveying | Board: measuring positions of fixed objects by GPS is a primary surveying function | Court held tools alone cannot control; context and statutory scope matter, so GPS use did not make the inventory a regulated engineering land survey |
| Whether the Board’s geodetic‑survey finding was supported/within notice | DRG argued geodetic claim was not properly noticed and not established | Board relied on scope and curvature/coordinate system evidence to label activity geodetic | Court did not sustain the Board’s geodetic characterization as grounds for licensure violation in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Marcy, 883 A.2d 449 (statutory interpretation principles; ascertain legislative intent)
- Fletcher v. Pa. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 985 A.2d 678 (read statute as whole to give effect to all provisions)
- Garcia v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, 804 A.2d 732 (use of title does not per se constitute offering to practice engineering; focus on actual services offered)
- Sanville v. Commonwealth, Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, 752 A.2d 942 (solicitation language must actually offer engineering services)
- Rosen v. Bur. of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, State Architects Licensure Bd., 763 A.2d 962 (discussion of the practice of engineering)
- Packer v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, Dep’t of State, State Bd. of Nursing, 99 A.3d 965 (agency interpretation entitled to deference unless erroneous)
- Borough of Pottstown v. Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement Board, 712 A.2d 741 (agency factual findings supported by substantial evidence should be respected)
- O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194 (liberal construction of remedial statutes to protect public welfare)