Inspect the file before you trust the engineer.
Every engineer we place has a vetting file, and you see it before a seat starts: the screen-recorded exercise, the PE-graded rubric, the recorded finals session. This page shows exactly what's in it — including what fails.
Five gates. Roughly 1 in 10 passes.
The rubric was written — and every submission is graded — by U.S. licensed land-development engineers, not recruiters. The funnel is deliberately wasteful: we pay candidates to take a test most of them fail. Before day one on your clock, graduates also complete a US conventions ramp — plan-set anatomy, stormwater context, your jurisdiction's norms.
The rubric, in full.
| DIMENSION | WHAT THE GRADER IS LOOKING AT | PASS BAR |
|---|---|---|
| Grading logic | Slopes tie, pads drain, transitions make constructible sense. | ≥ 8.0 |
| Drainage sense | Water goes where water goes. Pond geometry and outfall logic hold up. | ≥ 8.0 |
| Sheet discipline | Layers, styles, labels, xrefs — clean enough that your CAD manager smiles. | ≥ 8.5 |
| Speed vs. benchmark | Task time against our production benchmarks, judged from the recording. | ≥ 7.5 |
| Direction-taking | Redline session: instruction understood the first time, executed correctly, questions asked when they should be. | ≥ 8.5 |
| + 5 supporting dimensions | Surface hygiene, annotation, file structure, self-checking habits, communication clarity. | avg ≥ 8.0 |
What fails.
Rejection criteria say more than acceptance claims. These are the common ways candidates wash out — and why you'll never meet them.
The personnel record.
Before any trial or seat, you receive the candidate's full record — and can sit in on a live session with them. A sample of what it looks like:
request a sample record