I am a general contractor in California and have my own contracting business. Another company wants to use my license and has asked me to become either a RME or RMO. Does anyone know if I can still conduct my current business and be a RME or RMO for the other company?
RME & RMO Conditions
Steve Dale
41 - 60 of 111 Posts
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
I would need the PIN as well. They'll only accept an A certifier? That's interesting since the application you signed does not specify that. And, to my knowledge, there is no B&P Code or CSLB regulation that has been publizied that mentions or suggests that they can DEMAND a certifier with a particular background.
well its pretty easy you dont need pin..my lic # is but go under apps, personal name.. or
i can fax you my test that shows i passed..
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
Hello Richard.
I'd be willing to take time out of my day/night to help you, but I asked for a specific piece of information. I know how easy it is because I've been doing this for 5 years, and the 5 years prior I worked at the CSLB. I didn't ask for the PIN because it's tuesday, I asked for the PIN because the information provided without it is limited.
I'd be willing to take time out of my day/night to help you, but I asked for a specific piece of information. I know how easy it is because I've been doing this for 5 years, and the 5 years prior I worked at the CSLB. I didn't ask for the PIN because it's tuesday, I asked for the PIN because the information provided without it is limited.
:w00t:
I have never used the pin in my life i only use personel name, unless i saved it in one of my files. I will try to contact you but if i lost the pin how do i get it back ? i will give you my email address linkcorporation@hotmail.com:w00t:
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
You can call the cslb and request the PIN
:blink:
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
:confused1:
I am a general contractor
my license is inactive how do i become an rmo or rme and where do i find clients rluger@roadrunner.com
my license is inactive how do i become an rmo or rme and where do i find clients rluger@roadrunner.com
General contractor
my license is inactive how do i become a rmo or rme and where do i find clients
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
Do you know of a license that needs a qualifier?
Where to find clients would be a better question for the contractors on this forum. :thumbsup:
Where to find clients would be a better question for the contractors on this forum. :thumbsup:
I can RMO/RME Qualify: General A Engineering (Public Works) and General B Building CA
I am available to "Qualify" RMO/RME for responsible companies looking to expand their scope of operations in California. Must not have any skeletons in the closet, be ethical and follow all CSLB rules.
Thanks,
Travis
jaglevee3@aol.com
I am available to "Qualify" RMO/RME for responsible companies looking to expand their scope of operations in California. Must not have any skeletons in the closet, be ethical and follow all CSLB rules.
Thanks,
Travis
jaglevee3@aol.com
Joined
·
15 Posts
In CA (direct from the mouth of the CSLB as of yesterday's face to face discussion with them 10/1/10):
An RME is a licensed contractor who is employed full time by the corp and is willing to give up their license to the corp. This allows the corp to do their own construction (TI's/remodels/build outs on their own property) or do it for others as a business. The RME is responsible for manageing the construction projects/maintenance/TI's. The RME cannot do their own construction work under their license anymore. Only the corp can do work under that RME's license. Finally, a corp cannot do any kind of construction, remodels or repairs in house (on own props) or for others w/o a license in Calif (hence the need for an RME or RMO). A corp can always hire a GC or licensed vendor to do work like any consumer can, but the corp cannot do it in house, and cannot have any corp employees do the work. This includes large construction/remodels/TI's/repairs or the smallest maintenance items (i.e. changing a ballast/starter/bulb in a fixture in its own corp owned parking lot - the corp must have a license-RME or RMO). This is from the mouth of the CSLB.
An RMO is a completely different animal. An RMO is a licensed contractor and officer/20% SH of a corp. A corporate officer (and 20% sh) who has a contractor's license can become an RMO for that corp. The advantage to being an RMO is that the RMO can do work under their license (not related to the corp) in addition to allowing the corp to do construction under the same license.
Keep in mind that an already established corporation that decides to incorporate construction or maintenance work (on their props or for others) is not going to now ask a licensed contractor to become a 20% sh/officer of the corp in order to have a license to construct or do its own maint. It is much more cost effective for a corp to hire the licensed contractor as an employee/facilities manager and use him as an RME. A corp will pay 40-50K and employ an RME (as an in-house sub or GC/Construction manager/facilities manager & RME).
A corp will not just make an outside licensed contractor an officer and grant him 20% of corp shares just to have a license to do construction or maintenance (on their props or for others as a business). That is not cost effective. Imagine a corp w/1 mil in assets. Do you think they are going to give a contractor $200k (20% ownership) and Officer status just to have an RMO? No, they will hire an employee who hapens to have a contractor's license or can get one (based on CSLB requirements) and utilize the RME.
RMO status is typically reserved for close corps (family ect where the Pres/VP/Sec is already an officer and is licensed or can get one) or corps where an officer just happens to be a licensed contractor or has the ability to get his license, or when a corp is just forming and it is looking for an RMO to fill one of its officer positions (it may seek out a licensed individual or one who is qualified to get it quickly).
Typically, a corp will move from out of state (say from TX) to Calif and they will be doing their own maintenance and TI's on their own props or for others. In TX, they did their own maintenance and remodels/TI"s w/o a lic (in house). They expand to CA and purchase property in CA and want to do maintenance and TI or construction on their props, but can't without an RME or RMO. They hire an RME/ in house employee with a contractor's license who is willing to give it up). They don't add/replace an officer and grant 20% ownership status to a licensed contractor (RMO status) just to do the above work on their properties or for others in Calif.
Again, the above (RME/RMO info) is from the mouth of the CSLB, not me.
An RME is a licensed contractor who is employed full time by the corp and is willing to give up their license to the corp. This allows the corp to do their own construction (TI's/remodels/build outs on their own property) or do it for others as a business. The RME is responsible for manageing the construction projects/maintenance/TI's. The RME cannot do their own construction work under their license anymore. Only the corp can do work under that RME's license. Finally, a corp cannot do any kind of construction, remodels or repairs in house (on own props) or for others w/o a license in Calif (hence the need for an RME or RMO). A corp can always hire a GC or licensed vendor to do work like any consumer can, but the corp cannot do it in house, and cannot have any corp employees do the work. This includes large construction/remodels/TI's/repairs or the smallest maintenance items (i.e. changing a ballast/starter/bulb in a fixture in its own corp owned parking lot - the corp must have a license-RME or RMO). This is from the mouth of the CSLB.
An RMO is a completely different animal. An RMO is a licensed contractor and officer/20% SH of a corp. A corporate officer (and 20% sh) who has a contractor's license can become an RMO for that corp. The advantage to being an RMO is that the RMO can do work under their license (not related to the corp) in addition to allowing the corp to do construction under the same license.
Keep in mind that an already established corporation that decides to incorporate construction or maintenance work (on their props or for others) is not going to now ask a licensed contractor to become a 20% sh/officer of the corp in order to have a license to construct or do its own maint. It is much more cost effective for a corp to hire the licensed contractor as an employee/facilities manager and use him as an RME. A corp will pay 40-50K and employ an RME (as an in-house sub or GC/Construction manager/facilities manager & RME).
A corp will not just make an outside licensed contractor an officer and grant him 20% of corp shares just to have a license to do construction or maintenance (on their props or for others as a business). That is not cost effective. Imagine a corp w/1 mil in assets. Do you think they are going to give a contractor $200k (20% ownership) and Officer status just to have an RMO? No, they will hire an employee who hapens to have a contractor's license or can get one (based on CSLB requirements) and utilize the RME.
RMO status is typically reserved for close corps (family ect where the Pres/VP/Sec is already an officer and is licensed or can get one) or corps where an officer just happens to be a licensed contractor or has the ability to get his license, or when a corp is just forming and it is looking for an RMO to fill one of its officer positions (it may seek out a licensed individual or one who is qualified to get it quickly).
Typically, a corp will move from out of state (say from TX) to Calif and they will be doing their own maintenance and TI's on their own props or for others. In TX, they did their own maintenance and remodels/TI"s w/o a lic (in house). They expand to CA and purchase property in CA and want to do maintenance and TI or construction on their props, but can't without an RME or RMO. They hire an RME/ in house employee with a contractor's license who is willing to give it up). They don't add/replace an officer and grant 20% ownership status to a licensed contractor (RMO status) just to do the above work on their properties or for others in Calif.
Again, the above (RME/RMO info) is from the mouth of the CSLB, not me.
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
Not sure whose mouth that came from, but some of it is incorrect and misleading. Every sitaution is different and to attempt to spell it out in this forum is dangerous.
Joined
·
15 Posts
Please correct me (or the CSLB employee) who told me this. The essence was to convey that a CA corp cannot alter a building or construct one without a license. A corp that maintains/builds/remodels/constructs its own buildings or maintains/repairs/remodels or constructs another's buildings for profit almost always does work valued at over $500 (objective standard - not ours). As such,the corp must have a license via an RME or RMO (or hire a contractor) to do just about anything to any building (agreed?). We can't quibble over the $500 threashold because it is a loser argument by a non licensed contractor every time (i.e. I only charged $300 or split the invoice).
An RME cannot be employed by the corp and operate his own repair/const buisiness. As an RME, he must monitor work being done by the corp and give up his sole proprietorship per that license.
An RMO (to operate on his own as a contractor and to be the RMO for a corp) must be a corporate "officer" hence the acronym - and own a percentage of the corp, not just be an officer. Sure there are variations on the amount of entities one can be an RMO for / bonding differences/percentage of ownership differences re RMO's, but those situations are not the norm.
My statements are based on the typical out of state corp (already established with officers/SH's ect). They decide to do construction related activities in CA. They typically don't add a new officer/SH to acquire a CA License, they hire an employee who will be the RME and manage the work in CA for that existing corp. A corp that is creating a new CA entity has more options of course. The new entity can easily utilize a qualifying individual/officer/SH as an RMO.
I am viewing this from the corp side, not the licensed or qualifying individual's side. Many corp entities do not know that they need an RME/RMO. Even a non profit property management/Maintenance co that does (almost) anything to their own (or another's) building in house must be licensed.
Furthermore, I emphasized that the most important aspect of the RME/RMO requirements (as emphasized by the CSLB) is that these persons responsibly manage the work being done by the corp (The essence of the law and the reason for its inactment). Corps engaged in our industry need a license in CA. If an officer or an employee is qualified to have one - this rule can be satisfied via the CSLB app/process for RME/RMO's. Without either, a corp cannot do in house work on their buildings or other entities buildings. No ambiguity here.
Given the above emphasis on compliance with the "responsibility" prong of the law, what is dangerous about this info? Simply saying it is incorrect without qualifying is also dangerous.
Thanks.
An RME cannot be employed by the corp and operate his own repair/const buisiness. As an RME, he must monitor work being done by the corp and give up his sole proprietorship per that license.
An RMO (to operate on his own as a contractor and to be the RMO for a corp) must be a corporate "officer" hence the acronym - and own a percentage of the corp, not just be an officer. Sure there are variations on the amount of entities one can be an RMO for / bonding differences/percentage of ownership differences re RMO's, but those situations are not the norm.
My statements are based on the typical out of state corp (already established with officers/SH's ect). They decide to do construction related activities in CA. They typically don't add a new officer/SH to acquire a CA License, they hire an employee who will be the RME and manage the work in CA for that existing corp. A corp that is creating a new CA entity has more options of course. The new entity can easily utilize a qualifying individual/officer/SH as an RMO.
I am viewing this from the corp side, not the licensed or qualifying individual's side. Many corp entities do not know that they need an RME/RMO. Even a non profit property management/Maintenance co that does (almost) anything to their own (or another's) building in house must be licensed.
Furthermore, I emphasized that the most important aspect of the RME/RMO requirements (as emphasized by the CSLB) is that these persons responsibly manage the work being done by the corp (The essence of the law and the reason for its inactment). Corps engaged in our industry need a license in CA. If an officer or an employee is qualified to have one - this rule can be satisfied via the CSLB app/process for RME/RMO's. Without either, a corp cannot do in house work on their buildings or other entities buildings. No ambiguity here.
Given the above emphasis on compliance with the "responsibility" prong of the law, what is dangerous about this info? Simply saying it is incorrect without qualifying is also dangerous.
Thanks.
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
In no way do I want to engage in a war of words. That is not my desire, function, or purpose on this site.
But I will try to clarify a few things.
but the corp cannot do it in house, and cannot have any corp employees do the work.... smallest maintenance items (i.e. changing a ballast/starter/bulb in a fixture in its own corp owned parking lot - the corp must have a license-RME or RMO).
Incorrect! A license is required if the structure is altered. Changing the ballast in a light can be done by in house maintenance staff.
RMO status is typically reserved for close corps (family ect where the Pres/VP/Sec is already an officer and is licensed or can get one) or corps where an officer just happens to be a licensed contractor or has the ability to get his license, or when a corp is just forming and it is looking for an RMO to fill one of its officer positions (it may seek out a licensed individual or one who is qualified to get it quickly).
What??? That whole paragraph is just nonsense and leads readers to misconceptions. Sorry, JMO.
You made a comparison to in-state and out-of-state corps. Why? There is no difference between the two, other than one files as a foreign corp with the Sect of State and the other files as a domestic corp. Other than that... no difference. The CSLB rules are the same for both.
An RMO is a completely different animal. An RMO is a licensed contractor and officer/20% SH of a corp. A corporate officer (and 20% sh) who has a contractor's license can become an RMO for that corp. The advantage to being an RMO is that the RMO can do work under their license (not related to the corp) in addition to allowing the corp to do construction under the same license.
Again... What?? The only difference between an RMO and an RME is title/status in the company. Their responsibilities are the same in regards to projects done by the company. An RMO can hold 0% or 100%. The 20% requirement only comes into play if the qualifier is listed on no more than 3 corp licenses and/or wishes to maintain a sole prop license. Lastly, a contractors license for a corporation is owned by the corporation. Not any individual.
My statements are based on the typical out of state corp (already established with officers/SH's ect). They decide to do construction related activities in CA. They typically don't add a new officer/SH to acquire a CA License, they hire an employee who will be the RME and manage the work in CA for that existing corp. A corp that is creating a new CA entity has more options of course. The new entity can easily utilize a qualifying individual/officer/SH as an RMO.
This whole paragraph is just wrong. An out-of-state company doesnt typically hire an employee and they have no more options than any other company. I have clients from NY to HI, and they all do it differently when it comes to who they use as their qualifier.
Corps engaged in our industry need a license in CA.
No... anybody doing construction projects that are over $500 labor/materials need a license.
a corp cannot do in house work on their buildings or other entities buildings. No ambiguity here.
Nope, no ambiguity.... but its incorrect. They can do work on buildings they own without a license. Of course, the type of work being done would determine if a license is needed or not.
I appreciate you attempting to share with the forum what you were told by someone at the Board, truly I do, but unfortunately you passed on some bad info and/or misrepresented some of what you heard.
As I stated above, it is NOT my intention to engage in a battle of words and I do appreciate your input on this topic, but I have 10 years in the CA licensing industry (incl 5 yrs at the CSLB) and you will never see me post a blanket statement on such a huge, comprehensive issue. Every situation is different, and unless you know the specifics about this corp or that company or this license or that qualifier, you can not take the risk of making a statement that contains too much mis-information or second hand information.... hence... dangerous!
But I will try to clarify a few things.
but the corp cannot do it in house, and cannot have any corp employees do the work.... smallest maintenance items (i.e. changing a ballast/starter/bulb in a fixture in its own corp owned parking lot - the corp must have a license-RME or RMO).
Incorrect! A license is required if the structure is altered. Changing the ballast in a light can be done by in house maintenance staff.
RMO status is typically reserved for close corps (family ect where the Pres/VP/Sec is already an officer and is licensed or can get one) or corps where an officer just happens to be a licensed contractor or has the ability to get his license, or when a corp is just forming and it is looking for an RMO to fill one of its officer positions (it may seek out a licensed individual or one who is qualified to get it quickly).
What??? That whole paragraph is just nonsense and leads readers to misconceptions. Sorry, JMO.
You made a comparison to in-state and out-of-state corps. Why? There is no difference between the two, other than one files as a foreign corp with the Sect of State and the other files as a domestic corp. Other than that... no difference. The CSLB rules are the same for both.
An RMO is a completely different animal. An RMO is a licensed contractor and officer/20% SH of a corp. A corporate officer (and 20% sh) who has a contractor's license can become an RMO for that corp. The advantage to being an RMO is that the RMO can do work under their license (not related to the corp) in addition to allowing the corp to do construction under the same license.
Again... What?? The only difference between an RMO and an RME is title/status in the company. Their responsibilities are the same in regards to projects done by the company. An RMO can hold 0% or 100%. The 20% requirement only comes into play if the qualifier is listed on no more than 3 corp licenses and/or wishes to maintain a sole prop license. Lastly, a contractors license for a corporation is owned by the corporation. Not any individual.
My statements are based on the typical out of state corp (already established with officers/SH's ect). They decide to do construction related activities in CA. They typically don't add a new officer/SH to acquire a CA License, they hire an employee who will be the RME and manage the work in CA for that existing corp. A corp that is creating a new CA entity has more options of course. The new entity can easily utilize a qualifying individual/officer/SH as an RMO.
This whole paragraph is just wrong. An out-of-state company doesnt typically hire an employee and they have no more options than any other company. I have clients from NY to HI, and they all do it differently when it comes to who they use as their qualifier.
Corps engaged in our industry need a license in CA.
No... anybody doing construction projects that are over $500 labor/materials need a license.
a corp cannot do in house work on their buildings or other entities buildings. No ambiguity here.
Nope, no ambiguity.... but its incorrect. They can do work on buildings they own without a license. Of course, the type of work being done would determine if a license is needed or not.
I appreciate you attempting to share with the forum what you were told by someone at the Board, truly I do, but unfortunately you passed on some bad info and/or misrepresented some of what you heard.
As I stated above, it is NOT my intention to engage in a battle of words and I do appreciate your input on this topic, but I have 10 years in the CA licensing industry (incl 5 yrs at the CSLB) and you will never see me post a blanket statement on such a huge, comprehensive issue. Every situation is different, and unless you know the specifics about this corp or that company or this license or that qualifier, you can not take the risk of making a statement that contains too much mis-information or second hand information.... hence... dangerous!
Joined
·
1 Posts
For the License Guru
Hey License Guru,
I went on line to check out your website "contractorconnex" as per the post dated 07/29/09 and there is nothing. Did it not work out and you stopped?
Just wondering????:w00t:
John
Hey License Guru,
I went on line to check out your website "contractorconnex" as per the post dated 07/29/09 and there is nothing. Did it not work out and you stopped?
Just wondering????:w00t:
John
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
Nope, didn't work out. :wallbash:
B & C10 Qualifire RMO
California B licence & C-10 in good standing RMO .
Logit companys only!! If you looking for RMO please
Contact vitaliy@customproelectric.com
California B licence & C-10 in good standing RMO .
Logit companys only!! If you looking for RMO please
Contact vitaliy@customproelectric.com
What pricing would you use to be an RMO for another company?
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
There is no industry standard for compensation, it's really up to the two parties involved to agree on an acceptable wage for your time and the responsibilities you'll be taking on.
41 - 60 of 111 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
