Competence To Perform Foundation Design
Case 110
Source
Document Structure
4
Sections4/4
With Embeddings100%
Coverage384D
Dimensions
Embeddings use 384D local model for precedent matching
Document Sections
Content Length
230 chars
HTML Length
230 chars
Plain Text Length
467 chars
Embedding Dimension
384
Compatible
Created
2026-02-13 16:13
Updated
2026-02-13 16:13
Content Preview
It would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility. Engineer A has an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
Content Length
7225 chars
HTML Length
7763 chars
Plain Text Length
7224 chars
Embedding Dimension
384
Compatible
Created
2026-02-13 16:13
Updated
2026-03-02 23:20
Content Preview
The Board has had occasion to consider cases involving ethical issues that are somewhat related to the issues involved in this case. In BER Case 71-2, a case involving the brokerage of engineering services by two firms competing for government work and the question of competence. The Board, in examining predecessor Section 6, recognized "the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interests of the project", and noted that a prime professional will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional is performing substantial services on the project. Likewise, BER Case 78-5, involved an effort by a consulting firm under consideration to perform services to a public utility in which the firm sought to alter its qualifications following its interview with the public utility in order to improve its position to secure the contract. The Board affirmed its decision rendered in BER Case 71-2 that in the field of consulting practice, engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work.
More recently, in BER Case 85-3, a local county ordinance required that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E. The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position. The county commissioners met and decided to appoint an engineer, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering. The engineer accepted the position. The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor included oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but did not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents. After considering the two earlie...
Content Length
669 chars
HTML Length
669 chars
Plain Text Length
669 chars
Embedding Dimension
384
Compatible
Created
2026-02-13 16:13
Updated
2026-02-13 16:13
Content Preview
Engineer A, a professional engineer works with a construction contractor on a design/build project for the construction of an industrial facility. During the construction of the project, the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility. Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering. Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design and Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor.
Content Length
233 chars
HTML Length
233 chars
Plain Text Length
473 chars
Embedding Dimension
384
Compatible
Created
2026-02-13 16:13
Updated
2026-02-13 16:13
Content Preview
Would it be ethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility? Did Engineer A have an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor?
Similar Cases
Find cases with similar D-tuple components, provisions, and tags.
Find Similar CasesD-tuple Component Breakdown
32
Total Entities9/9
Components Populated9/9
With EmbeddingsCombined Embedding
Roles
R
w=0.12
384D
Engineer A Project Engineer
Works with the construction contractor on the design/build project, is unable to establish that Engineer B has...
Engineer B Footing Design Engineer
Retained by the construction contractor to design structural footings for the facility despite a degree and...
Construction Contractor
Carries out the design/build construction of the industrial facility, works with Engineer A, separately retains...
Board of Ethical Review Adjudicator
Follows the reasoning of its prior competence opinions and concludes there is at least a reasonable basis for...
Engineer B Consultant to Contractor
The discussion characterizes Engineer B as a consultant to the contractor retained for the sole and exclusive...
Construction Contractor Client
Fills the client role facet in the discussion, as the party that retained Engineer B for the footing design and as...
6 entities
Principles
P
w=0.2
384D
Competence Concern in Footing Design
Engineer A questions whether Engineer B, whose degree and background is in chemical engineering and who has no...
1 entity
Obligations
O
w=0.15
384D
Engineer A Peer Confrontation Duty
If Engineer A determines that Engineer B does not possess the required education, training, and experience to...
Engineer A Client and Authority Reporting Duty
If Engineer B refuses to acquiesce to Engineer A's recommendation to withdraw, Engineer A must bring the matter to...
Engineer B Footing Competence Duty
Engineer B must perform the structural footing design only if it lies within his area of competence, possessing the...
Engineer A Competence Concern Report
Engineer A must report his reservations concerning Engineer B's competence to design the structural footings to the...
Engineer A Conditional Withdrawal Duty
Engineer A must, if necessary, withdraw from the project if his competence concerns about Engineer B are not met...
5 entities
States
S
w=0.1
384D
Sole Purpose Footing Retention
Engineer B Foundation Competence Gap
Engineer A Reservations About B
Concerns Reported To Contractor
Specialist Retention Infeasible for Footings
5 entities
Resources
Rs
w=0.1
384D
NSPE Code of Ethics
NSPE Code of Ethics (topic: performing engineering services only in areas of competence)
BER Case 78-5
BER Case 78-5 (topic: altering firm qualifications to secure a contract and seeking work only in areas of competence)
BER Case 71-2
BER Case 71-2 (topic: brokerage of engineering services and retention of experts and specialists for competence)
BER Case 85-3
BER Case 85-3 (topic: acceptance of a county surveyor position by an engineer lacking background and expertise in surveying)
4 entities
Actions
A
w=0.1
384D
Assignment Acceptance
Qualification Investigation
Specialist Retention Decision
Concern Reporting
4 entities
Events
E
w=0.08
384D
Qualification Verification Failure
Competence Concern Emergence
2 entities
Capabilities
Ca
w=0.07
384D
Board Precedent Reasoning
The Board reviews and distinguishes BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, and 85-3, notes the distinctions between consulting...
Engineer A Peer Competence Reporting
Engineer A exercises the competence to report a peer competence concern, communicating his reservations about...
Engineer A Competence Concern Recognition
Engineer A perceives an ethically salient condition, that Engineer B, whose degree and background are in chemical...
Engineer A Peer Competence Assessment
The Board states that Engineer A has an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B has sufficient education,...
4 entities
Constraints
Cs
w=0.08
384D
Engineer B Footing Competence Boundary
Engineer B must not undertake the design of the structural footings unless the work lies within his area of...
1 entity
Embeddings: all-MiniLM-L6-v2 (384D, local) | Storage: pgvector (PostgreSQL) | Used for section and component similarity matching