Engineer A has an obligation to seek an understanding of his company’s actions and, if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusion contained in Engineer A’s report, to seek an immediate correction by contacting appropriate authorities, including the state engineering licensure board and other enforcement officials as appropriate.

Performing an inspection and assessment of property is one of the most fundamental activities of a professional engineer. Members of the public call upon professional engineers to perform these duties because of the technical knowledge and skill the professional engineer can provide for the benefit of the client. On different occasions t he NSPE Board of Ethical Review has discussed the ethical responsibili ties of professional engineer s performing services after modifications or changes are made to their work. In BER Case 86-2, the Chief Engineer within a large engineering firm affixed his seal to some of the plans prepared by licensed engineers working under his general direction who did not affix their seals to the plans. At times, the Chief Engineer also seals plans prepared by nonlicensed graduate engineers working under his general supervision. Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, the Chief Engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review of the designs. The Chief Engineer believed he is ethically and legally correct in not doing so because of his confidence in the ability of thos e he has hired and who are working under his general direction and supervision. By general direction and supervision, the Chief Engineer meant that he was involved in helping to establish the concept, the design requirements, and review elements of the design or verifying the project status as the design process progresses. Chief Engineer was consulted about technical questions and he provided answers and direction in these matters. The Board concluded that it was unethical for the Chief Engineer to seal pl ans that have not been prepared by him, or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail. More recently, in BER Case 09-6, two professional engineers with similar backgrounds and expertise in electrical engineering were assigned to the same project because of time constraints and other factors, but were...

Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, is employed by engineering firm XYZ Engineering. The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane and to determine whether the damage was hurricane-related (a claim covered by insurance) or due to a pre-existing structural condition (a claim not covered by insurance). Engineer A visits the residential properties and, following his inspection and structural assessment, prepares a series of reports for XYZ Engineering. The majority indicate that the damage was in fact hurricane-related. He then signs and seals the reports. Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition. Finding no factual or technical basis for the requested change, Engineer A refuses to make the changes. Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company. Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes. Those residential property owners advise Engineer A that their property insurance damage claims were denied because the signed and sealed report by Engineer A indicated that the residential property damage was due to a pre-existing structural condition. There is no supplemental technical or other information to indicate any basis for the apparent alteration of Engineer A’s report.

What are Engineer A’s obligations under the circumstances?