How this case resolved it
No obligation was overridden in this case: the board resolved the apparent tension without defeat, as recorded below.
Resolved without defeat
The board resolved the apparent tension here by setting a duty's boundary (specification) or by finding no genuine conflict on the facts (dissolution), rather than by allowing one obligation to prevail over another.
dissolution
Because Engineer A's recommendation lacked any comparative grounding across the full set of approved methods, the Board concluded that the objectivity defect was simply the downstream expression of the completeness defect, treating the two as a single duty of full and honest analysis rather than as competing principles to weigh.
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 22-9:
- It was unethical for Engineer A to leave out relevant and pertinent information from the analysis/ recommendation. Engineer A should have included evaluation of all available delivery methods rather than including only two, including one that A’s firm could provide. Engineer A could also have referred City Administrator to 3rd-party resources.
- It was ethical for Engineer A to recommend progressive design build is the best choice, as long as reasons are objective, described, valid, and compared against all available and appropriate delivery methods. Unfortunately, Engineer A did not provide objective support for the recommendation. Consequently, Engineer A’s conduct was unethical.
- It was not unethical to include marketing materials that display Engineer A’s firm’s qualifications.
Recorded violations:
Delivery Method Recommendation violates Engineer A Objectivity Duty
Selective Method Presentation violates Engineer A Complete Information Duty