Engineer B is ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review. It is not necessary for Engineer B to provide that notice personally, but Engineer B must know either that Engineer A has been advised or that Engineer A has been terminated from the project. Owner and Engineer B are not required to obtain Engineer A’s consent to the peer review, merely to assure that Engineer A has been informed of the peer review. Especially in the face of known design defects in the first tower, Engineer A may not ethically object to the peer review.

Peer review issues are arising with increasing frequency. In many cases, the possibility that the client will obtain a peer review is specified in design-build bid or contract documents to the effect that any party who bids or contracts with the client has, by participating, consented to the peer review. Frequently that disclosure is accompanied by an agreement that the client will require the peer reviewer to keep the results of the peer review confidential or, at the very least, the original designer will be provided with an opportunity to explain (and defend) the design decisions. Such confidentiality agreements encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere. However, that is not always the case and it is not the case here. It is helpful to consider how the BER has addressed peer review issues in the past. For example, in BER Case 18-10 , Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project. The review’s scope was limited to clarifications and refinements, and there was no confidentiality agreement. (Of course, as a public project, there would not be.) About a year later, Engineer A’s firm is invited to be part of a joint venture responding to a design-build RFP for the project. In Case 18-10 , the Board concluded that, so long as the agency approves and the work complies with applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, it would not be unethical for Engineer A’s firm to participate in a design-build joint venture submitting a proposal for the project. In BER Case 96-8 , Engineer A was a peer reviewer serving as part of an organized peer-review program. When selected as a reviewer for the program, Engineer A contractually agreed not to disclose confidential information acquired in the review. Engineer A was assigned to review the design work of Engineer B’s firm on several projects. In the course of the review, Engineer A determined th...

wner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart. As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A. Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B. Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know. Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A. When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.

Is Engineer B ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review? Is Engineer A ethically required to cooperate with the peer review of Engineer B?

I.1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Subject Reference Duty to the Public I.4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Subject Reference Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees I.6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. II.1.c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code. Subject Reference Confidential Information III.1.a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts. Subject Reference Errors III.1.f. Engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness and without discrimination. Subject Reference Harassment and Anti-Discrimination III.4. Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve. Subject Reference Confidential Information III.7.a. Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated. Subject Reference Reviewing the Work of Other Engineers