It was not ethical for Firm A or Firm B to offer its services as the prime professional under the stated circumstances. It was consistent with the Code of Ethics for the agency to contact Engineer X as the proposed prime professional directly rather than through Firms A or B. It would be ethical for Engineer X or his firm to accept the contract under the stated circumstances.

We must first dispose of a technicality which often arises in ethics cases. The Code of Ethics applies only too individual engineers and not to organizations as such. This point has now been noted by action of the NSPE Board of Directors in its directive adopted in January 1971 to include the following note on each printing of the Code of Ethics: "Note: In regard to the question of application of the code to corporations vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the code. The code deals with professional services, which services must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures. The code is clearly written to apply to the engineer, and it is incumbent on a member of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions. This applies to all pertinent sections of the code." Although this note refers to corporations rather than government agencies or firms, its premise applies to all forms of organizations, including governmental agencies and consulting firms. We therefore treat the case before us as involving actions of engineers in the governmental agency and consulting firms in situations in which the engineer(s) had the power of decision or effective recommendation as to the procedure followed. The first part of Section 6 of the code precludes an engineer from accepting an engineering engagement unless qualified to perform the services involved. On the basis of the stated facts, it appears that Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a "broker" and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor to the project. The second clause of Section 6 recognizes the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interest of the project. We read this pr...

A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability to provide services in a highly specialized area of technical knowledge. Eight firms responded affirmatively. Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved. In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature. The firm of Engineer X was not on the original list of those contacted.The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract and asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account. Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional. The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.

Was it ethical for Firm A or B to offer its services as the prime professional under the stated circumstances? Was it consistent with the Code of Ethics for the agency to contact Engineer X directly rather than through Firms A or B as the prime professional? Would it be ethical for Engineer X or his firm to accept the contract under the stated circumstances?