It was unethical for Engineer A to serve as city engineer and also provide review and inspection services for private developers within the city.

The Board has considered cases similar to this type on other occasions. In one, BER Case 62-7, an engineering consultant had been retained by a county commission to perform all necessary engineering and advisory services. The commission did not have an engineering staff so the engineer acted as the staff for the commission in the preparation of sewage and water studies, the financing of sanitary districts, and the approval of plans submitted by others. The engineer was also retained by a private company to perform engineering design for a development of several thousand housing units which involved extensive contract negotiations between the commission and the developer. The Board found that the engineer was in a position of passing engineering judgment on behalf of the commission on work or contract arrangements which the engineer performed or in which he participated. This obviously involved the self interest of the engineer and divided his loyalties. Even if the engineer acted with the best of intentions, he was put into the position of assessing his recommendations to two clients with possibly opposing interests. Given these realities, the Board concluded that a conflict of interest existed. More recently in BER Case 74-2, a case in which a state law required every municipality to retain a municipal engineer with that engineer's firm usually retained for engineering services for capital improvements needed by the municipality. The Board found that the engineer was not a bona fide "employee" of the municipality but a consultant, thus it was not unethical for him to serve as "municipal engineer" and participate in a consulting firm providing engineering services to the municipality. The Board reasoned that the public interest was best served by providing to small municipalities the most competent engineering services which they could acquire. It was assumed that the state law was intended to achieve that end. In all honesty, it is difficult to reconcile these tw...

City engages the services of a private consulting engineering firm, Firm A, to provide design review and construction inspection. In accordance with local ordinance governing land development, private developers are required to submit plans to the city for review and approval. The developer must pay the city's expenses for having Firm A review the drawings. Additionally, during construction the developer must also pay for inspection services, to be provided by Firm A on the city's behalf.The ordinance states specifically that these inspection services are solely for the purpose of ensuring the construction of infrastructure within the development, which is to be turned over to the city, is constructed in accordance with the city's design standards. The developer must pay for separate inspection services in order to protect his interests. Firm A also provides design and inspection services for private developers within the city. In fact, Firm A uses its position as the city's engineer as a marketing tool, openly telling prospective clients that they can save 50% on inspection costs by using their firm.

Was it ethical for Engineer A to serve as city engineer and also provide review and inspection services for private developers within the city?