Review of Other Engineer’s Work
Case 20
Source
Document Structure
5
Sections5/5
With Embeddings100%
Coverage384D
Dimensions
Embeddings use 384D local model for precedent matching
Document Sections
Content Length
135 chars
HTML Length
135 chars
Plain Text Length
135 chars
Embedding Dimension
384
Compatible
Created
2025-07-21 12:43
Updated
2025-07-21 12:43
Content Preview
In answering the City Administrator’s specific questions and by criticizing the work of Engineer B, Engineer C’s action were unethical.
Content Length
4775 chars
HTML Length
5145 chars
Plain Text Length
4763 chars
Embedding Dimension
384
Compatible
Created
2025-07-21 12:43
Updated
2026-03-02 23:20
Content Preview
Competition for engineering work by private consulting firms can be quite intense. Selection of a winning proposal may be made on razor-thin margins. Competitive edges are sought to win work over other firms. The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration.
In this case, Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B. Further, Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A, and Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B’s decision-making process.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 states that Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods. Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C’s statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances. As such, Engineer C’s conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B’s situation.
In BER Case 93-3 , Engineer A was retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services for a chain of stores throughout the United States. After several years, the franchiser decided to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provided Engineer A of notice of its intent not to renew its contract with Engineer A’s firm. In order to maintain continuity and before the contract expired, the franchiser began discussions with Engineer B and retained Engineer B to provide immediate review of design concerns. Prior to the review, franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to Engineer A, Engineer B’s relationship with franchiser. Nevertheless, Engineer B notifie...
Content Length
1063 chars
HTML Length
1063 chars
Plain Text Length
1063 chars
Embedding Dimension
384
Compatible
Created
2025-07-21 12:43
Updated
2025-07-21 12:43
Content Preview
Client A is a city which receives consulting engineering services from a selected private firm. The contract runs for 3 years. Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract. The City Administrator leads the effort for the city to coordinate the work of Engineer B. The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract. The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period. The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C. The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City. Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract. Engineer C answers the City Administrator’s questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B’s decisions.
Content Length
104 chars
HTML Length
104 chars
Plain Text Length
104 chars
Embedding Dimension
384
Compatible
Created
2025-07-21 12:43
Updated
2025-07-21 12:43
Content Preview
Is Engineer C’s answering of the City Administrator’s questions and his criticism of Engineer B ethical?
Content Length
988 chars
HTML Length
2633 chars
Plain Text Length
5536 chars
Embedding Dimension
384
Compatible
Created
2025-07-21 12:43
Updated
2026-03-02 23:20
Content Preview
III.6.
Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.
Subject Reference
Unfair Competition
III.7.
Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action.
Subject Reference
Public Statements and Criticism
Unethical Practice by Others
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
Similar Cases
Find cases with similar D-tuple components, provisions, and tags.
Find Similar CasesD-tuple Component Breakdown
30
Total Entities9/9
Components Populated9/9
With EmbeddingsCombined Embedding
Roles
R
w=0.12
384D
Client A City Client
A city that receives consulting engineering services from a selected private firm under a 3-year contract, currently...
City Administrator Coordinating Official
Leads the city's effort to coordinate the work of Engineer B, will be heavily involved in selecting the consulting...
Engineer C Reviewing Consultant Engineer
The discussion finds that Engineer C criticized Engineer B's work while Engineer B was still under contract with...
Engineer B City Consultant Engineer
Currently provides consulting engineering services to the city under a 3-year contract, is in the final year of that...
Engineer C Competing Consultant Engineer
A competing firm contacted by the City Administrator to answer questions on specific issues Engineer B worked on for...
5 entities
Principles
P
w=0.2
384D
Objectivity in Commenting on Engineer B
Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on specific issues Engineer B worked on and is critical of...
Honesty in Criticizing Engineer B
The Board finds that Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B's work, given while Engineer C was not fully cognizant of...
2 entities
Obligations
O
w=0.15
384D
Engineer C Objectivity Duty
Engineer C must answer the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues Engineer B worked on objectively...
Engineer C Peer Review Notification Duty
Engineer C, as an engineer in private practice asked to review Engineer B's work for the same client, was required...
Engineer C General Comment Limitation Duty
Engineer C should have limited his answers to Client A's questions to a very general sense and should have avoided...
3 entities
States
S
w=0.1
384D
Engineer C Competitive Advantage Conflict
Engineer C
Engineer C Incomplete Circumstance Knowledge
Engineer C
Engineer B Unaware Review Condition
Engineer B
Engineer C Pretext Realization
Engineer C
Final Contract Year Window
The 3-year consulting contract between Client A and Engineer B's firm
5 entities
Resources
Rs
w=0.1
384D
NSPE Code of Ethics
1 entity
Actions
A
w=0.1
384D
Failure to Refrain
Consultant Judgment Questioning
Competitor Consultation
Critical Peer Commentary
4 entities
Events
E
w=0.08
384D
Contract Commencement
Final Contract Year Onset
Difficult Position Placement
Potential Advantage Emergence
4 entities
Capabilities
Ca
w=0.07
384D
Engineer C Pretext Recognition
Engineer C Objectivity Maintenance
Engineer C Work Evaluation
Engineer C Comment Threshold Distinction
4 entities
Constraints
Cs
w=0.08
384D
Engineer C Untruthful Criticism Bar
Engineer C must not attempt to obtain employment, advancement, or professional engagements by criticizing Engineer B...
Engineer C Pretext Advantage Prohibition
Engineer C must not answer the City Administrator's questions on Engineer B's work in a perspective slanted by his...
2 entities
Embeddings: all-MiniLM-L6-v2 (384D, local) | Storage: pgvector (PostgreSQL) | Used for section and component similarity matching