It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning the failed operation of the testing equipment. It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with any representative of Engineer A about the project. It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with the contractor’s supervisor and workers who were on the job during construction. It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning that the 19 piles questioned had, according to the driving records, met refusal.

A mix of legal or quasi-legal and engineering procedural philosophies are revealed in this case. Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving. Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting. Adversarial interests, however, are polarizing to the effect that some facts may be preferred by one interest over the other. In this case, an adversarial relationship is established between the municipality and Engineer A to resolve the sharing of a settlement cost between the two. To test the criteria and professional judgment upon which Engineer A's conclusion, and recommendations were based, the municipality arranged for a test pile driving program and retained Engineer B to supervise the program. At the conclusion of the program Engineer B reports that 19 piles do not meet the required factor of safety for the reason that the piles were not driven to a sufficient depth that pile friction resistance would support the load. Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal. Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement. The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report. It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter. As evidence, the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality’s expert witness. As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting...

Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles. Following construction, there was a contractor's extra claim and Engineer A and the municipality were both sued by the contractor. The claim was settled by mediation. Engineer A and the municipality shared the cost of the settlement with the contractor for $300,000.During the mediation, the municipality brought in expert witnesses to support their case. One expert testified that the pile driving records indicated that many of the piles did not, at the time of initial driving, meet driving resistance sufficient to satisfy the load carrying requirements of the design calculations. Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements.To test this, the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles to see whether the piles would gain sufficient strength to meet the design calculation requirements. An independent geotechnical consultant was retained by Engineer A to observe the test. The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles. Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving. Also, after the 30 day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced. In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests. However, the test piles were driven and after a 30 day set, the increase in set up strength with time was confirmed.Engineer B's concludin...

Was it ethical for Engineer B to not have included the failed operation of the test equipment in his report? Was it ethical for Engineer B not to communicate with any representatives of Engineer A about the project? Was it ethical for Engineer B not to communicate with the contractor’s supervisor and workers who were on the job during construction? Was it ethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning that the 19 piles questioned had, according to the driving records, met refusal?