It was not unethical for Engineer A to fail to follow the most recent design parameters for structural design in severe weather areas published in the most recent technical literature.

As with any profession, engineers have a fundamental ethical obligation to practice in a professional and competent manner. The determination of whether an engineer is practicing in a competent manner is not something that is subject to simple evaluation, but can only be determined on the basis of all of the facts and circumstances involved in a particular situation. It is often based upon the local standards, the time period in which the individual is practicing, client-imposed requirements, and various other considerations. The NSPE Board of Ethical Review (Board) considered the issue of professional competency on several occasions. In BER Case 98-8, the Board had the opportunity to review the question of the ethical obligation of licensed engineers to practice solely within their area of competency. In that case, Engineer A, a professional engineer with expertise in civil engineering, served as a Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a U.S. Army installation. An Army official requested that Engineer A certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation were in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, which are cross-referenced with other Army regulations. Engineer A had no significant training or knowledge in these areas. There were comprehensive training programs available for this type of work, but training funds were not available. The Board determined that it would not be ethical for Engineer A to certify as a qualified engineer the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks as requested by the Army official, noting that the competency issues at stake posed a clear and present danger to the public health and safety. Said the Board, “making certain that a military hardware storage facility was designed and built safely involves keen awareness of many complex and detailed procedures, rules, and regulations that are unique to this...

Engineer A is involved in the design of the structural system on a building project in an area of the country that experiences severe weather conditions. Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles. Although Engineer A has knowledge and experience in structural design, new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions in the location in which Engineer A practices. These new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature. While Engineer A generally attempts to stay current on changing structural design trends, Engineer A was not familiar with this recent technical literature. Engineer A completes his design which is later incorporated in the plans and specifications for the building and the building is built. Within one year following construction, severe weather conditions cause significant structural damage to the building. It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred.

Was it ethical for Engineer A to fail to follow the most recent design parameters for structural design in severe weather areas published in the most recent technical literature?