It was not ethical for Engineer A to submit drawings and specifications for review and approval that he knew were incomplete. It was not ethical for Engineer B to approve a set of incomplete drawings on behalf of the Federal government for competitive bidding. It was not ethical for Engineer C, owner of the Hi-Lo Construction firm, to submit a bid on a construction contract that he later characterized as “unbuildable” without major changes.

The Board has considered cases involving similar situations in the past. In BER Case No. 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience. The Board noted that the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds. The Board indicated that it could dismiss the case on the narrow ground that the NSPE Code does not apply to a claim not involving public health and safety, but that was too narrow a reading of the ethical duties of engineers engaged in such activities. The Board also stated that if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment. In this type of situation, the Board felt that the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience, but the Board was unwilling to make a blanket statement that there is an ethical duty in these kinds of situations for the engineer to continue the campaign within the company and make the issue one for public discussion. As in Case No. 82-5, the issue does not allege a danger to public health or safety, but is premised upon a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds. In Case No. 82-5, the Board found that, while the Code did not require disclosure, the engineer did have an ethical right to pursue the matter further, even to the point of public disclosure. Unlike Case No. 8...

Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency to build a new dam to be financed in part by a federal grant. Engineer A’s firm’s impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications.The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project, and the project is thereafter duly advertised for bids and a contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction. The local public agency does not have the in-house technical resources to review the drawings and specifications.At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are “unbuildable” without major changes. Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo’s characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness. While much of the information was missing from the drawings and specifications, Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs.

Was it ethical for Engineer A to submit final drawings and specifications for review and approval that he knew were incomplete? Was it ethical for Engineer B to approve a set of incomplete drawings on behalf of the Federal government for competitive bidding? Was it ethical for Engineer C, owner of the Hi-Lo Construction firm, to submit a bid on a construction contract that he later characterized as “unbuildable” without major changes?