Case Repository

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer B to complain to Engineer A?
2. Were Engineer A’s actions in investigating City D’s contracting practices ethical?
3. Because City D’s Engineer refuses to change the contract arrangement with Firm Z, what steps must Engineer A take?

Conclusions:

1. It was not only ethical for Engineer B to complain to Engineer A, it was ethically required that Engineer B report his belief that statutory obligations were not being followed.
2. It was ethical for Engineer A to investigate City D’s contracting practices, both as a part of A’s own familiarization process and to follow up on Engineer B’s complaints.
3. Since the City D Engineer indicated they have no plans to change the contract arrangement with Firm Z, Engineer A is obligated to take appropriate action.

Questions:

1. Is it ethical for Engineer D to accept employment with AE&R?
2. Is it ethical for Engineer D to be immediately, directly involved with AE&R's projects with the City?

Conclusions:

1. Inasmuch as no “revolving door” contractual (i.e., legal) prohibition exists to private employment, it would be ethical for Engineer D to accept employment with firm AE&R. This finding is consistent with a long history of NSPE cases; engineers are free to move and work where they would like.
2. As to whether it would be ethical for Engineer D to be immediately, directly involved with AE&R's projects with the City, the answer is mixed as multiple considerations and details will affect the outcome. For example, participation in ongoing projects for which Engineer D has particular specialized knowledge may be ethical with disclosure and consent. Likewise, situations such as negotiating change orders (potential conflict of interest) might also be cured by disclosure and consent. However, for complex situations (e.g., perception of influence relative to solicitation of a contract) or prohibitive situations (e.g., divulging confidential information) a voluntary embargo by Engineer D for a specified period of time may be efficacious. In positive ways, such practices facilitate conduct which is honorable, responsible, ethical and lawful so as to enhance the honor, reputation and usefulness of the engineering profession.

Questions:

Is Engineer C’s answering of the City Administrator’s questions and his criticism of Engineer B ethical?

Conclusions:

In answering the City Administrator’s specific questions and by criticizing the work of Engineer B, Engineer C’s action were unethical.