Case Repository

Filtering by: Reviewing the Work of Other Engineers

2022

Review of Other Engineer’s Work
Case #22-3
Unfair Competition Public Statements and Criticism Unethical Practice by Others Reviewing the Work of Other Engineers | Find Similar
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.

Independence of Peer Reviewer
Case #22-8
Duty to the Public Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees Confidential Information Errors Harassment and Anti-Discrimination Reviewing the Work of Other Engineers | Find Similar
Questions
  1. Is Engineer B ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review?
  2. Is Engineer A ethically required to cooperate with the peer review of Engineer B?
Conclusions
  1. Engineer B is ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review. It is not necessary for Engineer B to provide that notice personally, but Engineer B must know either that Engineer A has been advised or that Engineer A has been terminated from the project.
  2. Owner and Engineer B are not required to obtain Engineer A’s consent to the peer review, merely to assure that Engineer A has been informed of the peer review. Especially in the face of known design defects in the first tower, Engineer A may not ethically object to the peer review.

2011

Reviewing Work of Another Engineer and Thereafter Performing Engineering Services for Client
Case #11-12
Conflict of Interest Duty to Disclose Self-Promotion Confidential Information Unfair Competition Public Statements and Criticism Unethical Practice by Others Reviewing the Work of Other Engineers | Find Similar
Questions
  1. Was it ethical for Engineer A to contact Smithtown and advise the town that Engineer B’s performance on the contract did not meet the standards as...
  2. Was it ethical for Engineer A to offer and agree to perform the road design work for Smithtown?
Conclusions
  1. It is ethical for Engineer A to contact Smithtown and advise the town that Engineer B’s performance on the contract did not meet the standards as outlined in Engineer B’s contract with the town.
  2. It would not be ethical for Engineer A to offer and agree to perform the work for Smithtown.
Case texts: National Society of Professional Engineers, Board of Ethical Review.

NOTE: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from NSPE members, other engineers, public officials, and members of the public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code of Ethics and earlier BER opinions. The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER and shall not be considered a direct evaluation of any real matter that may have been submitted.

Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students, and the public. In regard to the question of application of the NSPE Code of Ethics to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government agencies, and university engineering departments), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the Code. The NSPE Code deals with professional services, which must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures.

This opinion is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. It may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case and appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Ethical Review.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3