Step 3: Temporal Dynamics Pass (Facts)
Extract temporal dynamics including actions, events, and causal relationships
Competence in Design Services
Step 3 of 5
Case Sections
Facts Section Content:
Facts: County A was expecting a significant amount of rural roadway construction in the upcoming construction season. County A did not have enough engineering staff to handle the design effort required for the expected workload. Therefore, the County decided to advertise for consulting services to accomplish the needed design. It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases. Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally. All local engineering firms responded to the advertisement. There was enough design work available that each of the local firms could receive one or more design projects. One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff. While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately. They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor. Engineer B received an award from the County for a single roadway design project. Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction. The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services. During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately. A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve. The County grew increasingly frustrated with the quality of work provided by Engineer B. Through the efforts of the County staff, the project was able to remain within its budget. During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm’s understanding of proper design. If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
Discussion Section Content:
<p>The Code of Ethics specifically states Engineers shall not affix their signature to any plans dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence. The Board of Ethical Review has reviewed this requirement in past cases.</p><p>In <a href="https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/ethics-resources/board-ethical-review-cases/professional-competence-current" target="_blank">BER Case 02-5</a>, the Board studied a situation in which a structural engineer, competent in severe weather structural engineering, designed a building that had a structural failure from a severe weather condition. This failure could have been avoided if the engineer had incorporated design parameters suggested in recent technical literature with which the engineer was not familiar. The Board concluded that it was not unethical for the engineer to fail to follow the most recent design parameters for structural design in severe weather areas published in the most recent technical literature, because those recently proposed design parameters had not yet become standards. In <span class="case-reference">Case 02-5</span>, the engineer was considered competent in all other respects, it was just that the engineer was not familiar with the recently proposed design parameters. In the present case, the question is whether Engineer B is competent.</p><p>In <a href="https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/ethics-resources/board-ethical-review-cases/competence-certify-arms-storage-rooms" target="_blank">BER Case 98-8</a>, a professional engineer in civil engineering was asked to certify certain arms storage rooms and racks for the Army. This engineer had no significant training or knowledge in that area, although the engineer was considered a qualified engineer. The Board concluded that, because the engineer lacked competence in the specific area, it would not be ethical for the engineer to certify the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks. That case is analogous to the present case. In both instances, while competent in some areas, the engineer in question may not have been competent in the specific areas of practice in question, in which case, the engineer acted unethically.</p><p><a href="https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/ethics-resources/board-ethical-review-cases/competence-perform-foundation-design" target="_blank">BER Case 94-8</a> provided an extreme example of incompetence. In that case, a professional engineer with a degree and background in chemical engineering was asked to provide a foundation design for an industrial facility. The Board determined that it would be unethical for the engineer to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.</p><p>The Code of Ethics provides guidance when evaluating competence. II.2.a. states that “Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.” However, does education or experience alone provide one with competence? Education provides scientific and technical knowledge which are a necessary foundation for professional competence, but it is also the experiences of working within the technical fields that build competence.</p><p>II.2.a., alone does not settle the ethical questions of this case since it allows for the undertaking of assignments when engineers are qualified by education “or” experience. II.2.b. indicates further that Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence. In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services. The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.</p><p>Finally, I.6 indicates that engineers shall conduct themselves in a way so to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.</p>