Step 3: Temporal Dynamics Pass (Facts)
Extract temporal dynamics including actions, events, and causal relationships
Providing Incomplete, Self-Serving Advice
Step 3 of 5
Case Sections
Facts Section Content:
Facts: Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B and is a licensed professional engineer in State C where City B is located. City B is a large metropolitan area and all forms of contracting are available. Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B. City B’s City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source. City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer. Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build. Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities. Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options. Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm’s experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
Discussion Section Content:
<p>By their very words, the cited sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics provide appropriate guidance: “objective and truthful,” “include all relevant and pertinent information,” “not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work.”</p> <p><a href="https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/ethics-resources/board-ethical-review-cases/failure-include-information-engineering" target="_blank">BER Case 95-5</a> addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports. The engineer in question rendered an opinion that, based upon test pile, the project’s installed piles did not meet the design safety factor. However, the engineer failed to include in the report that the initial log indicated that several of the piles were driven to essential refusal (intentional disregard of other information); that the test equipment had failed (selective use of information); that the test piles were not driven to the same depth as the installed piles, that a different installation technique was used, that following cure, the test hammer was dropped several times before the count began (all failure to investigate), or that the predicted increase in strength after cure was confirmed. (In that case, the engineer in question also engaged in misrepresentation and potential perjury, but that’s not at issue in the present case.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/ethics-resources/board-ethical-review-cases/incomplete-plans-and-specifications" target="_blank">BER Case 99-8</a> was relatively analogous. Engineer A bid and won a design contract to provide a complete set of plans and specifications. However, Engineer A submitted plans that were lacking much of the design detail in both drawings and specifications. Not only did Engineer A acknowledge that fact, but even acknowledged that certain parts of the project were arguably unbuildable. Furthermore, Engineer A did not inform anyone as to the incompleteness at the time of submission. Engineer A had a clear obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged, and the incomplete submission was clearly unethical. (In that case, the engineer in question also expressed an intent to defraud, but that’s not at issue in the present case.)</p> <p>In the present case, City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A. It is not clear whether City Administrator knowingly solicited a donation of services. Engineer A had several options. Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services. Alternatively, Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons by compiling properly referenced resources from others, involving no provision of engineering services and thus not unethical. However, by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A’s benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER.</p>