Step 3: Temporal Dynamics Pass

Discussion Section Content:

<p>The issue of one engineer reviewing the work of another engineer has been the subject of many Board decisions over the years. Section III.8.a. admonishes engineers against reviewing the work of another engineer for the same client except with the expressed knowledge of the engineer or unless the original relationship between the first engineer and the client has been terminated.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.nspe.org/node/9694" target="_blank">Case 79-7</a> an engineer was asked to inspect mechanical and electrical engineering work performed seven years earlier. The Board concluded that the engineer notified the former engineer that the engineer was being retained to perform review and inspection services and that the review would entail a review of the original design. Said the Board: "It may be helpful for future guidance to again point out that the purpose of Section 12(a) (now Section III.8.a.) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer an opportunity to submit ... comments or explanations for... technical decision, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing . . . comments or suggestions for the ultimate benefit of the client."</p>
<p>While the facts of <a href="https://www.nspe.org/node/9694" target="_blank">Case 79-7</a> are different from those in the instant case in that in the instant case the client clearly discharged Engineer A from his services, we think that many of the reasons for Section III.8.a. as stated in <a href="https://www.nspe.org/node/9694" target="_blank">Case 79-7</a> are relevant to the discussion of the facts present in this case. While this Board concedes that Engineer B did not act unethically in agreeing to review the work of Engineer A without notifying Engineer A, we are troubled by much of the actions undertaken by Engineer B subsequent to his review of Engineer A's work. While it is true that Engineer A had been "discharged" by the client, Engineer A still maintained a connection with the work which he had performed by virtue of the fact that the client passed along Engineer A's work product to Engineer B. In addition, the facts indicate that Engineer B took those plans and made certain modifications in those plans. For the reasons cited in <a href="https://www.nspe.org/node/9694" target="_blank">Case 79-7</a> we think it would have been wiser and more professional for Engineer B to consult with Engineer A before undertaking to modify the plans prepared by Engineer A.</p>
<p>The more critical issue involved in this case concerns Engineer B's activities relating to the "redesign" of the project. We view the conduct of Engineer B under the facts of this case to be misleading either intentionally or unwittingly. It is clear that Engineer B had an ethical obligation to make all necessary notations of changes which he had made with respect to the grading plans, housing pads, routing of streets, storm drains, pipe dimensions, sewers, and utilities. His failure to do so constituted a form of deception which places him in violation of Section III.3.a.</p>
<p>We acknowledge that Engineer B did in fact note on the title sheet of the public improvement plans that he was taking responsibility for the "revisions of the plans." However, as we have indicated, Engineer B's failure to state with specificity what those changes in fact were made such a notation on the title sheet virtually meaningless.</p>
<p>In addition, we are troubled by Engineer B's failure to acknowledge responsibility for the full design by notations on the drawings. (See Section III.9.) This suggests a lack of recognition on the part of Engineer B that his modifications in the design might have a significant impact upon the efficacy and integrity of the entire project design. Engineer B seems to have taken the position that he would only assume responsibility for those changes which he had made by virtue of his modifications, failing to recognize the fact that once he began to make fundamental changes to certain aspects of the design, his modifications might have an overall impact upon the entire design of the project.</p>
<p>The facts seem to suggest that the client gave Engineer B the plans prepared by Engineer A to use as a guide in the redesign. Rather than starting from scratch and redesigning the project, Engineer B appears to have "mixed and matched" the plans prepared by Engineer A with what he thought would be appropriate, never indicating which represented the work of Engineer A and which represented his own work. We think such conduct violates Section III.9. of the Code.</p>