Step 4: Synthesis Review
Case 20: Review of Other Engineer’s Work
Full Entity Graph
Loading...Entity Types
Synthesis Reasoning Flow
Shows how NSPE provisions inform questions and conclusions - the board's reasoning chainNode Types & Relationships
→ Question answered by Conclusion
→ Provision applies to Entity
NSPE Code Provisions Referenced
View ExtractionIII.6. III.6.
Full Text:
Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.
Relevant Case Excerpts:
"contract with Client A, and Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B’s decision-making process. NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 states that Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods."
Confidence: 90.0%
Applies To:
III.7. III.7.
Full Text:
Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action.
Relevant Case Excerpts:
"Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers."
Confidence: 95.0%
Applies To:
III.7.a. III.7.a.
Full Text:
Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
Applies To:
Questions & Conclusions
View ExtractionQuestion 1 Board Question
Is Engineer C’s answering of the City Administrator’s questions and his criticism of Engineer B ethical?
In answering the City Administrator’s specific questions and by criticizing the work of Engineer B, Engineer C’s action were unethical.
Question 2 Implicit
Does Engineer B have any recourse or rights when their work is being criticized by a competitor without their knowledge during an active contract?
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer C's actions were unethical, the case reveals a systemic problem with the City Administrator's role in creating ethical conflicts. The City Administrator (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#City_Administrator) simultaneously manages the current contract with Engineer B and influences future contract selection, creating an inherent conflict of interest (CityAdministrator_ConflictOfInterest_ContractorSelection). This dual role incentivizes undermining current contractors to justify future changes, making Engineer C's participation in this process particularly problematic as it enables institutional dysfunction.
Question 3 Implicit
Should Engineer C have notified Engineer B before reviewing and criticizing their work, even when requested by the client?
The Board's conclusion is strengthened by recognizing that Engineer C's violation of EngineerC_NonInterference_ActiveContract (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#EngineerC_NonInterference_ActiveContract_Engineer) represents a breach of the fundamental trust structure that enables professional engineering practice. By engaging in EngineerC_IncompleteInformationCriticism_EngineerB (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#EngineerC_IncompleteInformationCriticism_EngineerB) without access to Engineer B's full reasoning, constraints, or client communications, Engineer C undermined not just Engineer B's position but the entire framework of professional peer respect that Code provision III.7.a. is designed to protect.
Question 4 Implicit
What ethical obligations does the City Administrator have when soliciting opinions about a current contractor's work from competing firms?
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer C's actions were unethical, the case reveals a systemic problem with the City Administrator's role in creating ethical conflicts. The City Administrator (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#City_Administrator) simultaneously manages the current contract with Engineer B and influences future contract selection, creating an inherent conflict of interest (CityAdministrator_ConflictOfInterest_ContractorSelection). This dual role incentivizes undermining current contractors to justify future changes, making Engineer C's participation in this process particularly problematic as it enables institutional dysfunction.
Addressing the implicit question about the City Administrator's ethical obligations (Q101), the City Administrator violated principles of fair procurement and professional integrity by soliciting competitive intelligence during an active contract. The Administrator's actions created a situation where Engineer C was incentivized to violate professional ethics, making the Administrator complicit in the ethical breach. Public officials have obligations to maintain fair competitive processes that don't pit professionals against ethical standards.
Question 5 Principle Tension
How should Engineer C balance the principle of FairCompetition_CaseIntro against ProfessionalCourtesy_ReviewNotification when responding to client inquiries?
This case demonstrates how ProfessionalCourtesy_ReviewNotification (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#ProfessionalCourtesy_ReviewNotification) and FairCompetition_CaseIntro (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#FairCompetition_CaseIntro) must be balanced against competitive pressures. The Board's resolution prioritizes professional collegiality over competitive advantage, establishing that fair competition cannot include undermining active professional relationships. This creates a hierarchy where peer respect obligations supersede competitive opportunities when they conflict during active contracts.
Question 6 Principle Tension
Does the principle of Integrity_EngineerC_Decision conflict with Competence_CityAdmin_Challenge when a client seeks professional opinions about ongoing work?
The case reveals that Integrity_EngineerC_Decision (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#Integrity_EngineerC_Decision) and ProfessionalIntegrity_EngineerC_Criticism (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#ProfessionalIntegrity_EngineerC_Criticism) create a paradox: while honesty in professional assessment is valued, the context and motivation for that honesty determines its ethical character. Engineer C's technically accurate criticism became unethical because it served EngineerC_CompetitiveAdvantageSeeking_CityContract (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#EngineerC_CompetitiveAdvantageSeeking_CityContract) rather than genuine professional service. This teaches that professional integrity requires consideration of both content accuracy and contextual appropriateness.
Question 7 Principle Tension
How does ProfessionalIntegrity_EngineerC_Criticism conflict with Confidentiality_EngineerB_Work when evaluating a competitor's technical decisions?
The Board's conclusion is strengthened by recognizing that Engineer C's violation of EngineerC_NonInterference_ActiveContract (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#EngineerC_NonInterference_ActiveContract_Engineer) represents a breach of the fundamental trust structure that enables professional engineering practice. By engaging in EngineerC_IncompleteInformationCriticism_EngineerB (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#EngineerC_IncompleteInformationCriticism_EngineerB) without access to Engineer B's full reasoning, constraints, or client communications, Engineer C undermined not just Engineer B's position but the entire framework of professional peer respect that Code provision III.7.a. is designed to protect.
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer C fulfill their duty under EngineerC_Collegial_PeerRespect when criticizing Engineer B's work?
From a consequentialist perspective, do the potential benefits to Client A justify Engineer C's violation of EngineerC_NonInterference_ActiveContract?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer C demonstrate professional integrity when engaging in EngineerC_CompetitiveAdvantageSeeking_CityContract?
The case reveals that Integrity_EngineerC_Decision (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#Integrity_EngineerC_Decision) and ProfessionalIntegrity_EngineerC_Criticism (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#ProfessionalIntegrity_EngineerC_Criticism) create a paradox: while honesty in professional assessment is valued, the context and motivation for that honesty determines its ethical character. Engineer C's technically accurate criticism became unethical because it served EngineerC_CompetitiveAdvantageSeeking_CityContract (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#EngineerC_CompetitiveAdvantageSeeking_CityContract) rather than genuine professional service. This teaches that professional integrity requires consideration of both content accuracy and contextual appropriateness.
Question 11 Counterfactual
Would Engineer C's actions have been ethical if they had disclosed their EngineerC_Disclosure_Limitations before criticizing Engineer B's work?
Question 12 Counterfactual
What if Engineer C had refused to comment on specific technical decisions but offered only general consulting capabilities - would this have avoided the ethical violation?
Responding to the counterfactual question Q402, if Engineer C had refused to comment on specific technical decisions but offered only general consulting capabilities, this would have avoided the ethical violation. Such an approach would have respected the constraint No_Review_While_Under_Contract (http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#No_Review_While_Under_Contract_Engineer) while still allowing Engineer C to demonstrate competence. The ethical boundary lies in avoiding specific criticism of ongoing work versus general capability demonstration.
Question 13 Counterfactual
Would the ethical analysis change if the CityA_EngineerB_Contract_3Year had already expired when Engineer C provided the criticism?
Rich Analysis Results
View ExtractionCausal-Normative Links 3
Contacting Competing Engineer
- Work Review Notification Obligation
- EngineerC_WorkReview_Notification
Criticizing Competitor's Work
- Fair Competition Obligation
- Non-Interference Obligation
- Non-Solicitation Obligation
- EngineerC_FairCompetition_CityContract
- EngineerC_Collegial_PeerRespect
- EngineerC_NonCriticism_Obligation
Choosing Specific Commentary
- EngineerC_Competence_Assessment
- EngineerC_Disclosure_Limitations
- Fair Competition Obligation
- EngineerC_Collegial_Respect
Question Emergence 13
Triggering Events
- Contract Nearing Expiration
- Competitive Intelligence Opportunity
Triggering Actions
- Contacting Competing Engineer
- Criticizing_Competitor's_Work
- Choosing Specific Commentary
Competing Warrants
- Non-Interference Obligation Fair Competition Obligation
- Work Review Notification Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
Triggering Events
- Contract Nearing Expiration
- Competitive Intelligence Opportunity
Triggering Actions
- Contacting Competing Engineer
- Choosing Specific Commentary
Competing Warrants
- Fair Competition Obligation Work Review Notification Obligation
- Non-Interference Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
Triggering Events
- Contract Nearing Expiration
- Competitive Intelligence Opportunity
Triggering Actions
- Contacting Competing Engineer
- Criticizing_Competitor's_Work
- Choosing Specific Commentary
Competing Warrants
- EngineerC_Competence_Assessment Non-Interference Obligation
- EngineerC_Disclosure_Limitations Fair Competition Obligation
Triggering Events
- Contract Nearing Expiration
- Competitive Intelligence Opportunity
Triggering Actions
- Contacting Competing Engineer
- Criticizing_Competitor's_Work
- Choosing Specific Commentary
Competing Warrants
- Fair Competition Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
- Work Review Notification Obligation Non-Interference Obligation
Triggering Events
- Contract Nearing Expiration
- Competitive Intelligence Opportunity
Triggering Actions
- Contacting Competing Engineer
- Criticizing_Competitor's_Work
- Choosing Specific Commentary
Competing Warrants
- EngineerC_Collegial_PeerRespect Fair Competition Obligation
- EngineerC_Collegial_PeerRespect Non-Solicitation Obligation
Triggering Events
- Contract Nearing Expiration
- Competitive Intelligence Opportunity
Triggering Actions
- Contacting Competing Engineer
- Criticizing_Competitor's_Work
- Choosing Specific Commentary
Competing Warrants
- EngineerC_NonInterference_ActiveContract Fair Competition Obligation
- Non-Interference Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
Triggering Events
- Contract Nearing Expiration
- Competitive Intelligence Opportunity
Triggering Actions
- Contacting Competing Engineer
- Criticizing_Competitor's_Work
- Choosing Specific Commentary
Competing Warrants
- Fair Competition Obligation Non-Interference Obligation
- Non-Solicitation Obligation EngineerC_Competence_Assessment
Triggering Events
- Contract Nearing Expiration
- Competitive Intelligence Opportunity
Triggering Actions
- Contacting Competing Engineer
- Criticizing_Competitor's_Work
- Choosing Specific Commentary
Competing Warrants
- Non-Solicitation Obligation EngineerC_Disclosure_Limitations
- Non-Interference Obligation Work Review Notification Obligation
- Fair Competition Obligation EngineerC_Collegial_Respect
Triggering Events
- Contract Nearing Expiration
- Competitive Intelligence Opportunity
Triggering Actions
- Contacting Competing Engineer
- Choosing Specific Commentary
- Criticizing_Competitor's_Work
Competing Warrants
- Non-Interference Obligation EngineerC_Competence_Assessment
- Non-Solicitation Obligation EngineerC_Disclosure_Limitations
Triggering Events
- Contract Nearing Expiration
Triggering Actions
- Criticizing_Competitor's_Work
- Choosing Specific Commentary
Competing Warrants
- EngineerC_NonInterference_ActiveContract Fair Competition Obligation
- Non-Interference Obligation Work Review Notification Obligation
Triggering Events
- Contract Nearing Expiration
- Competitive Intelligence Opportunity
Triggering Actions
- Contacting Competing Engineer
- Criticizing_Competitor's_Work
- Choosing Specific Commentary
Competing Warrants
- Work Review Notification Obligation Non-Interference Obligation
- EngineerC_WorkReview_Notification EngineerC_Collegial_Respect
- Fair Competition Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
Triggering Events
- Contract Nearing Expiration
- Competitive Intelligence Opportunity
Triggering Actions
- Contacting Competing Engineer
- Criticizing_Competitor's_Work
- Choosing Specific Commentary
Competing Warrants
- Non-Interference Obligation EngineerC_Competence_Assessment
- Fair Competition Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
- Work Review Notification Obligation EngineerC_Collegial_Respect
Triggering Events
- Contract Nearing Expiration
- Competitive Intelligence Opportunity
Triggering Actions
- Contacting Competing Engineer
- Criticizing_Competitor's_Work
- Choosing Specific Commentary
Competing Warrants
- Fair Competition Obligation Non-Interference Obligation
- Non-Solicitation Obligation Work Review Notification Obligation
Resolution Patterns 7
Determinative Principles
- Professional courtesy and peer respect
- Non-interference with active contracts
- Prohibition against injuring professional reputation
Determinative Facts
- Engineer C criticized Engineer B's work
- Engineer B had an active contract with the city
- Engineer C was responding to City Administrator's questions
- Engineer C was seeking competitive advantage
Determinative Principles
- Fair procurement processes
- Avoiding conflicts of interest
- Professional integrity in public administration
Determinative Facts
- City Administrator manages current contract with Engineer B
- City Administrator influences future contract selection
- Administrator solicited criticism of current contractor
- This creates incentive to undermine current contractors
Determinative Principles
- Professional trust framework
- Peer respect obligations
- Complete information requirements for fair criticism
Determinative Facts
- Engineer C lacked access to Engineer B's full reasoning
- Engineer C didn't know Engineer B's constraints
- Engineer C had no access to client communications
- Criticism was based on incomplete information
Determinative Principles
- Fair procurement
- Professional integrity in public service
- Avoiding creation of ethical conflicts
Determinative Facts
- Administrator solicited competitive intelligence during active contract
- Administrator's actions incentivized Engineer C's ethical violation
- Administrator has duty to maintain fair competitive processes
Determinative Principles
- Non-interference with active contracts
- Professional capability demonstration
- Ethical boundary definition
Determinative Facts
- Specific criticism of ongoing work crosses ethical boundary
- General capability demonstration would be acceptable
- Engineer C could have demonstrated competence without specific criticism
Determinative Principles
- Professional collegiality
- Fair competition
- Peer respect obligations
- Hierarchical obligation structure
Determinative Facts
- Active contract creates special obligation context
- Professional relationships require protection
- Competitive pressures exist but don't override peer respect
Determinative Principles
- Professional integrity
- Contextual ethics
- Motivation-based ethical evaluation
- Content vs. context balance
Determinative Facts
- Engineer C's criticism was technically accurate
- Criticism served competitive advantage rather than professional service
- Context and motivation determine ethical character
Decision Points
View ExtractionShould the reviewing engineer contact the competing engineer before reviewing their work?
- Contact Competitor First
- Proceed Without Contact
- Seek Client Guidance
Reviewing Engineer should conduct the Reach out to the original engineer before reviewing their work to demonstrate professional courtesy and fulfill notification obligations
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Reviewing Engineer should NOT conduct the Reach out to the original engineer before reviewing their work to demonstrate professional courtesy and fulfill notification obligations
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Reviewing Engineer should conduct the Begin the review immediately without notifying the original engineer, potentially saving time but risking violation of collegial obligations
Because this promotes Timeliness
Reviewing Engineer should NOT conduct the Begin the review immediately without notifying the original engineer, potentially saving time but risking violation of collegial obligations
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Reviewing Engineer should adopt the Ask the client about the appropriate protocol for contacting the original engineer before proceeding
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Reviewing Engineer should NOT adopt the Ask the client about the appropriate protocol for contacting the original engineer before proceeding
Because competing professional interests may be affected
How should the engineer present criticisms of the competitor's work in their review?
- Direct Criticism
- Factual Assessment Only
- Decline to Comment
Reviewing Engineer should adopt the Explicitly criticize the competitor's work and highlight all deficiencies, risking violation of fair competition and collegial respect obligations
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Reviewing Engineer should NOT adopt the Explicitly criticize the competitor's work and highlight all deficiencies, risking violation of fair competition and collegial respect obligations
Because this may reduce necessary human judgment and oversight
Reviewing Engineer should present objective findings without characterizing them as criticisms of the competitor, focusing on technical facts rather than judgments
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Reviewing Engineer should NOT present objective findings without characterizing them as criticisms of the competitor, focusing on technical facts rather than judgments
Because this may reduce necessary human judgment and oversight
Reviewing Engineer should refuse to provide specific commentary on the competitor's work to avoid any potential ethical violations
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Reviewing Engineer should NOT refuse to provide specific commentary on the competitor's work to avoid any potential ethical violations
Because this may reduce necessary human judgment and oversight
What level of detail should the engineer provide in their assessment of the competitor's work?
- Comprehensive Detailed Review
- General Assessment
- Limited Scope Review
Reviewing Engineer should provide thorough, specific commentary on all aspects of the work, fulfilling competence obligations but potentially violating fair competition constraints
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Reviewing Engineer should NOT provide thorough, specific commentary on all aspects of the work, fulfilling competence obligations but potentially violating fair competition constraints
Because appropriate delegation may better serve this situation
Reviewing Engineer should adopt the Offer broad, non-specific observations that meet basic competence requirements while respecting competitive boundaries
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Reviewing Engineer should NOT adopt the Offer broad, non-specific observations that meet basic competence requirements while respecting competitive boundaries
Because appropriate delegation may better serve this situation
Reviewing Engineer should adopt the Focus only on critical safety or code compliance issues, avoiding broader competitive assessments
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Reviewing Engineer should NOT adopt the Focus only on critical safety or code compliance issues, avoiding broader competitive assessments
Because this may reduce operational efficiency
Should the engineer disclose their limitations in reviewing specific aspects of the competitor's work?
- Full Disclosure
- Qualified Assessment
- Refer Specialized Areas
Reviewing Engineer should conduct the Clearly communicate all limitations in expertise or knowledge that affect the review's completeness
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Reviewing Engineer should NOT conduct the Clearly communicate all limitations in expertise or knowledge that affect the review's completeness
Because this may compromise confidentiality obligations
Reviewing Engineer should provide assessment only within areas of demonstrated competence without explicitly highlighting limitations
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Reviewing Engineer should NOT provide assessment only within areas of demonstrated competence without explicitly highlighting limitations
Because this may compromise confidentiality obligations
Reviewing Engineer should recommend additional expert review for areas outside the engineer's competence
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Reviewing Engineer should NOT recommend additional expert review for areas outside the engineer's competence
Because this may compromise confidentiality obligations
Case Narrative
Phase 4 narrative construction results for Case 20
Opening Context
You are Engineer A, a seasoned professional engineer operating within a competitive municipal contracting environment where ethical boundaries are about to be tested. As you navigate the complex dynamics of a city infrastructure project, you discover troubling irregularities involving a fellow engineer's compromised authority, questionable administrative decisions in contractor selection, and unauthorized work reviews that threaten the integrity of the entire procurement process. Your professional obligations to maintain fair competition and avoid interference now conflict with your duty to uphold engineering ethics and public trust.
Characters (6)
A municipal official responsible for overseeing city operations and managing public contracts, including engineering services procurement.
- Seeks to ensure the city receives quality engineering services through fair, transparent processes while maintaining public trust and fiscal responsibility.
A professional engineer who appears to be at the center of ethical obligations regarding contract interference, fair competition, and peer relationships.
- Must balance competitive business interests with professional ethical duties to avoid improper interference while maintaining collegial relationships with fellow engineers.
A client entity that has an existing or potential contractual relationship with one of the engineering parties in this case.
- Desires reliable, competent engineering services at fair market rates while avoiding any conflicts or complications from unprofessional conduct.
A professional engineer who likely has an active contract that may be subject to interference from another engineering professional.
- Seeks to protect existing client relationships and contractual arrangements from unfair competition or unethical interference by competitors.
A professional engineer involved in the competitive landscape who must navigate fair competition principles and non-interference obligations.
- Aims to compete legitimately for engineering contracts while respecting existing professional relationships and adhering to ethical standards.
States (10)
Event Timeline (10)
| # | Event | Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The case begins when Engineer B's authority and professional standing are challenged in relation to a city engineering contract. This situation creates the foundation for subsequent ethical dilemmas involving professional relationships and competitive practices. | state |
| 2 | An engineer initiates contact with a competing engineering firm or professional. This action raises questions about appropriate professional boundaries and the ethics of inter-firm communication during competitive situations. | action |
| 3 | One engineer begins making critical assessments or public statements about a competitor's technical work or professional capabilities. This behavior potentially violates professional ethics codes regarding respectful treatment of fellow engineers. | action |
| 4 | The engineer decides to make specific, targeted commentary about particular aspects of the competitor's work or qualifications. This escalation moves beyond general criticism to detailed negative assessments that could damage professional reputations. | action |
| 5 | The existing city engineering contract approaches its expiration date, creating urgency around renewal decisions. This timing intensifies competitive pressures and may influence engineers' behavior as they seek to secure future work. | automatic |
| 6 | A situation arises where confidential information about competitors' strategies, proposals, or capabilities becomes accessible. This presents an ethical dilemma about whether to use such intelligence for competitive advantage. | automatic |
| 7 | A violation of professional trust occurs between engineering colleagues or firms, potentially involving misuse of confidential information or breach of professional courtesy. This action fundamentally undermines the collaborative foundation of professional engineering practice. | automatic |
| 8 | Engineer C faces a professional obligation to review and provide commentary on engineering work for quality assurance purposes. This creates tension between the duty to provide honest technical assessment and the potential impact on professional relationships. | automatic |
| 9 | Engineer C must ensure fair competition in bidding processes but is constrained from using insider knowledge or position to gain competitive advantage, creating tension when knowledge of deficiencies could inform better proposals. | automatic |
| 10 | In answering the City Administrator’s specific questions and by criticizing the work of Engineer B, Engineer C’s action were unethical. | outcome |
Sequential action-event relationships. See Analysis tab for action-obligation links.
- Contacting Competing Engineer Criticizing_Competitor's_Work
- Criticizing_Competitor's_Work Choosing Specific Commentary
- Choosing Specific Commentary Contract Nearing Expiration
Key Takeaways
- Engineers must decline to participate in evaluations or reviews when contractual obligations create conflicts of interest, even when their expertise could benefit the public.
- Professional obligations to ensure quality and safety do not override contractual confidentiality requirements and fair competition principles in procurement processes.
- Engineers should proactively identify and avoid situations where their dual roles as potential contractors and technical reviewers could compromise professional integrity.