Step 1: Contextual Framework Pass (Facts)

Section Content:

Facts:
Engineer A is a professional engineer and registered architect with extensive design and forensic engineering experience.
In performing a forensic engineering investigation for an insurance company, Engineer A is asked to look at a beam that had been burned, as a result of arson, in a residence that was at the time of the arson under construction.
Following the initial arson investigation, Engineer A learns that the construction contractor determined that the beam could be reused on the project.
Engineer A examines the 15-foot-long beam and determines that it is slightly charred, and it had been located next to a dining room with a two-story ceiling.
On the other side, the beam had supported a second-floor bedroom, a wall, and (on both sides of the beam) a significant amount of roof of the residence.
Engineer A initially observes that, aside from the slight fire damage, the beam looks too light to provide adequate structural support.
Engineer A measures the tributary area of roof, floor, and wall bearing on the beam and runs a series of structural calculations.
Following his review, Engineer A determines that the beam was seriously under-designed.
Engineer A observes that since the house was a tract home, there are other identical designs in the subdivision.
Engineer A writes his report and identifies the design defect, and expresses his larger concern regarding the possibility that an inadequate structural member was used in other houses in the subdivision.
Engineer A submits his report to the insurance company that retained him.
Engineer A, still concerned with his obligation to the public beyond just informing the insurance company, calls the State Board of Professional Engineers, apprises them of the situation, and asks what more could and should be done about the situation.
The Board’s response is that Engineer A fulfilled his professional obligation by notifying the insurance company, in writing, of the defect.