This is the March 2024 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think? This series is comprised of case studies from NSPE archives, involving both real and hypothetical matters submitted by engineers, public officials, and members of the public.
Your peers and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have reviewed the facts of the case as shown below. And, here are the results.
Your opinion has been registered for the March 2024 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on March 26.
Your opinion has been registered for the March 2024 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on March 26.
A Review of the Facts
A client hires Engineer Daniel to furnish complete engineering services for a specific project. Because of the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase, Daniel recommends to the client that a full-time, on-site project representative be hired for the project. After reviewing the completed project plans and costs, the client indicated to Daniel that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired. Daniel proceeds with his work on the project.
What Do You Think?
Was it ethical for Daniel to proceed with his work on the project knowing that the client would not agree to hire a full-time project representative?
Here is the result of our survey of your peers:
Applicable NSPE Code References:
II.1.a
“If engineers’ judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.”III.1.b
“Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.”
Discussion
The issue presented in this case goes to the heart of the Code of Ethics. A code of ethics is of course a statement of commitment from a particular profession to assist its members in the protection of public health and safety. There is probably no better or more valuable purpose for a code of ethics. Engineers, like all other licensed professionals, recognize that the reason for regulation and licensure is the protection of public health and safety. However, engineers have the desire and commitment to “go the extra mile,” and voluntarily commit themselves to a higher standard of conduct. It is for that reason that the NSPE Code of Ethics was developed and continues to develop as a force in engineering ethics.
This point is quite relevant to the discussion of this case. Under the facts, Daniel made a professional judgment based on education, expertise, and experience that a full-time, on-site project representative would be necessary during the construction phase of the project because of the dangerous nature of the project. This was presumably a determination that was made after a careful and thorough weighing of the costs of the full-time, on-site project representative versus the benefits of having such a representative. It may very well be that the state engineering registration board’s rules of professional conduct may not specifically require Daniel to make the determination that was made; however, it appears that the NSPE Code of Ethics does contain provisions that address this point.
Code III.1.b. clearly requires the engineer to inform a client when the engineer believes that a project will not be successful. The term “successful” includes not merely the structural and economic success of a project but also the success of the project from a safety standpoint. It is clear from the facts that Daniel did notify the client of the need to hire a full-time, on-site project representative for the construction phase of the project. Therefore, Daniel did act in accordance with Code III.1.b.
Code II.1.a. admonishes engineers to recognize that their primary obligation is to protect the public safety, health, property, and welfare. Under the facts of this case, it appears that Daniel did not recognize this primary obligation. Daniel, using their best professional judgment, made a recommendation based on what was believed to be consistent with that obligation. However, when cost concerns were raised by the client, Daniel abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded with work on the project. It appears that Daniel acted in a manner that suggests that the primary obligation was not the public but the client’s economic concerns. For that reason, Daniel was in violation of Code II.1.a.
When the client indicated that the project would be too costly if a full-time, on-site project representative were hired, Daniel acceded to the client’s wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that Daniel believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous. Daniel did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, Daniel “went along” without dissent or comment. If Daniel’s ethical concerns were real, which we presume they were, Daniel should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project. While this might appear to be a harsh result, we think that such an approach is the only one that would be consistent with the Code of Ethics.
The Ethical Review Board’s Conclusion
It was unethical for Daniel to proceed with work on the project knowing that the client would not agree to hire a full-time, representative.
BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW
Louis A. Bacon, P.E. F. Wendell Beard, P.E. James G. Johnstone, P.E. Robert H. Perrine, P.E. Marvin M. Specter, P.E.-L.S. L.W. Sprandel, P.E. Robert R. Evans, P.E., chairman
Note – In regard to the question of application of the Code to corporations vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code. The Code deals with professional services, which services must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly written to apply to the Engineer and it is incumbent on a member of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions. This applies to all pertinent sections of the Code. This opinion is based on data submitted to the Board of Ethical Review and does not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts when applied to a specific case. This opinion is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the ethics of specific individuals. This opinion may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case.
Engineer Daniel was hired to furnish complete engineering services for the specific project. Daniel designed the project? If not what was Dan responsible for? He recommended a full time on-site rep be retained for the project; It was a recommendation, it was not implied that it was a requirement per Dan’s design. Wouldn’t the design engineer (Dan) be responsible for the safety aspects of the design constructed by others? His design should have accounted for unforeseen circumstances – He was retained to provide COMPLETE ENGINEERNG services which would include providing the on-site rep due to the “complexity” of his own design. Dan should have provided the services as he was contracted to.
“Potentially Dangerous” is a rather vague phrase. Is the concern that a full time safety representative to ensure compliance with regulations, standards, and safe practices is required. In this case the person may and probably would not be an engineer. Is the concern that so many design issues will arise that the project could be in danger of technically failing, overrunning in cost, or being significantly delayed without an engineer on site to resolve issues? In that later case, which I think is much more likely, the company footing the bill has every right to decide to take the risk. In many real world cases I have seen them convinced (rightfully or wrongfully) that the costs to correct technical issues, incurred as cost overruns, or incurred due to late completion will be less than that to provide full time on site engineering. I think this is a business decision not an ethical one. If the design is so risky that a full time engineer is required to keep people safe then I think it is an unacceptable and unrealistic design.
I agree with Richard above. This was a business decision. The aspects of what was dangerous was very vague. There are many aspects of design implementation that are out of the engineer’s control and scope of work. What would have been unethical is if the engineer never said anything about the potential danges. In this instance, he did.
“Potentially dangerous” – this applies to many aspects of construction regardless of the design. Daniel was looking to make some extra money by having one of his employees hired as the project rep and used the “potentially dangerous” card to bolster his recommendation – this is the unethical part, trying to convince the client that this rep was necessary. Nowadays, the CM will have their own project engineer on larger and complicated projects.
The #1 canon in the Engineering Code of Ethics is protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public. The phrase: “the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase, ” infers that knowledge of construction safety” is required. That may or may not involve safety included in the design. It is not clear whether Daniel has the necessary construction safety knowledge. Therefore, use of someone with construction safety expertise makes good sense and should be followed if the project is to proceed.
This question is poorly worded. “After reviewing the completed project plans and costs, the client indicated to Daniel that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired.” The client decided against hiring a representative AFTER “reviewing the completed project plans.” Engineer Daniel’s design work is done at this point. Any work he does from this point on contributes to the construction phase.
I think several commenters are getting twisted up in the phrase “potentially dangerous.” I interpreted this to mean that the safety risks of construction were higher than might normally be expected. As such, it is entirely essential to have a qualified safety representative to provide additional oversight of the “risky” aspect of construction.
As someone who has been involved in the investigation of construction-related fatalities, I see providing this additional oversight as a duty of the owner and the constructor. If Daniel, in his professional opinion, sees this as a necessity, and the client is not willing to go along, then Daniel has a responsibility to be very clear in voicing his concerns and discontinuing his participation in the project.
What is implicit in the “complete engineering services”? Did it include construction services? If so, Daniel is required to provide. If he feels he needs a full-time representative, he should do so. If he failed to account for that in his bid, well, life sucks sometimes.
As usual real-life problems are always a lot more complicated than the limited information that are provided in a challenge like this. In college we are accustomed to test problems much like this. As we try to analyze this situation, we have to base the answer on the limited facts provided.
In summary I agree with most of those raising questions but based on the information provided, I concur with the Board of Professional Review.
What engineering Dan said to the client was a recommendation and not written law.
The client wants to be an idiot. The client can be an idiot, unless it’s proven otherwise, by written law.
Written law or not stupidity is stupidity. Too many contractors have caused injury or death when he didn’t listen to something as simple as common sense.
Engineer Dan was hired for a service, and he should deliver that service, but strongly suggest that they consultant be hired throughout the project no matter how many times the client refuses.
I think a better description of the client might be in order. If the client is a Federal Agency they do make the determination of requiring a Project Rep depending on funding and their in-house capabilities to supervise the assignment.