USA: +1 (725) 712-1730 
Sign in
Case No. 99-8 Facts: Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency to build a new dam to be financed in part by a federal grant. Engineer A’s firm’s impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications. The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project, and the project is thereafter duly advertised for bids and a contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction. The local public agency does not have the in-house technical resources to review the drawings and specifications. At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are “unbuildable” without major changes. Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo’s characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness. While much of the information was missing from the drawings and specifications, Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs. Questions: (Analyze the Problem thoroughly and Provide detailed response) Was it ethical for Engineer A to submit final drawings and specifications for review and approval that he knew were incomplete? Was it ethical for Engineer B to approve a set of incomplete drawings on behalf of the Federal government for competitive bidding? Was it ethical for Engineer C, owner of the Hi-Lo Construction firm, to submit a bid on a construction contract that he later characterized as “unbuildable” without major changes?
Expert Answer
Was it ethical for Engineer A to submit final drawings and specifications for review and approval that he knew were incomplete?
It is evident that Engineer A had an obligation to submit a comprehensive set of design, drawings, and specifications on the project. Unlike some projects (e.g., design/build or construction contracts with specific design delegation clauses or provisions) where the engineer is supposed only to design a certain percentage of the project prior to the selection of the contractor, here, Engineer A was stringently required to provide the complete design. Engineer A’s assertion that the work was incomplete due to time shortage and that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is not acceptable at all. Engineer A is supposed to use his expertise to complete the design in the given time and if he felt that that was not possible, he should not have participated in the bidding process. Engineer A’s comment about Federal funds relies on fraud, misrepresentation, and kind of a blackmailing approach. This is a clear violation of the NSPE Code.
Was it ethical for Engineer B to approve a set of incomplete drawings on behalf of the Federal government for competitive bidding?
Engineer B’s approval of the incomplete design, drawings, and parameters of Engineer A is also not correct, although we do not information about the facts and circumstances relating to the decision for the approval process. All engineers have an obligation to perform the services within their area of competence. If it was not possible for Engineer B to check Engineer A’s work, he should have provided this information to his superior who would have assigned appropriate resources to complete the review. Not possessing adequate competency to perform a task is not in and of itself a violation of the NSPE Code, but the failure to recognize the absence of competency and to take necessary actions is definitely a violation of the NSPE Code.
Was it ethical for Engineer C, owner of the Hi-Lo Construction firm, to submit a bid on a construction contract that he later characterized as “unbuildable” without major changes?
Engineer C’s participation in the bidding process on an “unbuildable” contract is also not ethically supported. It is assumed that Engineer C had an opportunity to check all the bidding documents which before making the construction bid. From such a check, Engineer C should have realized as what would be necessary to complete the project. The incomplete or inadequate parts should have been reflected by Engineer C in his bid and have contained necessary bid items for the extra services required to complete the work. Furthermore, Engineer C could have demanded further clarification from the owner or Engineer A for necessary understanding before the bidding. As an engineer and a contractor, Engineer C had the required background and experience to prudently gauge the engineering drawings and other aspects of the work to make an informed decision as to whether to bid or not Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project even after knowing insufficiencies of the documents as well as the obvious risks involved. So, Engineer C’s actions are also unethical.
