July 2014

ON ETHICS: YOU BE THE JUDGE
When to Sign Off

An engineer wrestles with a contractor and his supervisor over signing off on a change order.

NSPE member Joseph Carson, P.E., submitted the winning entry for the 2014 Milton F. Lunch Ethics Contest on behalf of the Tennessee Society of Professional Engineers. Carson and TSPE each received $500 from NSPE and the NSPE Educational Foundation. Here is his entry:

What Do You Think?
Would it be ethical for Engineer A to sign off on the change order?

What the Winning Entry Said
This case raises a fundamental issue concerning the professional integrity of engineers and the ethical obligations engineers owe to their employers, clients, and others. How far must engineers go in stating concerns in matters that directly involve their judgment as professional engineers and their responsibilities to their employers but do not directly impact upon the public health and safety?

Engineers with project management responsibilities regularly face situations involving both engineering and contract management. These situations also can, at times, place them in conflict with nonengineer supervisors. The engineers’ ability to navigate their professional responsibilities in such complex situations will have a significant effect upon their professional lives, their employers, and others. To be successful, engineers in project management must be able to address such complex situations in a variety of ways, taking into account the corporate culture in which they practice, the nature of the professional disagreement, the engineer’s personal background, and other factors.

The Board of Ethical Review, over the years, has examined cases with some similarities to this present case. For instance, in BER Case 82-5, an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors. The Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to the proper authority, but had an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience. The Board noted that the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds. The Board indicated that it could dismiss the case on the narrow ground that the Code does not apply to a claim not involving public health and safety, but that was too narrow a reading of the ethical duties of engineers engaged in such activities.

Other BER Cases with some similarities to the present one include 84-5, 88-5, 04-5, and 08-2. However, the present case is somewhat different in that Engineer A has both the authority to sign off on the change order on behalf of the State X Department of Transportation and the responsibility to ensure the contract requirements for its preparation, review, and approval are followed.

Regardless of the objective merits of positions of Engineer A, Contractor Q, and Supervisor B, it is clear that relevant contract procedures have not been followed in preparing and reviewing the change order. In this case, the change order was prepared after the work was accomplished, not before. Contractor Q informally contacted Supervisor B after Engineer A objected. Supervisor B then informally directed Engineer A to sign off on the change order. However, change orders in state-funded construction projects routinely occur and, when they do, it is the responsibility of the project manager (in this case, Engineer A) and their supervision (in this case, Supervisor B) to ensure they are properly prepared and reviewed before being approved.

Until the change order is properly prepared and reviewed, regardless of the objective merits of Contractor Q’s and Supervisor B’s positions, Engineer A must “stand firm” and not sign off on it. Instead, Engineer A needs to get the change order preparation, review, and approval process back on track with the contract requirements, consistent with the duty to be a “faithful agent or trustee” of the State X Department of Transportation. He should carefully document his efforts and their results. Although the public health and safety is not directly involved, when Supervisor B directed Engineer A to sign off on the improperly prepared and reviewed change order, Supervisor B crossed a line that Engineer A must defend as an engineer and trusted employee of the State X Department of Transportation.

Conclusion
It would not be ethical for Engineer A to sign off on the change order as Supervisor B directed. Engineer A must try to get the change order preparation, review, and approval process back on track with the contract requirements. He should carefully document his efforts to do so. If Supervisor B continues to insist that Engineer A sign off on the improperly prepared and reviewed change order, then Engineer A must bring the matter to the attention of appropriate authorities.

NSPE Code References
Sections II.1, II.1.a, II.4, and III.2.b.