Volunteering at NSPE is a great opportunity to grow your professional network and connect with other leaders in the field.
The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) encourages you to explore the resources to cast your vote on election day:November/December 2019
On Ethics: You Be the Judge
Thumbs Down
Situation
Anne Barth, an engineer, is retained by a state agency to design a facility for that agency. Barth prepares the drawings, plans, and specifications and later the project is publicly announced for contractor bid by the state agency. Following receipt of contractor bids, the state agency requests Barth’s review of a bid submitted by Donald Contractor as well as her opinion of Contractor, based on her experience with him. Based upon the facts known to Barth, her specifications, and her previous experience with Contractor, she indicates to the agency that he should not be selected for the construction of the facility. Contractor believes Barth’s actions are unethical.
What Do You Think?
Was it unethical for Barth to indicate to the state agency that Contractor should not be selected for the construction of the facility?
What the Board of Ethical Review Said
The NSPE Code of Ethics makes it clear that professional engineers have an ethical obligation to warn project owners of potential threats or risks. In addition, the NSPE Code makes clear that the public has an interest in ensuring that only competent, reliable, and responsible contractors receive public work, particularly where the work affects the public health and safety. In this connection, professional engineers typically act as representatives or agents of the public entity and have a duty to protect the interests of the entity.
The Board draws a comparison between the present case and an earlier one (BER Case 79-2) in which a town engineer and a consulting engineer collaborated on a sanitary landfill assignment. After designing several solutions that were rejected by the town council, the town engineer and the consulting engineer finally produced a design acceptable to the council. An engineer who was a resident of the town publicly contended, however, that the approved design would be environmentally unsound.
In deciding that Engineer C acted ethically in publicly challenging the design approach adopted by Engineers A and B, the Board of Ethical Review noted that Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern.
While the facts in the present case are somewhat different than those in 79-2, this Board believes the general principles are similar. As noted earlier, as representatives or agents of the public entity, professional engineers have a duty to their clients to take all appropriate steps to ensure that only competent, reliable, and responsible contractors receive public work, particularly where the work affects the public health and safety. As trusted advisors to public entities, professional engineers have an obligation to make their views known to the appropriate parties. This may include appropriate comments and advice regarding the ability of a contractor to perform services. Such comments by the professional engineer must, in all cases and under all circumstances, be completely factual, dispassionate, and objective and not contain any misrepresentations or bias.
Conclusion
It was not unethical for Barth to indicate to the state agency that Contractor should not be selected for the construction of the facility, provided Barth’s comments are completely factual, dispassionate, and objective.
NSPE Code References
II.1., II.3., II.3.a., II.3.b., II.3.c., II.4., III.1., III.1.b., III.2.
For more information, see Case No. 15-9.
MORE Issue 1 2025 ARTICLES
How should you approach indemnification clauses in contracts to ensure ethical practice and adequ
