NSPE Code of Ethics Case Study (INCOMPLETE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS – ENGINEER, GOVERNMENT, AND CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES)

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:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer A to submit final drawings and specifications for review and approval that he knew were incomplete?

2. Was it ethical for Engineer B to approve a set of incomplete drawings on behalf of the Federal government for competitive bidding?

3. 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?