Engineer A Candid Performance Assessment of Engineer B Road Project
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/105#Engineer_A_Candid_Performance_Assessment_of_Engineer_B_Road_Project
Properties
Instance of
MunicipalAdvisoryEngineerCandidPerformanceAssessmentObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#MunicipalAdvisoryEngineerCandidPerformanceAssessmentObligation
Case context
Engineer A served as part-time town engineer for Smithtown while maintaining a private consulting practice. Engineer B was selected with Engineer A's advice and concurrence to perform road design services. Engineer A subsequently evaluated Engineer B's preliminary work and determined it did not meet contract standards.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.9
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A (Part-Time Town Engineer for Smithtown)
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated as town engineer to call to Smithtown's attention his professional opinion that Engineer B had failed to meet the standards required to complete the local road project, providing candid assessment without malicious or false characterization of Engineer B's professional reputation.
Temporal scope
Upon forming the professional opinion that Engineer B had failed to meet contract standards, before or contemporaneously with any recommendation regarding Engineer B's continued engagement
Relationships
competesWith
Engineer A Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Before Advisory Critique, Engineer A Part-Time Municipal Engineer Impartial Performance Evaluation, Engineer A Terminated Contract or Professional Dignity Protection, Engineer B Professional Dignity Protection in Performance Evaluation
Source Evidence
Source text
it is this Board's view that Engineer A did have an affirmative obligation as town engineer to call to the attention of the city Engineer A's opinion that Engineer B had failed to meet the standards required to complete the local road project.
Text references
As a competent advisor to the town upon whose judgment the town undoubtedly relied, it would be appropriate for Engineer A to make comments in connection with Engineer B's professional services.
Having done so, it is the Board's view that Engineer A acted consistently with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
There is nothing under the facts to suggest that anything said by Engineer A was beyond the bounds or could be construed as anything to injure maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation or prospects, practice, or employment of Engineer B.
it is this Board's view that Engineer A did have an affirmative obligation as town engineer to call to the attention of the city Engineer A's opinion that Engineer B had failed to meet the standards required to complete the local road project.
TTL
@prefix case105: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/105#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case105:Engineer_A_Candid_Performance_Assessment_of_Engineer_B_Road_Project a proeth:MunicipalAdvisoryEngineerCandidPerformanceAssessmentObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Candid Performance Assessment of Engineer B Road Project" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case105:Engineer_A_Competitive_Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Before_Advisory_Critique,
case105:Engineer_A_Part-Time_Municipal_Engineer_Impartial_Performance_Evaluation,
case105:Engineer_A_Terminated_Contractor_Professional_Dignity_Protection,
case105:Engineer_B_Professional_Dignity_Protection_in_Performance_Evaluation ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case105:Engineer_A_Terminated_Contractor_Professional_Dignity_Protection,
case105:Engineer_B_Professional_Dignity_Protection_in_Performance_Evaluation ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A served as part-time town engineer for Smithtown while maintaining a private consulting practice. Engineer B was selected with Engineer A's advice and concurrence to perform road design services. Engineer A subsequently evaluated Engineer B's preliminary work and determined it did not meet contract standards." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case105:Loyalty_Obligation_of_Municipal_Advisory_Engineer_to_Candid_Assessment,
case105:Municipal_Advisory_Engineer_Performance_Evaluation_Obligation_Fulfilled_by_Engineer_A ;
proeth:discoveredincase "105" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T08:39:29.944672+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "105" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T08:39:29.944672+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (Part-Time Town Engineer for Smithtown)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Municipal Advisory Engineer Candid Performance Assessment Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated as town engineer to call to Smithtown's attention his professional opinion that Engineer B had failed to meet the standards required to complete the local road project, providing candid assessment without malicious or false characterization of Engineer B's professional reputation." ;
proeth:sourcetext "it is this Board's view that Engineer A did have an affirmative obligation as town engineer to call to the attention of the city Engineer A's opinion that Engineer B had failed to meet the standards required to complete the local road project." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon forming the professional opinion that Engineer B had failed to meet contract standards, before or contemporaneously with any recommendation regarding Engineer B's continued engagement" ;
proeth:textreferences "As a competent advisor to the town upon whose judgment the town undoubtedly relied, it would be appropriate for Engineer A to make comments in connection with Engineer B's professional services.",
"Having done so, it is the Board's view that Engineer A acted consistently with the NSPE Code of Ethics.",
"There is nothing under the facts to suggest that anything said by Engineer A was beyond the bounds or could be construed as anything to injure maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation or prospects, practice, or employment of Engineer B.",
"it is this Board's view that Engineer A did have an affirmative obligation as town engineer to call to the attention of the city Engineer A's opinion that Engineer B had failed to meet the standards required to complete the local road project." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 105 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T08:46:32.094126"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 105 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
105
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T08:39:29.944672+00:00
First case
105
Generated
2026-02-28T08:39:29.944672+00:00
Attributed to
Case 105 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T08:46:32.094126
Generated by
ProEthica Case 105 Extraction