Engineer A BER 94-8 Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation Instance
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/109#Engineer_A_BER_94-8_Peer_Competency_Challenge_and_Escalation_Instance
Properties
Instance of
Out-of-CompetencePeerCompetencyChallengeandEscalationObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Out-of-CompetencePeerCompetencyChallengeandEscalationObligation
Case context
In BER Case 94-8, Engineer A worked on the same design/build project and had reservations about Engineer B's competence to design structural footings. The Board found Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report concerns to the contractor.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A (PE, BER Case 94-8)
Obligation statement
Engineer A, having an objective basis to determine that Engineer B lacked competence in structural foundation design, was obligated to: (1) confront Engineer B and recommend withdrawal; (2) if refused, report concerns to the contractor; and (3) if unresolved, escalate to appropriate authorities and withdraw if necessary.
Temporal scope
Upon forming a reasonable basis to conclude Engineer B lacked the required competence
Relationships
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
Text references
Engineer A had an ethical obligation to confront Engineer B to make his concerns known to Engineer B, recommending that Engineer B withdraw from the project
Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
Engineer A has an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B has sufficient education, experience, and training to perform the required structural design services
If Engineer B refused to acquiesce to Engineer A's recommendation, Engineer A had an obligation under the Code to bring the matter to the attention of his client and to the authorities as appropriate, and if necessary, withdraw from the project if his concerns were not met
TTL
@prefix case109: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/109#> .
@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#> .
case109:Engineer_A_BER_94-8_Peer_Competency_Challenge_and_Escalation_Instance a proeth:Out-of-CompetencePeerCompetencyChallengeandEscalationObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A BER 94-8 Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation Instance" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case109:Engineer_B_BER_94-8_Structural_Footing_Out-of-Competence_Refusal_Instance ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/109#BER_94-8_Precedent_—_Engineer_B_Structural_Footing_Competence_Gap> ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case109:Engineer_B_BER_94-8_Structural_Footing_Out-of-Competence_Refusal_Instance ;
proeth:casecontext "In BER Case 94-8, Engineer A worked on the same design/build project and had reservations about Engineer B's competence to design structural footings. The Board found Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report concerns to the contractor." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/109#Disinterested_Peer_Reporting_—_Engineer_A_Challenges_Engineer_B_Competence_BER_94-8>,
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/109#Escalating_Confrontation_—_Engineer_A_to_Engineer_B_to_Contractor_BER_94-8> ;
proeth:discoveredincase "109" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T07:48:34.367018+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "109" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T07:48:34.367018+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (PE, BER Case 94-8)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Out-of-Competence Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A, having an objective basis to determine that Engineer B lacked competence in structural foundation design, was obligated to: (1) confront Engineer B and recommend withdrawal; (2) if refused, report concerns to the contractor; and (3) if unresolved, escalate to appropriate authorities and withdraw if necessary." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor" ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon forming a reasonable basis to conclude Engineer B lacked the required competence" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A had an ethical obligation to confront Engineer B to make his concerns known to Engineer B, recommending that Engineer B withdraw from the project",
"Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor",
"Engineer A has an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B has sufficient education, experience, and training to perform the required structural design services",
"If Engineer B refused to acquiesce to Engineer A's recommendation, Engineer A had an obligation under the Code to bring the matter to the attention of his client and to the authorities as appropriate, and if necessary, withdraw from the project if his concerns were not met" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 109 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T07:59:20.019051"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 109 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
109
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T07:48:34.367018+00:00
First case
109
Generated
2026-03-01T07:48:34.367018+00:00
Attributed to
Case 109 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T07:59:20.019051
Generated by
ProEthica Case 109 Extraction