DP3

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP3

If the contractor takes no corrective action after Engineer A reports concerns about Engineer B's competence, should Engineer A escalate to the state licensing board and withdraw from the project, or continue participation while deferring to the contractor's authority over the retention decision?

After Engineer A reports concerns to the contractor, the contractor takes no corrective action and directs Engineer A to continue working on the project alongside Engineer B. Engineer A must decide whether to escalate beyond the contractor to the state licensing board and potentially withdraw from the project, or to continue participation while relying on the contractor's authority to manage the situation. The tension is between the progressive escalation norm, the complicity avoidance principle, and the limits of Engineer A's independent authority to override a client's project decision.

Notify the state licensing board of the ongoing competence violation and withdraw from the project, recognizing that contractor inaction has exhausted internal remedies and that continued participation would constitute complicity in a foreseeable public safety harm.

Withdraw from the project to avoid personal complicity but refrain from notifying the state licensing board, treating withdrawal as a sufficient discharge of Engineer A's ethical obligations and leaving further action to the contractor's discretion.

Continue working on the project under the contractor's direction while formally documenting Engineer A's objections in writing to the contractor, on the basis that the contractor bears primary responsibility for the retention decision and Engineer A's reporting obligation was discharged by the initial notification.

Engineer A