DP4

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

DP4

Should Engineer B attempt to cure the structural footing competence deficiency by sub-delegating the actual design to a qualified structural engineer while retaining coordination responsibility, or must Engineer B recognize that the sole-purpose nature of his engagement makes sub-delegation an ethically unavailable remedy and decline the assignment entirely?

Engineer B, having accepted the structural footing assignment, considers whether the competence deficiency can be cured by immediately sub-delegating the actual design work to a qualified structural engineer while retaining overall coordination responsibility and sealing the final plans. The tension is between the consulting-practice flexibility available under II.2.c — which permits prime professionals to retain specialists for competence gaps — and the sole-purpose nature of Engineer B's engagement, which forecloses organizational remediation and makes sub-delegation structurally circular.

Recognize that the sole-purpose nature of the engagement forecloses sub-delegation as an ethical remedy, decline the structural footing assignment entirely, and inform the contractor that a qualified structural engineer must be retained directly for the work.

Accept the engagement and immediately retain a qualified structural engineer to perform the actual footing design calculations, invoking the II.2.c consulting-practice flexibility that permits prime professionals to engage specialists for competence gaps, while retaining coordination and sealing responsibility.

Accept the engagement but proactively disclose to the contractor that a qualified structural engineer will perform the design work under Engineer B's coordination, allowing the contractor to make an informed decision about whether this arrangement satisfies the project's technical and liability requirements.

Engineer B