DP3

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

DP3

Was Engineer A required to seek and obtain the U.S. government's explicit consent before accepting any engagement for the contractor in the same dam failure matter, and does forgoing consent-seeking constitute an independent ethical violation?

Engineer A must decide whether to seek the U.S. government's explicit consent before accepting any adverse engagement for the contractor in the same dam failure matter. The 1981 revision of NSPE Code Section III.4.b establishes that specialized knowledge acquired during a prior engagement may not be used adversarially without the former client's explicit consent. Engineer A has not sought such consent and must determine whether consent-seeking is a mandatory prerequisite or merely a procedural option.

Contact the U.S. government as former client, fully disclose the contractor's solicitation and the nature of the proposed adverse engagement, and obtain explicit written consent before taking any steps toward accepting the contractor's retainer — recognizing that Section III.4.b makes such consent a mandatory prerequisite, not a discretionary courtesy.

Proceed without seeking the government's consent, treating the formal termination and full payment of the prior engagement as having extinguished all continuing obligations to the former client, and relying on pre-1981 precedent under which post-engagement adverse participation was permissible without consent.

Accept the contractor's retainer first and subsequently notify the U.S. government of the adverse engagement, treating retroactive notification as functionally equivalent to the consent prerequisite established by Section III.4.b.

Post-Engagement Engineer Considering Adverse Participation Without Former Client Consent