DP4

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

DP4

Should Engineer A have disclosed the out-of-scope elevated storage tank initiative to ABC management and sought a supplemental scope agreement, or was he entitled to include the tank funding elements unilaterally as a professional judgment call in the client's interest?

Engineer A unilaterally expanded the water treatment report to include elevated storage tank funding elements that were outside the scope of work originally negotiated between ABC and Clover City. This initiative impressed Clover City and directly generated the overture for Engineer A to establish an independent firm. The non-self-serving advisory obligation requires that Engineer A's initiative be evaluated not merely by its beneficial outcome for the client but by the intent driving it — specifically, whether Engineer A foresaw that the out-of-scope work would position him personally for future independent contracts.

Inform ABC management of the intent to include elevated storage tank funding elements in the report, seek a supplemental scope agreement with Clover City through ABC, and allow ABC to decide whether to pursue the tank design opportunity — thereby protecting ABC's institutional relationship and eliminating any appearance of self-serving conduct.

Include the elevated storage tank funding elements as a professional judgment call in the client's interest without separate disclosure to ABC, treating the initiative as within the scope of competent professional service delivery and not requiring employer approval for beneficial scope enhancements.

Confine the water treatment report strictly to the originally negotiated scope, advising Clover City separately that elevated storage tank funding is a distinct need that should be addressed through a new engagement — preserving the integrity of the contracted scope while identifying the additional opportunity for ABC to pursue.

Engineer A