Accept Division Chief Role (Action 1) → Role-Competence Mismatch Created (Event 6)
From the Army official's request through completion or resolution of the certification requirement
An Army official requests that Engineer A certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations
Formal Army requirement for certified attestation that arms storage rooms and racks comply with physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations
Certification issued by a qualified professional, or formal determination that certification cannot be provided
Army official's formal request for certification of arms storage facilities against detailed regulatory standards
U.S. Army Physical Security, Arms, Ammunition, and Explosive Regulations (with cross-referenced Army regulations)
certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, which are cross-referenced with other Army regulations
Army official (as basis for certification request); Engineer A (as subject of requested certification)
The specific regulatory framework Engineer A is asked to certify compliance with, establishing the technical content that requires specialized knowledge Engineer A does not possess
Army Certification Request Triggering Competence Boundary
From issuance of the Army official's certification request through resolution (declination, reassignment, or competence acquisition)
An Army official requests that Engineer A certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, which are cross-referenced with other Army regulations
Regulatory Domain Certification Request Beyond Competence State
Formal Army request for Engineer A to certify compliance with physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations
Engineer A's formal declination, reassignment to a qualified certifier, or Engineer A's acquisition of requisite competence
Engineer A has no significant training or knowledge in these areas
Army official formally requests certification of arms storage rooms and racks against detailed, cross-referenced Army regulations
Army Official Military Authority Certification Requestor
{'organization': 'U.S. Army Installation', 'role_type': 'Military official (non-engineering authority)', 'action': 'Requests certification of specialized regulatory compliance from civilian PE'}
An Army official at the installation directs Engineer A to certify compliance of arms storage rooms and racks with detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations, without providing access to training funds that would enable Engineer A to develop the requisite competence.
{'type': 'directs', 'target': 'Engineer A Out-of-Competence Certifying Engineer'}
{'type': 'employer_authority_over', 'target': 'Engineer A Out-of-Competence Certifying Engineer'}
Military Authority Certification Requestor
Army Official Military Authority Certification Requestor — Non-Engineering Authority Boundary
Non-Engineer Manager Safety Authority Boundary Recognition Capability
The Army official directing Engineer A to certify arms storage compliance should recognize that military rank and institutional authority do not override the professional engineering competence requirements that govern what a licensed PE may certify, and that the appropriate response to Engineer A's competence limitation is to facilitate identification of a qualified expert rather than to insist on certification by an unqualified engineer.
The Army official requests that Engineer A certify compliance with detailed Army physical security and arms/ammunition/explosive regulations, apparently without recognizing that this direction exceeds the bounds of legitimate employer authority over a licensed PE's professional certification obligations.
Failure (in the case facts) to recognize that directing a civil PE without arms storage expertise to certify compliance with detailed Army physical security regulations exceeds the Army official's legitimate authority over Engineer A's professional obligations
An Army official requests that Engineer A certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, which are cross-referenced with other Army regulations.
Army official's certification request before Engineer A's ethical decision
In another case, BER Case 85-3, a local county ordinance required that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
After considering the two earlier cases, the Board decided it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor.
the Board could not see any way in which the engineer could be acting in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as analogical precedent for the present case
Cited as precedent establishing that a chemical engineer accepting the position of county surveyor — requiring oversight of surveying and highway projects — acts unethically by practicing outside their area of competence, even in an employment (rather than consulting) context
In BER Case 94-8, Engineer A, a professional engineer, was working with a construction contractor on a design/build project for the construction of an industrial facility.
The Board determined that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility
in BER Case 94-8, the Board also noted that Engineer A has an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B has sufficient education, experience, and training
Cited as precedent establishing that an engineer must practice within their area of competence and that a competent engineer has an ethical obligation to report concerns about another engineer's competency to the client and authorities
BER 85-3 Chemical Engineer County Surveyor Employment Context Competence Constraint
BER Case 85-3 precedent: Chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor with no background in surveying; employment context precluded consulting-style competence remediation.
Chemical Engineer appointed as County Surveyor (BER Case 85-3)
Consulting vs. Employment Context Competence Flexibility Differential Constraint
The chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor was prohibited from accepting the position because the employment context provided no practical mechanism to subcontract or hire supplemental expertise to supply the missing surveying competence required for effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects.
from a practical standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible in the usual employment context, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county
the Board decided it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor
there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship
BER 85-3 County Surveyor Whatever Course of Action Ethical Impossibility Constraint
BER Case 85-3: The Board found that no available course of action could satisfy ethical requirements given the engineer's complete lack of surveying competence.
Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
The chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor faced an ethical impossibility: whatever course of action taken would result in unethical conduct, because the engineer lacked the competence to perform any of the core duties of the position in accordance with NSPE Code II.2.b.
the Board could not see any way in which the engineer could be acting in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts, because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor
BER 85-3 Precedent — County Surveyor Employment Competence Constraint
From appointment of the chemical engineer as county surveyor through the Board's determination that acceptance was unethical
it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible in the usual employment context, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county
Employment Context Competence Constraint State
Chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor with no background in surveying, in an employment context precluding subcontracting or supplemental expertise
Engineer's resignation from the position, or acquisition of requisite surveying competence
The Board could not see any way in which the engineer could be acting in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts, because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct
County commissioners' appointment of a PE with solely chemical engineering background to the position of county surveyor, whose duties require oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
BER 94-8 Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge Graduated Escalation Obligation
Engineer A identified that Engineer B lacked competence in structural foundation design and was obligated to follow a graduated escalation sequence.
Peer Competence Challenge Graduated Escalation Constraint
Engineer A was required to follow a graduated escalation sequence upon identifying Engineer B's competence deficiency: (1) confront Engineer B directly and recommend withdrawal; (2) if refused, escalate to the client; (3) escalate to authorities as appropriate; (4) withdraw from the project if concerns remained unaddressed.
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
Upon identification of Engineer B's competence deficiency through project completion or resolution
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
if necessary, withdraw from the project if his concerns were not met
BER 94-8 Engineer B Chemical Engineer Structural Footing Out-of-Competence Constraint
BER Case 94-8 precedent: Engineer B retained by contractor to design structural footings despite chemical engineering background and no apparent training in foundation design.
General PE Licensure Universal Practice Non-Authorization Constraint
Engineer B, a chemical engineer, was prohibited from designing structural footings for an industrial facility because general PE licensure in chemical engineering does not authorize practice in structural foundation design without demonstrated competence in that domain.
Engineer B's degree and background were in chemical engineering
Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility
BER 94-8 Engineer B Consulting Subconsultant Remediation Feasibility Constraint
BER Case 94-8: Even in a consulting context, the specific and exclusive nature of Engineer B's retention for structural footing design made subconsultant remediation infeasible.
Although Engineer B as a consultant could theoretically retain a qualified structural engineer to design the footings, this was not feasible under the facts because Engineer B was retained specifically and solely to design the structural footings — making subconsultant remediation practically impossible and ethically questionable.
While it may be possible for Engineer B as a consultant to the contractor to retain the services of a competent structural engineer to design the structural footings for the facility, the Board did not think it would be feasible under the facts
If Engineer B were to seek a separate firm to perform that task, the Board would have to seriously wonder what it was Engineer B was actually hired to perform
It appeared that under the facts, Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question
BER 94-8 Precedent — Engineer B Structural Footing Competence Gap
From Engineer A's identification of Engineer B's apparent lack of structural engineering competence through reporting to the contractor
Engineer B's degree and background were in chemical engineering.
Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation State
Engineer A's objective basis to question Engineer B's competence to design structural footings despite chemical engineering background
Engineer B's withdrawal from the project, or contractor's resolution of the competence concern
Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings
Engineer A has an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B has sufficient education, experience, and training to perform the required structural design services
Engineer B (chemical engineering background, no apparent structural training) retained specifically to design structural footings
BER Case 85-3 before present case analysis
BER Case 94-8 before present case analysis
BER Encouragement State Board Certification Rule Modification Instance
The Board noted that state engineering licensure boards are beginning to make out-of-competence compliance certifications violations of state board rules of professional conduct, and the BER explicitly encouraged these rule modifications.
Board of Ethical Review / Professional engineering community
State Board Certification Rule Advocacy and Compliance Obligation
The BER affirmed an obligation to encourage state engineering licensure boards to adopt rules making out-of-competence compliance certifications violations of professional conduct, recognizing that such rules strengthen the regulatory infrastructure protecting public welfare.
State engineering licensure boards are beginning to make such certifications violations of state board rules of professional conduct; and the BER encourages these rule modifications
Ongoing; applicable to all future rulemaking by state engineering licensure boards
BER State Board Certification Rule Advocacy Instance
Licensure System Integrity Preservation Advocacy Capability
The BER exercised its capability to advocate for state engineering licensure board rule modifications making out-of-competence compliance certifications violations of professional conduct rules
BER noting that state engineering licensure boards are beginning to make such certifications violations of state board rules of professional conduct
BER affirmative encouragement of state board rule modifications to prohibit out-of-competence certifications
State engineering licensure boards are beginning to make such certifications violations of state board rules of professional conduct; and the BER encourages these rule modifications.
CausalLink_Accept County Surveyor Positio
CausalLink_Accept Structural Footing Desi
CausalLink_Certify Arms Storage Complianc
CausalLink_Refuse Certification Assignmen
CausalLink_Report Engineer B's Incompeten
CausalLink_Request Certification of Compl
Certify Arms Storage Compliance (Action 4) [prospective] → Unethical Certification Conclusion Reached (Event 5) and Physical Security Risk Exposed (Event 3)
Competence Boundary Recognition and Escalation Invoked for Out-of-Domain Certification Request
Engineer A's response obligation upon receiving the out-of-competence certification request
Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption from Competence Boundary
Engineer A must not only decline to certify compliance in a domain outside their expertise, but must affirmatively recognize the limitation and escalate — identifying that a qualified specialist in Army physical security and explosives regulations should be engaged, or that training must be obtained before proceeding
Recognition of the competence boundary is necessary but not sufficient; Engineer A must also take affirmative action to escalate the matter so that a competent person can address the certification need
Engineer A Current Case Military Certification Refuser
Competence Boundary Recognition and Escalation Obligation
The ethical obligation extends beyond mere refusal to active escalation and identification of a competent path forward
There are comprehensive training programs available for this type of work, but training funds are not available
Competence Boundary Recognition — Engineer A Military Certification Refusal
Certification of arms storage room and rack compliance with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Technical Competence Scope
Engineer A, a civil engineer, recognizes that certifying compliance with detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations is outside Engineer A's domain competence, and refuses to provide the certification — fulfilling the obligation to recognize and act upon the competence limitation rather than proceeding under institutional pressure.
The competence boundary is defined not by general PE licensure or institutional role title but by actual domain expertise in the specific technical and regulatory framework at issue; civil engineering competence does not extend to military physical security and arms storage regulatory compliance.
While Engineer A may be a very competent engineer, Engineer A is clearly not knowledgeable in this very technical and complicated area.
Recognition of the competence boundary triggers the obligation to refuse and, where appropriate, escalate to ensure a competent engineer is engaged.
Making certain that a military hardware storage facility is designed and built safely involves keen awareness of many complex and detailed procedures, rules, and regulations that are unique to this field of endeavor.
the obligation of the engineer to practice solely within the engineer's area of professional competency (See Code Section II.2.a.)
Competence Boundary — Chemical Engineer County Surveyor Appointee (BER 85-3)
County surveyor position requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
In BER Case 85-3, a chemical engineer accepts appointment as county surveyor — a position requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — despite having no background or expertise in surveying, making it impossible to perform effective oversight and constituting an ethical violation.
The Board finds that accepting a public position whose core duties fall entirely outside one's domain of competence is unethical, even when the position formally requires only a PE license rather than a specific engineering discipline.
Engineer BER 85-3 Out-of-Competence County Surveyor Appointee
the Board decided it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor.
The Board determines it was unethical for the engineer to accept the position; the competence obligation applies equally in employment contexts as in consulting contexts, though with different structural constraints.
it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible in the usual employment context, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county.
the county commissioners met and decided to appoint an engineer, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering. The engineer accepted the position.
Competence Boundary — Engineer B Chemical Engineer Structural Footing Design (BER 94-8)
Structural footing design for industrial facility
In BER Case 94-8, Engineer B, a chemical engineer, accepts engagement to design structural footings for an industrial facility — a task outside Engineer B's domain competence — without establishing any subsequent training in foundation design, thereby violating the competence boundary obligation.
Chemical engineering training does not encompass structural foundation design; Engineer B's acceptance of this engagement without competence in the domain violates the principle that engineers must practice solely within their area of competency.
Engineer B BER 94-8 Out-of-Competence Structural Designer
The Board determines it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the structural footing design; competence boundary is non-negotiable.
It would not be ethical for Engineer A to certify as a qualified engineer the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks as requested by the Army official.
Beyond the Board's finding that certification would be unethical, Engineer A's obligation does not terminate at refusal. The refusal itself triggers an affirmative post-refusal duty: Engineer A must escalate the matter to appropriate supervisory authority, formally document the basis for refusal, and — to the extent possible — identify and refer a qualified expert in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations. Leaving the arms storage safety gap unaddressed after refusing to certify would itself constitute a failure to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. The ethical act of refusal is therefore necessary but not sufficient; it must be accompanied by constructive escalation to ensure the certification need is met by a competent professional.
The Board's conclusion implicitly establishes that institutional employment context — including the Army official's authority, Engineer A's role as Division Chief, and the withholding of training funds — does not alter the fundamental ethical prohibition against out-of-competence certification. However, the Board did not address a meaningful nuance: the institutional decision to withhold training funds, while it does not transfer or diminish Engineer A's individual ethical obligation, does create a shared organizational responsibility. The Army organization, by denying access to the very training programs that would remediate the competence gap, contributes to the conditions that make the certification request ethically impossible to fulfill. This institutional failure does not excuse Engineer A from refusal, but it does suggest that Engineer A has an additional obligation to formally communicate to supervisors that the training fund decision is a direct causal factor in the inability to fulfill the certification assignment — thereby creating an institutional record that may prompt systemic correction.
The Board's reasoning, when extended through the lens of the BER 85-3 precedent involving a chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor, reveals a deeper structural concern: the ethical problem in Engineer A's case may have originated not at the moment the certification was requested, but at the moment Engineer A accepted the Division Chief role without negotiating explicit boundaries around out-of-competence certification responsibilities. Where it is foreseeable at the time of role acceptance that a position will generate demands for certifications outside the engineer's domain of competence — as is plausible for a civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a military installation that houses arms storage facilities — the engineer bears a prospective obligation to either decline the role, negotiate explicit competence-bounded role terms, or immediately disclose the competence gap to supervisors upon accepting. Accepting the role without such disclosure or negotiation, and then encountering the certification demand as a surprise, reflects a failure of the pre-acceptance competence self-assessment obligation that the NSPE Code implicitly requires.
The Board's conclusion that certification would be unethical carries an important but unstated implication about the nature of professional certification itself: affixing a professional seal to an Army compliance certification document constitutes an implicit guarantee of substantive correctness, not merely a procedural formality. This means that Engineer A's potential certification would not simply be imprudent — it would constitute a form of professional deception, because the seal communicates to all relying parties, including installation personnel, Army oversight authorities, and the public, that the certifying engineer possesses the domain expertise necessary to verify compliance. The information asymmetry inherent in this situation — where relying parties have no realistic mechanism to detect that the certification was issued outside the engineer's domain of expertise — makes self-enforced competence boundaries the only reliable safeguard. This asymmetry underscores why the NSPE Code's competence provisions must be treated as categorical obligations rather than factors to be weighed against institutional convenience or resource constraints.
The Board's analysis, when extended through the BER 94-8 precedent, reveals a subtle but important tension in Engineer A's situation: the same NSPE Code provisions that obligate Engineer A to refuse the arms storage certification also obligate Engineer A to recognize and report out-of-competence work by peers. However, when the engineer whose competence is in question is Engineer A themselves, the self-assessment process is vulnerable to motivated reasoning, role pressure, and institutional deference. The ethical robustness of Engineer A's refusal therefore depends not only on the sincerity of the self-assessment but on whether that assessment is grounded in objective criteria — such as the specific, lengthy, and detailed nature of the Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations, the existence of comprehensive training programs designed precisely because this domain requires specialized preparation, and the cross-referencing complexity of the regulatory framework. These objective markers of domain complexity provide the same kind of external anchor that Engineer A would use to challenge a peer's competence in BER 94-8, and they confirm that Engineer A's self-assessed incompetence is not merely subjective diffidence but a professionally defensible conclusion.
In response to Q101, Engineer A has an affirmative obligation to proactively disclose the competence gap before any formal certification request arrives, not merely to refuse when the request is made. The NSPE Code's requirement to practice only within areas of qualified competence is not a reactive standard triggered by a formal demand; it is a continuous professional obligation. Once Engineer A accepted the Division Chief role and became aware that arms storage certification might fall within the scope of that role, the ethical duty to surface the competence gap to relevant supervisors was activated. Waiting silently until the Army official formally requests the certification and then refusing creates unnecessary institutional disruption, potential safety delays, and reputational harm to the organization. Proactive disclosure allows the institution to arrange for a qualified expert in advance, protecting public safety more effectively than a last-minute refusal. The principle that institutional role does not expand competence reinforces this conclusion: Engineer A should have recognized from the outset that the Division Chief title conferred no new technical authority over Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations.
In response to Q102, refusal alone does not fully discharge Engineer A's ethical responsibilities after declining the certification. The paramount public welfare principle imposes a positive duty beyond mere non-participation in unethical acts. After refusing, Engineer A is ethically required to: (1) formally document the refusal and the reasons for it in writing so that the competence gap is on institutional record; (2) proactively identify and refer a qualified expert in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations who could properly perform the certification; (3) escalate the matter to higher supervisory authority to ensure the safety gap does not persist unaddressed; and (4) advocate, where feasible, for institutional remediation such as securing training funds or modifying role assignments so that the structural mismatch between the Division Chief role and arms storage certification demands is corrected prospectively. The BER 94-8 precedent's graduated escalation model — from direct engagement to supervisor notification to broader authority — provides a useful framework for this post-refusal conduct. Passive refusal without follow-through leaves the arms storage safety risk unresolved and is inconsistent with the engineer's obligation to hold public welfare paramount.
In response to Q103, the Army organization's institutional decision to withhold training funds does create a form of shared organizational responsibility for the competence gap, but this shared responsibility does not diminish Engineer A's individual ethical obligations in any degree. The NSPE Code's competence standard is personal and non-delegable: it attaches to the individual engineer regardless of whether the institutional environment facilitated or obstructed competence development. The unavailability of training funds is a relevant contextual fact that explains how the gap arose, but it functions as neither a legal defense nor an ethical excuse for certifying outside one's domain. At the same time, the institutional failure is ethically significant in a different register: it creates an organizational obligation on the Army installation to remedy the structural mismatch — either by funding the required training, reassigning the certification responsibility to a qualified engineer, or engaging an outside expert. Engineer A may appropriately invoke the institution's role in creating the gap when escalating the refusal to higher authority, framing the issue not merely as personal limitation but as a systemic resource allocation failure that the organization must address. This framing serves public safety more effectively than a purely individualistic account of the refusal.
In response to Q104, there is a meaningful ethical distinction in the institutional pressures present in the two contexts, but the core competence obligation is identical regardless of whether Engineer A acts as a civilian employee or an independent consultant. As a civilian employee, Engineer A faces structural pressures — career consequences, hierarchical authority, organizational loyalty — that an independent consultant does not face to the same degree. These pressures make the ethical violation more psychologically understandable if Engineer A were to comply, but they do not make compliance more ethically permissible. The NSPE Code explicitly provides that engineers must resist employer and client pressure when that pressure conflicts with professional obligations, and the employer-employee relationship is expressly contemplated as a context where this resistance is required. If anything, the employment context heightens the ethical importance of refusal because the information asymmetry is greater: the Army official may reasonably assume that the Division Chief assigned to certify the rooms has the requisite competence, making the deceptive dimension of an out-of-competence certification more acute in the employment setting than in a consulting engagement where the scope of services is typically negotiated more explicitly. The BER 85-3 county surveyor precedent confirms that accepting an institutional role does not transform an engineer's competence, and the same logic applies here regardless of the employment versus consulting distinction.
In response to Q201, the apparent tension between the public welfare paramount principle and the competence boundary principle dissolves upon closer analysis: an incompetent certification does not serve public welfare — it actively undermines it. The argument that someone must certify the arms storage rooms to ensure safety oversight occurs rests on a false premise, namely that an out-of-competence certification provides meaningful safety assurance. In reality, a certification issued by an engineer who lacks the training and knowledge to evaluate compliance with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations provides only the appearance of safety verification while leaving the actual risks unexamined. This is more dangerous than no certification at all because it creates false institutional confidence that the storage facilities have been properly evaluated. The public welfare principle therefore does not conflict with the competence boundary principle in this case; rather, both principles converge on the same conclusion: Engineer A must refuse, and the institution must find a genuinely qualified certifier. The resolution of this apparent tension also clarifies why the competence standard is not merely a professional guild protection rule but a direct instrument of public safety.
In response to Q202, the boundary between appropriate deference to institutional authority and principled refusal is located precisely at the point where compliance would require Engineer A to make a professional representation — through certification — that exceeds the engineer's actual competence. Engineer A owes the Army official reasonable responsiveness to legitimate organizational requests that fall within the civil engineering domain, and deference to military authority on matters of operational judgment is appropriate. However, the Army official's request crosses into a domain where the official lacks the authority to override professional competence standards: no institutional authority, military or civilian, can confer technical competence by directive. The NSPE Code's employer pressure non-exemption principle makes clear that the employment relationship does not subordinate professional obligations to organizational hierarchy. Engineer A should engage the Army official respectfully and constructively — explaining the competence gap, offering to assist in identifying a qualified expert, and proposing alternative ways to address the certification need — rather than treating the refusal as a purely adversarial act. This approach honors the legitimate organizational interest while maintaining the non-negotiable professional boundary.
In response to Q203, the self-assessment context does not create a disqualifying blind spot, but it does impose a heightened duty of intellectual honesty. In BER 94-8, Engineer A assessed Engineer B's competence from the outside, with the epistemic advantage of observing another's work. In the current case, Engineer A must assess their own competence from the inside, which carries the risk of motivated reasoning — the temptation to conclude that one's general engineering background is sufficient when institutional pressure favors that conclusion. The virtue ethics principle of intellectual honesty, and the NSPE Code's competence standard, together require Engineer A to apply the same rigorous, disinterested standard to self-assessment that would be applied when evaluating a colleague. The objective markers of competence — formal training in Army physical security regulations, documented experience with arms, ammunition, and explosives compliance, and familiarity with the cross-referenced regulatory framework — are external and verifiable, which reduces the subjectivity of the self-assessment. Engineer A's acknowledged lack of significant training or knowledge in these areas provides a sufficiently clear factual basis for the competence conclusion without requiring the kind of nuanced peer judgment that might be more susceptible to bias. The self-assessment obligation is therefore not undermined by the absence of an external observer; it is anchored by objective competence criteria.
In response to Q204, the principle of graduated response does not support partial or conditional engagement with the certification request as an alternative to outright refusal. The graduated escalation model from BER 94-8 applies to situations where an engineer is challenging a colleague's out-of-competence work and must navigate the confrontation carefully to avoid unnecessary professional conflict. It does not apply to the question of whether an engineer should personally certify documents outside their competence. A professional certification is a binary act: either the engineer has the competence to make the substantive guarantee that certification implies, or they do not. There is no ethically coherent middle position of partial certification or conditional sign-off that would preserve the integrity of the certification while acknowledging the competence gap, because the certification's value to the institution and the public depends entirely on its unconditional character. A conditional certification — one that says, in effect, 'I certify compliance to the extent my limited knowledge allows' — would be misleading rather than transparent, because it would still carry the professional seal's implied guarantee while quietly disclaiming the knowledge that guarantee requires. Outright refusal, accompanied by proactive escalation and expert referral, is the only response consistent with both the competence standard and the prohibition on affixing a professional seal to documents dealing with subject matter outside one's competence.
In response to Q301, from a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty to refuse the certification is categorical and does not yield to institutional consequences. The NSPE Code's competence obligation functions as a deontological constraint rather than a factor to be weighed against outcomes: it prohibits out-of-competence certification regardless of whether refusal causes career repercussions, mission disruption, or administrative friction. This categorical character is not incidental — it is the source of the professional seal's social value. If the competence obligation were merely a presumption that could be overridden by sufficiently weighty institutional interests, the professional certification system would lose its reliability as a public safety mechanism. The deontological framing also clarifies why the unavailability of training funds is ethically irrelevant to the certification decision: a categorical duty does not admit resource-based exceptions. Engineer A cannot certify because training funds were unavailable any more than a physician could perform surgery outside their specialty because the hospital failed to fund the relevant residency. The duty is owed to the public, not to the institution, and the institution's resource failures do not transfer the duty's burden to the public in the form of degraded safety assurance.
In response to Q302, from a consequentialist perspective, the potential harms from an incompetent arms storage certification decisively outweigh any institutional benefit from compliance. Arms storage facilities housing weapons, ammunition, and explosives present risks of catastrophic harm — including accidental detonation, unauthorized access, and mass casualty events — that are qualitatively different from the risks associated with most civil engineering certification errors. An incompetent certification of such facilities does not merely fail to reduce these risks; it actively increases them by creating false institutional confidence that may delay or prevent proper inspection by a qualified expert. The institutional benefit of compliance — avoiding administrative friction and maintaining the Army official's satisfaction — is comparatively trivial. Moreover, the consequentialist calculus must account for systemic effects: if engineers routinely certified outside their competence under institutional pressure, the professional certification system would lose its reliability as a public safety signal, producing diffuse harms across all domains where certifications are relied upon. The consequentialist analysis therefore reinforces rather than challenges the deontological conclusion, confirming that refusal is the correct outcome under both frameworks.
In response to Q303, from a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A demonstrates the cardinal professional virtues of intellectual honesty and integrity precisely by recognizing and openly declaring the limits of civil engineering competence rather than allowing institutional title, role authority, or hierarchical pressure to substitute for genuine domain expertise. The virtue of intellectual honesty requires an engineer to maintain an accurate self-model of their capabilities and to communicate that model truthfully to those who rely on their professional judgment. The virtue of integrity requires that the engineer's outward professional representations — including the act of certification — correspond to their actual competence rather than to their institutional position or the expectations of authority figures. Engineer A's situation also tests the virtue of courage: refusing a request from a military authority figure in an employment context requires the willingness to accept potential career consequences in defense of professional principle. A virtuous engineer does not merely comply with the letter of the competence rule when convenient; they internalize the values underlying the rule — public safety, professional honesty, and the social trust that professional certification systems depend upon — and act from those values even under pressure.
In response to Q304, from a deontological perspective, affixing a professional seal to an Army compliance certification constitutes an implicit guarantee of substantive correctness that makes out-of-competence certification a form of professional deception independent of whether any actual harm results. The professional seal is not merely a signature; it is a communicative act that carries a specific meaning within the professional and regulatory community: it represents that the signing engineer has the competence to evaluate the subject matter and has done so. When Engineer A lacks the training and knowledge to evaluate compliance with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations, affixing the seal transmits a false representation of competence to all who rely on the certification — the Army official, installation personnel, oversight bodies, and ultimately the public. This deception is categorical: it occurs at the moment of signing regardless of whether the underlying storage facilities happen to be compliant or non-compliant, and regardless of whether any harm subsequently materializes. The deontological duty of truthfulness is therefore violated by the act of certification itself, not merely by its consequences. This analysis reinforces the Board's conclusion by grounding it not only in the competence standard but in the independent prohibition on professional misrepresentation.
In response to Q401, if training funds had been available and Engineer A had completed the comprehensive training programs before the certification request was made, the ethical analysis would shift substantially but would not automatically render certification permissible. Completion of formal training programs is a necessary but not necessarily sufficient condition for competence under the NSPE Code's standard, which requires qualification by education or experience in the specific technical field. The complexity and cross-referenced character of Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations — described in the case facts as specific, lengthy, and detailed — suggests that training alone, without practical application experience, might not satisfy the competence threshold for a certification that carries public safety implications of this magnitude. Whether post-training certification would be permissible would depend on the depth and rigor of the training, whether it covered the full scope of the applicable regulations, and whether Engineer A had sufficient supervised or independent experience applying those regulations to actual facilities. The training availability counterfactual therefore does not produce a simple yes-or-no answer; it opens a more nuanced inquiry into what combination of education and experience would be required to meet the competence standard for this specific certification domain.
In response to Q402, if Engineer A had accepted the certification without disclosing the competence gap, the Army official, installation personnel, and broader public would have had virtually no realistic mechanism to detect that the certification was issued outside the engineer's domain of expertise. This information asymmetry is the central systemic reason why the professional competence standard must be self-enforced rather than externally verified at the point of certification. The Army official is not an engineer and cannot independently assess whether Engineer A's civil engineering background qualifies them to evaluate Army physical security regulations. Installation personnel relying on the certified rooms would have no basis to question the certification's validity. Oversight bodies reviewing the certification would see a professional engineer's seal and have no reason to investigate the certifying engineer's specific competence in the arms storage domain. This near-total opacity to external detection means that the professional competence obligation functions as a trust-based system: its integrity depends entirely on engineers voluntarily refusing assignments outside their competence. The counterfactual therefore reveals that the ethical rule against out-of-competence certification is not merely a personal professional obligation but a systemic public safety mechanism whose effectiveness is entirely dependent on individual engineer integrity.
In response to Q403, proactively identifying and referring a qualified expert after refusing the certification would substantially discharge Engineer A's immediate ethical responsibilities but would not fully exhaust all residual obligations. The referral addresses the acute safety gap by ensuring that the certification need is met by a competent professional. However, Engineer A retains a residual obligation to advocate for institutional changes that would prevent the same competence mismatch from recurring — specifically, to formally document and communicate to appropriate supervisory authority that the Division Chief role as currently structured creates foreseeable demands for arms storage certification that exceed the competence of a civil engineer without specialized training. This advocacy obligation derives from the public welfare paramount principle: if Engineer A can foresee that the structural mismatch will generate future out-of-competence certification requests, silence after the immediate refusal leaves the systemic problem unaddressed. Whether Engineer A has an obligation to personally advocate for securing training funds is a weaker claim — that is more appropriately characterized as a commendable professional contribution than a strict ethical requirement — but the obligation to formally document the role-competence mismatch and escalate it to institutional decision-makers is a genuine ethical duty, not merely a supererogatory act.
In response to Q404, drawing on the BER 85-3 precedent, a negotiated role boundary that excluded arms storage certification from the Division Chief assignment would have been ethically preferable to accepting the role without such a boundary, but the BER 85-3 reasoning suggests that the ethical analysis does not stop there. BER 85-3 concluded that a chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor faced an irreconcilable conflict between the role's inherent demands and the engineer's competence, such that whatever course of action the engineer took was ethically problematic. Applied to the current case, if the Division Chief role inherently and foreseeably encompasses arms storage certification as a core function — not merely an occasional peripheral request — then accepting the role on the condition that arms storage certification would be excluded might be ethically insufficient if that exclusion is not institutionally sustainable or if the role cannot be meaningfully performed without that function. The negotiated boundary approach is ethically sound only if the excluded function can be reliably reassigned to a qualified engineer and the remaining role responsibilities fall within Engineer A's competence. If the arms storage certification function is so central to the Division Chief role that excluding it creates an unworkable role definition, the BER 85-3 reasoning would suggest that Engineer A should have declined the appointment entirely rather than accepting a role whose core demands were foreseeable to exceed the engineer's competence.
The apparent tension between the principle that public welfare is paramount and the principle that an engineer must not certify outside their domain of competence is resolved not by choosing one over the other, but by recognizing that they point in the same direction in this case. An incompetent certification of arms storage rooms and racks — covering detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations that Engineer A has never studied — would not advance public safety; it would undermine it by creating a false assurance of compliance where none actually exists. The certification would function as a safety checkpoint that has been bypassed rather than cleared. Accordingly, the public welfare principle, properly understood, reinforces rather than conflicts with the competence boundary principle: refusing to certify is itself the pro-safety act. This case teaches that public welfare cannot be invoked to justify an incompetent certification on the grounds that 'some oversight is better than none,' because a fraudulent checkpoint is more dangerous than an acknowledged gap, since it forecloses further scrutiny.
The tension between resisting employer and client pressure and owing appropriate deference to legitimate organizational authority is resolved in this case by the principle that institutional authority cannot expand professional competence. The Army official holds genuine organizational authority over Engineer A as a civilian employee, and that authority is legitimate within its proper domain. However, the NSPE Code's obligation to resist pressure from employers and clients applies precisely when that pressure would cause an engineer to act outside their competence — the employment relationship does not create a carve-out from the competence requirement. The Division Chief role and the Army official's directive together constitute institutional pressure, but neither the title nor the directive supplies the missing knowledge of Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations. This case establishes that the boundary between appropriate organizational deference and principled refusal is located at the point where compliance would require the engineer to certify matters they are not qualified to evaluate: up to that line, deference is appropriate; beyond it, refusal is mandatory regardless of the authority's rank or the institutional inconvenience caused.
The principle that a professional certification constitutes a guarantee of substantive compliance — not merely a procedural formality — resolves any temptation toward partial or conditional engagement with the certification request. One might argue, drawing on the principle of graduated or escalating response, that Engineer A should attempt a conditional certification, a partial review, or a qualified sign-off before resorting to outright refusal. This case rejects that path. Because affixing a professional seal to an Army compliance certification implicitly represents that the engineer has the knowledge necessary to evaluate what is being certified, any partial or conditional certification by Engineer A would still constitute a form of professional deception: it would signal domain competence that does not exist. The principle of professional certification as guarantee thus takes priority over any graduated-response principle in contexts where the engineer lacks the foundational competence to evaluate even a portion of the regulated subject matter. The case further teaches that the complexity and cross-referenced nature of the Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations — which are described as specific, lengthy, and detailed — makes partial competence particularly implausible, reinforcing the conclusion that the only ethically available response is full refusal accompanied by escalation and referral to a qualified expert.
Consulting Firm Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement BER 94-8 Instance
The Board acknowledged that in consulting practice, firms have flexibility to engage subconsultants to fill competence gaps, but found this option was not feasible in BER 94-8 because Engineer B was retained exclusively for the structural footing design task.
Engineer B (chemical engineer, BER Case 94-8) / Consulting firm
Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Obligation
If Engineer B as a consultant to the contractor lacked competence in structural foundation design, Engineer B was obligated to engage a qualified structural engineer as subconsultant rather than performing the out-of-competence work directly — though the Board noted this was not feasible given that Engineer B was retained specifically and solely to design the structural footings.
At the time Engineer B accepted the engagement
If Engineer B were to seek a separate firm to perform that task, the Board would have to seriously wonder what it was Engineer B was actually hired to perform and for what Engineer B was being paid
Consulting Firm Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Flexibility Constraint
The BER's discussion of BER Case 85-3 articulated the consulting context's greater flexibility to remediate competence gaps through workforce structuring, contrasting with the employment context's practical limitations.
Engineering Consulting Firms (general principle)
Engineering consulting firms that lack competence in a domain required for a client engagement are permitted — and obligated — to supply that competence through subcontracts, joint ventures, or additional qualified personnel, rather than performing the out-of-competence work directly, reflecting the greater flexibility of the consulting context compared to employment contexts.
NSPE Code II.2.a; BER Case 85-3 discussion
if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the Code, the firm should retain individuals with that expertise
Ongoing; applicable to all consulting engagements involving competence gaps
In the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility and may be able to structure its work force to fit the needs and requirements of a particular job
engineering firms frequently establish joint ventures and subcontracts, hire additional qualified personnel, or make other arrangements in order to serve the needs of a client more effectively and efficiently
Should Engineer A certify the arms storage rooms and racks as compliant with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations, or refuse the certification on the grounds of lacking domain-specific competence?
Engineer A, a civil PE serving as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a U.S. Army installation, is directed by an Army official to certify that arms storage rooms and racks comply with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations — a specialized regulatory domain in which Engineer A has no significant training or knowledge. Training programs exist but funds were withheld. The core question is whether Engineer A must refuse the certification or may proceed under institutional role authority and resource-constraint justification.
Decline to certify the arms storage rooms and racks, formally communicating to the Army official that Engineer A lacks the domain-specific training and knowledge in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations required to make the substantive guarantee that a professional certification implies.
Proceed with certification on the basis that the Division Chief role carries institutional responsibility for this function and that Engineer A's general PE licensure, combined with a reasonable inspection of the physical facilities, provides a sufficient professional basis — treating the certification as a procedural administrative function rather than a specialized technical attestation.
Certify compliance to the extent that civil engineering principles apply — such as structural adequacy of racks and rooms — while formally noting in the certification document that specialized arms, ammunition, and explosives regulatory review was outside the scope of Engineer A's expertise, treating this as a partial good-faith engagement rather than a full refusal.
Engineer A BER 94-8 Competency Challenger
After refusing the certification, should Engineer A limit the response to the immediate refusal, or must Engineer A also proactively escalate, formally document the competence gap, and identify a qualified expert to ensure the safety need is met?
Having refused or anticipating refusal of the certification, Engineer A must decide what affirmative post-refusal obligations to discharge — including proactive disclosure of the competence gap before a formal request arrives, formal documentation of the refusal, escalation to supervisory authority, and identification of a qualified expert — to ensure the arms storage safety gap does not remain unaddressed.
Refuse the certification, formally document the refusal and the competence gap in writing, escalate the matter to higher supervisory authority, proactively identify and refer a qualified expert in Army physical security and explosives regulations, and formally communicate that the withholding of training funds is a causal factor — discharging both the immediate and residual public welfare obligations.
Communicate the refusal verbally or in writing to the Army official and leave it to the institution to identify an alternative certifier, on the grounds that Engineer A's individual ethical obligation is fully discharged by declining the out-of-competence assignment and that further escalation or advocacy exceeds the scope of individual professional duty.
Before any formal certification request is made, proactively notify the Army official and relevant supervisors of the competence gap and the structural mismatch created by the Division Chief role, propose that a qualified expert be identified in advance, and formally document the training fund deficiency — preventing institutional disruption and protecting public safety more effectively than a last-minute refusal.
Should Engineer A treat the Army official's certification directive as a legitimate organizational authority to be accommodated through negotiated role boundaries, or resist it as an impermissible direction that exceeds the scope of any authority to override professional competence standards?
Engineer A must determine whether accepting the Division Chief role — which foreseeably encompasses arms storage certification demands that exceed civil engineering competence — was itself ethically permissible, and whether the appropriate response to institutional authority directing certification is principled refusal or a negotiated role boundary that excludes out-of-competence functions.
Treat the Army official's certification directive as an impermissible direction that exceeds any authority to override professional competence standards, refuse the certification on principled grounds, and engage the official respectfully to explain the competence gap and propose identification of a qualified expert — maintaining the non-negotiable professional boundary while honoring the legitimate organizational interest.
Engage the Army official and supervisors to formally negotiate a role boundary that excludes arms storage certification from the Division Chief assignment, proposing that this function be reassigned to a qualified engineer or outside expert, while continuing to fulfill all other Division Chief responsibilities that fall within civil engineering competence.
Proceed with the certification under the Army official's directive while formally documenting in writing that the certification is issued under institutional direction and that Engineer A's civil engineering background does not include specialized training in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations — treating the documented reservation as sufficient to discharge the transparency obligation.
Should Engineer A refuse to certify the arms storage rooms and racks, attempt a conditional or partial certification acknowledging the competence gap, or certify as requested under institutional authority?
Engineer A, a civil engineer serving as Building and Grounds Division Chief at a military installation, is asked by an Army official to certify arms storage rooms and racks as compliant with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations — a domain for which Engineer A lacks training or experience. The core decision is whether to certify, refuse outright, or attempt a conditional engagement with the request.
Decline to certify the arms storage rooms and racks on the grounds of lacking qualified competence in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations; formally document the refusal in writing; and proactively escalate to supervisory authority while identifying a qualified expert to fulfill the certification need.
Certify only the structural and physical adequacy of the storage rooms within civil engineering competence — such as load-bearing capacity and construction integrity — while formally noting in the certification document that compliance with Army physical security and explosives regulations has not been evaluated, leaving that portion to a specialist.
Accept the Army official's direction and certify the arms storage rooms and racks as Division Chief, reasoning that the institutional role carries delegated authority for this function and that the Army's own inspection mechanisms provide a redundant safety backstop independent of the engineer's certification.
Should Engineer A proactively disclose the competence gap to supervisors before any formal certification request is made and, after refusing, take affirmative steps including written documentation, expert referral, and escalation — or is timely refusal at the point of request sufficient to discharge the ethical obligation?
Having refused or anticipating refusal of the certification, Engineer A must decide whether to proactively disclose the competence gap to supervisors before a formal certification request arrives, and what affirmative post-refusal steps — documentation, escalation, expert referral, and institutional advocacy — are required to discharge the full scope of ethical obligations beyond the act of refusal itself.
Disclose the competence gap to supervisors immediately upon recognizing that arms storage certification falls within the Division Chief role's scope — before any formal request arrives — and, after refusing the certification, formally document the refusal, refer a qualified expert, escalate to higher authority, and communicate the institutional training fund decision as a causal factor in the gap.
Wait until the Army official formally requests the certification, then refuse on competence grounds and refer the matter to a qualified expert in Army physical security regulations, without proactive prior disclosure or formal written documentation of the institutional training fund issue.
Refuse the certification request and create a written record of the refusal for personal professional protection, but defer escalation and expert referral to the Army official's discretion, reasoning that identifying a replacement certifier falls within the requesting authority's organizational responsibility rather than the refusing engineer's.
Should Engineer A actively advocate for state board certification rule modification and restoration of training funds as part of fulfilling the ethical obligation arising from this case, or is such advocacy beyond the scope of individual duty once the immediate refusal and expert referral have been completed?
After refusing the certification and escalating the immediate safety gap, Engineer A must decide whether to advocate for structural institutional changes — such as modifying state board certification rules to address the civilian-engineer-in-military-role competence mismatch, or formally pressing the Army to restore training funds — or whether such advocacy exceeds the scope of individual ethical obligation and is better characterized as a commendable but optional professional contribution.
Formally document the role-competence mismatch in writing to supervisory authority, communicate that the training fund decision is a direct causal factor, and actively advocate — through appropriate professional channels — for state board certification rule modifications that would prevent civilian engineers from being assigned military regulatory certification responsibilities outside their competence.
Formally document the role-competence mismatch and the training fund causal factor in writing to immediate supervisors, fulfilling the escalation duty, but treat state board rule advocacy and training fund restoration as organizational management decisions beyond the individual engineer's ethical responsibility.
Consider state board rule modification advocacy and training fund restoration efforts as commendable professional contributions to be pursued if Engineer A chooses, but not as binding ethical obligations — focusing individual duty solely on the immediate refusal, written documentation, and expert referral already completed.
After refusing to certify the arms storage compliance, should Engineer A treat the refusal as fully discharging the ethical obligation, or must Engineer A take affirmative post-refusal steps — including escalation, documentation, expert referral, and institutional advocacy — to ensure the safety gap does not remain unaddressed?
Having refused to certify the arms storage rooms and racks, Engineer A must determine what affirmative obligations arise after the refusal. The question is whether Engineer A's ethical duty is fully discharged by the act of refusal alone, or whether the paramount public welfare principle and the post-refusal escalation obligation require Engineer A to take additional constructive steps — including escalating to supervisory authority, formally documenting the refusal, identifying qualified experts, and advocating for systemic institutional remediation of the role-competence mismatch.
After refusing, formally document the refusal and competence gap in writing, escalate the matter to supervisory authority and the requesting Army official, proactively identify and refer a qualified expert in Army physical security and explosives regulations, and formally communicate that the Army's withholding of training funds is a causal factor in the inability to fulfill the assignment — creating an institutional record that prompts systemic remediation.
After refusing, communicate the refusal to the Army official and leave it to the Army organization to identify alternative certification resources, on the basis that Engineer A's professional obligation is fully discharged by declining the out-of-competence assignment and that further institutional problem-solving is the Army's organizational responsibility rather than the engineer's.
After refusing, identify and refer a qualified expert to address the immediate certification need, and additionally advocate formally for the Army to fund the available comprehensive training programs so that Engineer A or a successor Division Chief can develop the requisite competence prospectively — treating both the acute safety gap and the structural role-competence mismatch as within the scope of post-refusal obligations.
Should Engineer A refuse to certify the arms storage rooms and racks on grounds of lacking domain competence, or comply with the Army official's request relying on general civil engineering expertise and institutional role authority?
Engineer A must decide whether to certify arms storage rooms and racks as a qualified engineer despite lacking education or experience in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations — a domain distinct from civil engineering — when the Army official requests the certification and training funds have been withheld.
Decline to certify the arms storage rooms and racks, formally communicating to the Army official that Engineer A lacks the requisite education and experience in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations to make the substantive guarantee that affixing a professional seal requires.
Proceed with certification on the basis that the Division Chief role carries organizational responsibility for the certification function and that civil engineering expertise provides sufficient adjacent competence to evaluate the structural and physical security adequacy of the storage facilities.
Provide a qualified or conditional certification that explicitly notes the limits of Engineer A's expertise in Army-specific regulations while attesting to the structural and physical adequacy assessable from a civil engineering standpoint, leaving Army-specific regulatory compliance to a subsequent specialist review.
After refusing the arms storage certification, should Engineer A take affirmative post-refusal steps — documenting the refusal, escalating to supervisors, identifying a qualified expert, and formally communicating the institutional role-competence mismatch — or treat the act of refusal itself as a complete discharge of ethical obligation?
Having refused the certification, Engineer A must decide the scope of post-refusal obligations — whether to take affirmative steps including formal documentation, escalation to supervisory authority, identification of a qualified expert, and advocacy for institutional remediation of the role-competence mismatch, or to treat refusal alone as a complete discharge of ethical responsibility.
Formally document the refusal in writing with stated competence grounds, escalate to higher supervisory authority, proactively identify and refer a qualified expert in Army physical security and explosives regulations, and formally communicate to supervisors that the withholding of training funds is a direct causal factor in the competence gap — creating an institutional record that prompts systemic correction.
Verbally decline the certification and informally suggest that the Army official seek a qualified expert, without creating formal written documentation of the refusal or escalating the competence gap and training fund issue to higher supervisory authority — treating the refusal as a personal professional boundary rather than an institutional matter requiring systemic response.
Formally document the refusal and refer the Army official to seek a qualified expert, but limit post-refusal obligations to the immediate certification request without formally escalating the structural role-competence mismatch or advocating for training fund restoration — on the grounds that systemic institutional advocacy exceeds the individual engineer's ethical duty and is more appropriately addressed through organizational channels initiated by supervisors.
Should Engineer A have proactively disclosed the arms storage competence gap to supervisors upon accepting the Division Chief role — before any formal certification request was made — or was it ethically sufficient to wait until the request arrived and refuse at that point?
Engineer A must decide whether the competence obligation was triggered at the moment the certification was formally requested or at the earlier moment of accepting the Division Chief role — and whether proactive pre-request disclosure of the competence gap to supervisors was ethically required, rather than waiting to refuse when the request arrived.
Upon accepting the Division Chief role, proactively notify supervisors and the Army official of the competence gap in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations — before any formal certification request is made — so that the institution can arrange for a qualified expert in advance and Engineer A can negotiate explicit competence-bounded role terms.
Accept the Division Chief role without proactive disclosure of the competence gap, on the grounds that the obligation to surface a competence limitation is triggered only by a concrete certification demand — and that premature disclosure of a hypothetical gap before any request is made would be organizationally disruptive and potentially unnecessary if the certification demand never materializes.
Decline the Division Chief appointment on the grounds that the role foreseeably encompasses arms storage certification demands that exceed Engineer A's competence and cannot be reliably excluded or reassigned — following the BER 85-3 reasoning that where out-of-competence demands are a core and foreseeable function of the role, the engineer should decline the appointment rather than accept and later refuse specific tasks.
Should Engineer A certify the arms storage rooms and racks as requested by the Army official, or refuse the certification on the grounds of lacking qualified competence in Army physical security and explosives regulations?
Engineer A, serving as civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a military installation, is asked by an Army official to certify arms storage rooms and racks as compliant with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations — a specialized regulatory domain for which Engineer A has no training or experience, and for which training funds have been withheld.
Decline to certify the arms storage rooms and racks, formally communicating to the Army official that Engineer A lacks the requisite education and experience in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations to make the substantive guarantee that affixing a professional seal would imply.
Proceed with certification on the basis that the Division Chief role carries formal organizational authority to certify, that civil engineering competence provides sufficient adjacent expertise to evaluate structural and physical security adequacy, and that the Army official's directive represents legitimate institutional authority that Engineer A as a civilian employee is obligated to respect.
Certify those aspects of the arms storage rooms falling within civil engineering competence — such as structural adequacy of footings and room construction — while explicitly noting in the certification document that the specialized arms, ammunition, and explosives regulatory compliance elements have not been evaluated, thereby providing partial institutional assurance while disclosing the competence boundary.
After refusing the arms storage certification, should Engineer A limit the response to the immediate refusal and referral of a qualified expert, or must Engineer A also proactively escalate the role-competence mismatch to supervisory authority and advocate for institutional remediation of the structural conditions that created the gap?
Having refused or anticipating refusal of the arms storage certification, Engineer A must determine what affirmative post-refusal obligations arise — including whether to proactively disclose the competence gap before a formal request arrives, escalate to supervisory authority, formally document the refusal, identify and refer a qualified expert, and advocate for institutional changes such as securing training funds or modifying the role structure.
After refusing, formally document the refusal and its competence basis in writing, escalate the matter to higher supervisory authority, identify and refer a qualified expert in Army physical security and explosives regulations, and formally communicate to supervisors that the Army's withholding of training funds is a direct causal factor in the competence gap — framing the issue as a systemic organizational failure requiring institutional remediation.
Limit the response to declining the certification and identifying a qualified expert who can properly perform it, treating the referral as fully discharging Engineer A's ethical responsibilities without further escalation, formal documentation, or institutional advocacy — on the basis that the engineer's duty is to avoid personal ethical violation and that systemic remediation is the organization's responsibility, not the individual engineer's.
Treat the competence obligation as continuous rather than reactive by proactively disclosing the competence gap to the Army official and relevant supervisors before any formal certification request arrives — allowing the institution to arrange for a qualified expert in advance — and then, if the request is made anyway, refuse and escalate through the graduated BER 94-8 model, but without personally advocating for training fund restoration or role restructuring beyond what is necessary to address the immediate safety gap.
Should Engineer A have accepted the Division Chief role without restriction, accepted it only with a negotiated exclusion of arms storage certification responsibilities, or declined the appointment entirely given the foreseeable arms storage certification demands that exceed civil engineering competence?
Drawing on the BER 85-3 precedent involving a chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor, Engineer A's ethical situation raises the question of whether the ethical failure originated not when the certification was requested but when the Division Chief role was accepted without disclosing the foreseeable arms storage competence gap or negotiating explicit role boundaries — and whether a negotiated exclusion of arms storage certification from the role would have been ethically sufficient.
At the time of appointment, either decline the Division Chief role on the grounds that its foreseeable arms storage certification demands exceed civil engineering competence, or accept only on the explicit condition that arms storage certification responsibilities are formally excluded from the assignment and reliably reassigned to a qualified engineer — proactively disclosing the competence gap to supervisors so the institution can arrange appropriate coverage before the need arises.
Accept the Division Chief appointment without pre-negotiating role boundaries, on the basis that the arms storage certification demand was not certain to arise, that civil engineering competence covers the primary infrastructure functions of the role, and that any out-of-competence requests can be refused on a case-by-case basis when they materialize — treating the competence obligation as a reactive standard triggered by specific requests rather than a prospective constraint on role acceptance.
Accept the Division Chief appointment but immediately upon acceptance — before any certification request arrives — formally disclose to supervisors that arms storage certification falls outside civil engineering competence, request that training funds be allocated or that a qualified specialist be identified for that function, and document this disclosure so that the institution has an opportunity to remediate the structural mismatch prospectively rather than encountering it as a crisis at the moment of a formal request.
Should Engineer A certify the arms storage rooms and racks as requested by the Army official, or refuse on the grounds that the certification falls outside the domain of qualified competence?
Engineer A must decide whether to certify arms storage rooms and racks as a qualified engineer despite lacking the requisite education or experience in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations — a domain-specific competence gap that cannot be remedied by civil engineering credentials or institutional title alone.
Decline to certify the arms storage rooms and racks on the grounds that Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations constitute a specialized domain outside Engineer A's qualified competence, and communicate this refusal clearly to the Army official.
Certify the structural and civil engineering aspects of the arms storage rooms within acknowledged competence while explicitly noting in the certification document that compliance with specialized arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations has not been independently verified, relying on the Army's own regulatory expertise to fill the gap.
Accept that the Division Chief role carries institutional certification authority delegated by the Army, and proceed with certification on the basis that the Army official's direction constitutes a legitimate organizational mandate that Engineer A, as a civilian employee, is obligated to fulfill within the chain of command.
Disinterested Peer Reporting — Engineer A Challenges Engineer B Competence (BER 94-8)
Professional Reciprocity and Collegial Solidarity Principle
In BER Case 94-8, Engineer A has an objective basis to assess Engineer B's lack of competence in structural foundation design and bears an ethical obligation to confront Engineer B, recommend withdrawal, and if necessary escalate to the contractor and authorities — grounded in professional duty rather than competitive interest.
Engineer A's obligation to report is grounded in professional duty to protect the public and the integrity of engineering practice; the absence of competitive motive between Engineer A and Engineer B confirms the ethical legitimacy of the reporting obligation.
Disinterested Professional Duty to Report Peer Misconduct
Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
Professional duty to report peer incompetence overrides collegial deference; Engineer A must confront Engineer B and escalate if Engineer B refuses to withdraw.
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 has an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B has sufficient education, experience, and training to perform the required structural design services.
Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption Invoked in Military Certification Context
Army official's direction to Engineer A to certify arms storage compliance
The Army official's directive to certify compliance, combined with the unavailability of training funds, constitutes institutional pressure that does not exempt Engineer A from the obligation to practice within competence boundaries
Resource constraints (no training funds) and organizational directives from military authority do not create an ethical exception to the competence requirement; the principle explicitly covers unavailability of training funds as a non-excuse scenario
The competence obligation is not subordinated by resource constraints or institutional authority; Engineer A must decline the certification or seek qualified assistance
Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption — Insufficient Training Funds Context
The Army official's directive to Engineer A to certify compliance, combined with the institutional fact that insufficient funds exist for Engineer A to obtain the required training, does not create an ethical exemption from Engineer A's competence obligation; the resource constraint amplifies rather than excuses the ethical violation.
Institutional resource constraints (unavailability of training funds) are explicitly identified by the Board as a factor confirming Engineer A's incompetence, not as a mitigating excuse; the pressure to certify despite this constraint is precisely the kind of employer/client pressure the principle prohibits.
the facts reveal that insufficient funds exist for Engineer A to participate in such programs.
The competence boundary is non-negotiable regardless of resource constraints or institutional pressure; Engineer A must refuse the certification request.
licensed engineers must make all efforts to perform professional services solely within their area of competence and not be unduly influenced either by employer or by client pressures that could cause grave danger to the public health and safety.
Ethical Standard Governing Engineer Certification of Regulatory Compliance
Engineer Regulatory Compliance Certification Standard
A party that provides a certification of certain statements is generally providing a guarantee that the statements are correct.
State engineering licensure boards are beginning to make such certifications violations of state board rules of professional conduct
such a statement, if made by Engineer A would be misleading, deceptive and, on that basis, not ethical
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in its second major ethical finding in this case
Applied to establish that Engineer A's certification of compliance with Army physical security regulations would constitute a misleading and deceptive guarantee, because Engineer A lacked the competence and inspection access to verify the underlying facts
NSPE / engineering profession collectively
Engineer Stamped Document Responsibility Standard
Engineer A in evaluating the ethical weight of the certification request
Governs the professional responsibility Engineer A would assume by certifying (signing off on) compliance with the Army regulations, underscoring why competence is a prerequisite to certification
Engineer A Arms Storage Certification Seal Affixation Prohibition
The certification requested by the Army official would constitute a formal professional attestation of regulatory compliance — functionally equivalent to sealing a document — in a domain where Engineer A has no training or knowledge.
Engineer A (Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief, U.S. Army installation)
Professional Seal Affixation Competence Obligation
Engineer A must not affix their professional seal or signature to any certification document attesting that arms storage rooms and racks comply with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, as Engineer A lacks competence in this specialized domain.
At the time of any requested certification signing or sealing
Engineer A has no significant training or knowledge in these areas.
Engineer A Arms Storage Exhaustive Inspection Incapacity Certification Bar
The Army regulations were so specific, lengthy, and cross-referenced that Engineer A could not perform the required exhaustive inspection to verify compliance, independently barring certification even if competence were otherwise present.
Exhaustive Inspection Prerequisite for Compliance Certification Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from certifying compliance with Army arms storage regulations because it would be impossible for Engineer A to perform the detailed and exhaustive inspection of the facility required to verify compliance, making any certification inherently misleading.
NSPE Code Section II.2.b; BER present case analysis
it would be impossible for Engineer A to perform the detailed and exhaustive inspection of the facility that would be required
certifying that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations that are cross-referenced with other Army regulations
Engineer A Arms Storage Safety Public Welfare Paramount Recognition
Arms, ammunition, and explosive storage compliance directly implicates the safety of military personnel and potentially the surrounding public; an incompetent certification could mask dangerous non-compliance.
Engineer A must hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including military personnel and the surrounding community — by refusing to issue an incompetent certification of arms storage compliance that could endanger lives if storage rooms or racks are in fact non-compliant.
certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations
Throughout the certification request process
Engineer A Army Official Directive Non-Compliance Competence Constraint
An Army official — a non-engineering authority — directs Engineer A to certify compliance with specialized military regulations. Engineer A's professional obligation to decline out-of-competence work is not overridden by military command hierarchy.
Military Non-Engineering Authority Certification Direction Non-Compliance Constraint
Engineer A must not comply with the Army official's directive to certify arms storage compliance, as the Army official's institutional authority does not override Engineer A's professional ethical obligation to decline certification work outside their competence.
NSPE Code II.2.a; NSPE Code II.2.b; NSPE Code III.2.b
An Army official requests that Engineer A certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations.
At the time of the Army official's certification request
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 94-8', 'action_taken': 'Reported competency concerns to the contractor'}
A professional engineer working on the same design/build project who had an objective basis to assess Engineer B's lack of competence in structural footing design, bore obligations to confront Engineer B, recommend withdrawal, and escalate to the contractor and authorities if necessary.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Construction Contractor BER 94-8'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 94-8 Out-of-Competence Structural Designer'}
Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer
Engineer A had an ethical obligation to confront Engineer B to make his concerns known
Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
Engineer A has an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B has sufficient education, experience, and training
Engineer A BER 94-8 Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation Instance
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.
Out-of-Competence Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation Obligation
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.
Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
Upon forming a reasonable basis to conclude Engineer B lacked the required competence
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
Engineer A Certification Guarantee Scope Recognition Instance
Certification-as-Guarantee Scope Recognition Capability
Engineer A must recognize that certifying arms storage room compliance with Army AA&E regulations constitutes a guarantee of correctness, and that making such a guarantee without the requisite competence and exhaustive inspection capability would be misleading and deceptive
Engineer A directed by Army official to certify compliance of arms storage rooms and racks with detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations
Recognition that certification of compliance with specific, lengthy, and cross-referenced Army regulations is a guarantee, not an opinion, and that Engineer A cannot substantiate such a guarantee
Engineer A Civil Engineering Competence Non-Authorization for Arms Storage Certification
Engineer A, a civil engineer serving as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief, is requested by an Army official to certify arms storage room and rack compliance with detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations despite having no training or knowledge in those areas.
Engineer A's general PE licensure in civil engineering does not authorize Engineer A to certify compliance with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, which constitute a distinct technical domain requiring specialized knowledge Engineer A does not possess.
NSPE Code II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 94-8
Engineer A, a professional engineer with expertise in civil engineering
At the time of the Army official's certification request and throughout any period in which Engineer A lacks substantive competence in the relevant military regulatory domain
Engineer A Competence Gap — Military Physical Security Domain (Discussion Reaffirmation)
Throughout the discussion section, reaffirming the state identified in prior sections
Engineer A's lack of specialized knowledge in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations
Acquisition of requisite specialized knowledge through training, or withdrawal from the project
Board's analysis confirming Engineer A is not knowledgeable in the technical and complicated area of military hardware storage regulations
Engineer A Competence Limitation Recognition and Supervisor Escalation — Arms Storage
Competence Limitation Recognition and Supervisor Escalation Capability
Engineer A must recognize that the arms storage certification assignment exceeds Engineer A's technical competence in Army physical security and arms/ammunition/explosive regulations, disclose this limitation to supervisory channels, and decline to certify rather than proceeding with an inadequate review and affixing a professional seal without genuine technical understanding.
Engineer A is assigned a certification task requiring specialized knowledge of Army physical security and arms/ammunition/explosive regulations — a domain entirely outside civil engineering expertise — and must recognize and escalate this competence limitation.
Recognition of competence limitation in Army physical security domain, disclosure to supervisors, and declination of the certification assignment
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'position': 'Building and Grounds Division Chief', 'out_of_competence_domain': 'Military physical security, arms/ammunition/explosives regulations', 'certification_requested': 'Compliance with Army physical security and AAE regulations', 'training_funds_available': False}
The civilian PE division chief at a military installation who was pressured to certify compliance with detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations entirely outside their engineering competence. The Board found both the practice and the certification would be unethical.
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Military Authority Certification Requestor'}
Military Installation Civilian Engineering Division Chief
Engineer A may be a very competent engineer, Engineer A is clearly not knowledgeable in this very technical and complicated area
insufficient funds exist for Engineer A to participate in such programs
it would not have been ethically proper for Engineer A to 'certify' compliance with the military regulations as requested
Engineer A Division Chief Role Non-Expansion of Arms Storage Competence
The Army official's request appears to be predicated on Engineer A's institutional role as Division Chief rather than on Engineer A's substantive competence in the relevant regulatory domain.
Institutional Administrative Role Competence Non-Expansion Constraint
Engineer A's appointment as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief does not confer, expand, or imply competence in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, and Engineer A may not accept or perform the certification assignment on the basis of that administrative title.
Engineer A, a professional engineer with expertise in civil engineering, served as a Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a U.S. Army installation.
Throughout Engineer A's tenure as Division Chief and for any certification request arising from that role
Engineer A Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Arms Storage Instance
Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer A must recognize that Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations fall outside the boundary of civil engineering competence, and that the Building and Grounds Division Chief title does not move that boundary
Engineer A, a civil PE, directed to certify compliance with specialized military regulatory domain
BER determination that Engineer A is clearly not knowledgeable in the technical and complicated area of military AA&E regulations despite being a competent civil engineer
Engineer A Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition — Arms Storage
Engineer A must recognize that Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations constitute a specialized technical domain entirely outside civil engineering, and that the absence of significant training or knowledge in these areas places the certification assignment beyond Engineer A's competence boundary.
Engineer A, a civil PE serving as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief, is directed to certify compliance with detailed Army physical security and arms storage regulations in which Engineer A has no significant training or knowledge.
Recognition that civil engineering expertise does not extend to Army physical security and arms/ammunition/explosive regulatory compliance, despite holding the Division Chief role
Engineer A Domain-Specific Incompetence Arms Storage Seal Prohibition
The Army official requests Engineer A to certify compliance with specific, lengthy, and detailed Army regulations cross-referenced with other Army regulations — a domain in which Engineer A has no significant training or knowledge.
Domain-Specific Incompetence Seal Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A is absolutely prohibited from affixing their professional signature or seal to any certification document attesting that arms storage rooms and racks comply with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, given Engineer A's acknowledged lack of competence in that domain.
At the time of the certification request and until Engineer A acquires substantive competence in the relevant military regulatory domain
Engineer A Education-Experience Competence Threshold Arms Storage Domain
Engineer A's expertise is in civil engineering; the certification domain requires specialized knowledge in military physical security regulations — a domain with no overlap with Engineer A's demonstrated education and experience.
Engineer A lacks both the educational foundation and domain-specific practical experience required for competence in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, and may not accept the certification assignment based solely on general civil engineering licensure or the administrative authority of the Division Chief role.
NSPE Code II.2.a; BER Case 94-8; BER Case 85-3
At the time of the certification request
Engineer A Employment Pressure Non-Subordination of Safety Instance
Employment Pressure Non-Subordination of Safety Determination Capability
Engineer A must not subordinate the professional safety determination — that certifying arms storage compliance is beyond competence — to the employment pressure exerted by the Army official directing the certification
Army official directing Engineer A to certify compliance despite Engineer A's lack of competence in the domain
BER determination that engineers must not be unduly influenced by employer or client pressures that could cause grave danger to public health and safety
licensed engineers must make all efforts to perform professional services solely within their area of competence and not be unduly influenced either by employer or by client pressures that could cause grave danger to the public health and safety
Engineer A Employment vs Consulting Competence Flexibility Distinction Arms Storage Instance
Employment vs Consulting Competence Flexibility Distinction Capability
Engineer A must recognize that the employment context at the military installation forecloses the consulting-context flexibility to engage subconsultants or restructure the workforce to remediate the competence gap in Army AA&E regulations
Engineer A employed as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at military installation — an employment relationship, not a consulting engagement
BER application of the consulting-vs-employment distinction from BER 85-3 to the present case, noting that the employment context makes competence gap remediation impractical
Engineer A Institutional Role Non-Expansion Recognition Instance
Engineer A's assignment as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a military installation created institutional expectations that Engineer A would certify compliance with Army regulations, but the role title did not confer the requisite domain-specific competence.
Engineer A (civilian PE, Building and Grounds Division Chief)
Public Sector Out-of-Competence Appointment Acceptance Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the title and responsibilities of Building and Grounds Division Chief did not expand Engineer A's technical competence into the specialized domain of Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations, and to decline to certify compliance in that domain regardless of the institutional expectations of the role.
Making certain that a military hardware storage facility is designed and built safely involves keen awareness of many complex and detailed procedures, rules, and regulations that are unique to this field of endeavor
Throughout the duration of Engineer A's assignment as Division Chief
While Engineer A may be a very competent engineer, Engineer A is clearly not knowledgeable in this very technical and complicated area
Engineer A Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Recognition
The Army official's request appears premised on Engineer A's administrative role as Division Chief, implying that the role carries authority to certify compliance across all installation-related regulations; Engineer A must reject this premise.
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Scope Obligation
Engineer A must recognize that serving as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief does not confer competence in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, and must decline to certify compliance on the basis that the institutional role does not expand the engineer's technical expertise into this specialized domain.
Upon receipt of the certification request and throughout any subsequent institutional pressure
Engineer A Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Self-Recognition
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer A must recognize that serving as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief does not confer competence in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, and that the administrative authority of the Division Chief role cannot substitute for substantive technical training and knowledge in that specialized domain.
Engineer A holds the title of Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief, which an Army official may presume confers authority and competence to certify arms storage compliance, but which in fact does not expand Engineer A's technical competence beyond civil engineering.
Recognition that the Division Chief title and its associated institutional authority do not qualify Engineer A to certify compliance with Army physical security and arms storage regulations
Engineer A Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Self-Recognition Arms Storage Instance
Engineer A must recognize that the title of Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief does not confer competence in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, and cannot be used to justify certifying compliance with those regulations
Engineer A serving as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief directed to certify compliance with Army AA&E regulations
BER determination that Engineer A's administrative role does not expand technical competence into the specialized military regulatory domain
the competency issues at stake pose a clear and present danger to the public health and safety
Engineer A Military Arms Storage Certification Guarantee Deception Constraint
Engineer A was asked to certify compliance with specific, lengthy, and detailed Army regulations cross-referenced with other Army regulations — a certification that would constitute a professional guarantee Engineer A could not substantiate.
Compliance Certification Guarantee Deception Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from certifying that arms storage rooms and racks comply with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations because such certification would constitute a guarantee of correctness that Engineer A could not substantiate, rendering the certification misleading and deceptive.
A party that provides a certification of certain statements is generally providing a guarantee that the statements are correct
At the time of requested certification and throughout any period Engineer A lacks the required competence
By certifying that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations that are cross-referenced with other Army regulations, Engineer A is guaranteeing that this statement is correct
even if Engineer A had the ethical competency to perform the services required, it would not have been ethically proper for Engineer A to 'certify' compliance with the military regulations as requested
Engineer A Military Arms Storage Certification Refusal Competence Obligation
Army official directs Engineer A to certify compliance with detailed, cross-referenced Army physical security and explosives regulations; Engineer A is a civil PE with no training in these areas; training programs exist but funds are unavailable.
Out-of-Competence Assignment Refusal Obligation
Engineer A must refuse to certify that the arms storage rooms and racks comply with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, because Engineer A has no significant training or knowledge in these specialized regulatory domains, and the unavailability of training funds does not excuse the competence requirement.
Upon receipt of the Army official's certification request and before any certification is issued
There are comprehensive training programs available for this type of work, but training funds are not available.
Engineer A Military Arms Storage Certification Refusal Obligation Instance
Engineer A, a civil engineer serving as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a military installation, was directed by an Army official to certify that arms storage rooms and racks complied with detailed, cross-referenced Army physical security and explosives regulations. Comprehensive training programs existed but were unavailable due to insufficient funds.
Engineer A was obligated to refuse to certify compliance of arms storage rooms and racks with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, because Engineer A's civil engineering background did not provide the domain-specific competence required, and the unavailability of training funds did not excuse this competence deficiency.
At the time the Army official directed Engineer A to perform the certification
the facts reveal that insufficient funds exist for Engineer A to participate in such programs
Engineer A Military Authority Certification Direction Resistance
The Army official — a non-engineering military authority — directs Engineer A to perform a compliance certification; Engineer A must assert professional independence and decline.
Military Non-Engineering Authority Certification Direction Resistance Obligation
Engineer A must resist and decline the Army official's directive to certify compliance with arms storage regulations, recognizing that the Army official's institutional authority does not override Engineer A's professional ethical obligations and that the duty to the public welfare is paramount over military command expectations.
Upon and following receipt of the Army official's directive
Engineer A Military Authority Direction Resistance Instance
An Army official (non-engineering military authority) directed Engineer A to certify compliance with specialized technical regulations. The Board found that employer and client pressures do not excuse engineers from competence requirements when public health and safety are at stake.
Engineer A was obligated to resist the Army official's directive to certify compliance, recognizing that military rank and institutional authority do not override the engineer's professional ethical obligations and that the paramount duty to public welfare supersedes organizational command structures.
Upon receipt of the Army official's directive
Engineer A Military Authority Pressure Competence Non-Override Safety Constraint
An Army official directed Engineer A to certify compliance with arms storage regulations despite Engineer A's lack of competence in that domain, creating employer/client pressure that Engineer A was ethically prohibited from yielding to.
Employer Client Pressure Competence Non-Override Public Safety Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from being unduly influenced by the Army official's directive to certify compliance with arms storage regulations, because such pressure — whether from employer or client — cannot override the engineer's obligation to practice within their area of competence when public health and safety are at stake.
NSPE Code II.2.a; BER present case analysis
At the time of the Army official's directive and throughout the certification request
Engineer A Military Certification Deception Prohibition Instance
The Board determined that certifying compliance with lengthy, detailed, cross-referenced Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations would constitute a professional guarantee that the statements are correct — a guarantee Engineer A could not make given the impossibility of performing the required exhaustive inspection.
Out-of-Competence Compliance Certification Deception Prohibition Obligation
Even if Engineer A had been deemed marginally competent, Engineer A was obligated to refrain from certifying compliance with the Army arms storage regulations because such a certification would constitute a guarantee Engineer A could not substantiate, rendering it inherently misleading and deceptive.
At the time of the certification request and at any future time such a request is made
because it is clear that such information is clearly beyond the scope of knowledge of Engineer A (since it would be impossible for Engineer A to perform the detailed and exhaustive inspection of the facility that would be required)
Engineer A Military Facility Competence Gap — Public Safety Dimension
From the point Engineer A is assigned to certify and oversee the military storage facility through the resolution of the competence and certification issues
Military hardware storage facility design and certification project
Engagement of a competent engineer with requisite specialized knowledge, or Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
Assignment of Engineer A — lacking specialized military hardware/physical security knowledge — to a project involving complex Army regulations governing arms, ammunition, and explosives storage
Engineer A Military Hardware Safety Public Safety Paramount Competence Constraint
The BER explicitly identified the competency issues in the military hardware storage facility certification as posing a clear and present danger to public health and safety, activating the paramount public safety obligation.
Engineer A's paramount obligation to public safety — including the safety of military personnel — required refusal to certify compliance with arms storage regulations outside Engineer A's competence, because the competency issues at stake posed a clear and present danger to public health and safety.
NSPE Code Section I; BER present case analysis
At the time of the certification request and throughout the military hardware storage facility project
Engineer A Military Non-Engineering Authority Certification Direction Resistance
Military Non-Engineering Authority Certification Direction Resistance Capability
Engineer A must recognize that the Army official's directive to certify arms storage compliance does not carry professional engineering authority sufficient to override Engineer A's competence obligations, and must resist and decline that directive on the grounds that military rank and institutional authority cannot substitute for domain-specific technical competence required for professional certification.
An Army official — a non-engineering military authority — directs Engineer A to certify compliance with detailed Army physical security and arms/ammunition/explosive regulations, creating pressure through institutional hierarchy that Engineer A must resist on professional competence grounds.
Declining the Army official's request to certify compliance with arms storage regulations, recognizing that the official's non-engineering authority cannot compel Engineer A to certify beyond competence
Engineer A Military Non-Engineering Authority Certification Direction Resistance Arms Storage Instance
Engineer A must resist the Army official's directive to certify compliance with AA&E regulations, recognizing that military rank and institutional authority do not override the professional engineering competence requirement for certification
Army official directing Engineer A to certify compliance with arms storage regulations despite Engineer A's lack of domain competence
BER determination that Engineer A must decline the Army official's directive and escalate to appropriate channels
Engineer A Out-of-Competence Certifying Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Civil Engineering', 'position': 'Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief, U.S. Army Installation', 'competency_gap': 'No significant training or knowledge in physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations', 'training_availability': 'Comprehensive training programs exist but training funds are not available'}
Engineer A, a licensed PE with civil engineering expertise, is directed by an Army official to certify that arms storage rooms and racks comply with detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations — domains in which Engineer A has no significant training or knowledge. Training programs exist but funds are unavailable, creating institutional pressure to certify without qualification.
{'type': 'directed_by', 'target': 'Army Official Military Authority Certification Requestor'}
{'type': 'employer_relationship', 'target': 'U.S. Army Installation'}
Engineer A, a professional engineer with expertise in civil engineering, served as a Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a U.S. Army installation
Engineer A Outside Competence for Arms Storage Certification
From the moment the Army official's certification request is received; persists until Engineer A acquires requisite training or the request is resolved
Engineer A's professional competence relative to Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations
Acquisition of competence through training, reassignment of the certification task, or formal declination
Army official's formal request that Engineer A certify arms storage rooms and racks against detailed Army physical security and explosives regulations
Engineer A Peer Competency Objective Basis Assessment BER 94-8 Cross-Reference Instance
Peer Competency Objective Basis Assessment Capability
Engineer A in BER 94-8 had an objective basis to assess Engineer B's lack of competence in structural foundation design based on Engineer B's chemical engineering background and absence of apparent subsequent training
Engineer A working on design/build project alongside Engineer B (chemical engineer) retained to design structural footings
BER determination that Engineer A had an objective basis to conclude Engineer B lacked competence to design structural footings, triggering obligation to confront Engineer B and report to contractor
Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design and Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B
Engineer A Post-Refusal Escalation and Qualified Expert Identification
The arms storage certification need is real and safety-critical; Engineer A's refusal must be accompanied by constructive escalation to ensure the certification is ultimately performed by a competent party.
Out-of-Competence Certification Escalation and Qualified Expert Identification Obligation
After declining to certify compliance, Engineer A must escalate the matter to appropriate supervisory channels and assist in identifying qualified experts or training pathways — such as the available comprehensive training programs — that would enable the certification to be performed competently by a qualified individual.
Following Engineer A's refusal of the certification request
Engineer A Post-Refusal Qualified Expert Identification and Referral Arms Storage Instance
Post-Refusal Qualified Expert Identification and Referral Capability
After declining to certify compliance with Army AA&E regulations, Engineer A must escalate to appropriate supervisory channels and assist in identifying qualified experts in military physical security regulations who can perform the required certification
Engineer A declining certification assignment and needing to ensure the institutional need is addressed through competent means
BER determination that Engineer A's obligation extends beyond mere refusal to constructive escalation and expert identification
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.
Engineer A Post-Refusal Qualified Expert Identification and Referral — Arms Storage
After declining to certify compliance with Army arms storage regulations, Engineer A must escalate the matter to appropriate supervisory channels and actively assist in identifying qualified experts — such as specialists in Army physical security and arms/ammunition/explosive regulations — who can perform the certification competently.
Having refused the out-of-competence certification assignment, Engineer A bears a constructive obligation to ensure the institutional need is addressed through competent means by facilitating referral to qualified experts.
Escalation to supervisory channels with explanation of competence limitation, and active assistance in identifying qualified domain specialists to perform the arms storage certification
Engineer A Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment — Arms Storage Domain
Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
Engineer A must conduct an honest self-assessment of competence in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations before accepting the certification assignment, identifying the gap between civil engineering expertise and the specialized regulatory domain, and making an informed judgment that the assignment cannot be accepted.
Engineer A is directed to certify compliance with detailed Army regulations and must assess whether civil engineering expertise qualifies Engineer A for this specialized certification task.
Self-assessment revealing no significant training or knowledge in Army physical security and arms/ammunition/explosive regulations, leading to refusal of the certification assignment
Engineer A Pre-Certification Domain Competence Verification
Engineer A's civil engineering PE licensure does not extend to the specialized Army regulatory domain; the verification step confirms the competence gap before any certification action is taken.
Domain-Specific Competence Verification Before Assignment Acceptance Obligation
Engineer A must verify, before accepting the certification assignment, that their competence in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations is sufficient — and, finding it is not, must decline the assignment.
Before accepting or acting on the Army official's certification request
Engineer A Professional Seal Affixation Competence Verification Arms Storage Instance
Professional Seal Affixation Competence Verification Capability
Engineer A must verify that genuine domain-specific competence in Army AA&E regulations exists before affixing a professional seal or signature to any certification document, and must refrain from sealing such documents given the absence of that competence
Engineer A asked to certify compliance with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations by signing certification documents
BER determination that even if Engineer A had marginal ethical competency, certifying compliance would be misleading and deceptive because the required exhaustive inspection is impossible without domain expertise
Engineer A Professional Seal Affixation Competence Verification — Arms Storage Certification
Engineer A must verify before affixing a professional seal or signature to any arms storage certification document that genuine domain-specific competence in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations exists, and must refrain from sealing such documents given the acknowledged absence of that competence.
Engineer A is requested to certify — implicitly requiring professional signature/seal — that arms storage rooms and racks comply with specific, lengthy, and detailed Army regulations in a domain where Engineer A has no significant training.
Refusal to affix professional seal to certification documents attesting compliance with Army physical security regulations without possessing substantive competence in that domain
Engineer A Public Safety Clear and Present Danger Competence Threshold Recognition Instance
Public Safety Clear and Present Danger Competence Threshold Escalation Capability
Engineer A must recognize that the competency issues in the arms storage certification assignment pose a clear and present danger to public health and safety, triggering a heightened obligation to resist employer pressure and decline the assignment
Engineer A directed to certify compliance with military arms storage regulations at a military installation where safety failures could endanger military personnel and surrounding community
BER determination that competency issues in the present case pose a clear and present danger to public health and safety, distinguishing it from cases with lesser safety stakes
In the present case, the competency issues at stake pose a clear and present danger to the public health and safety.
Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Military Hardware Safety Instance
The Board identified that the competency issues in the military hardware storage facility context posed a 'clear and present danger to the public health and safety,' making the safety obligation paramount over institutional and employer pressures.
Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including military personnel — in refusing to certify compliance with arms storage regulations outside Engineer A's competence, recognizing that the competency issues posed a clear and present danger to public health and safety.
Throughout the certification request and Engineer A's response
Engineer A Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition — Arms Storage Safety
Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
Engineer A must hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including military personnel and the surrounding community — by refusing to certify arms storage compliance without competence, recognizing that an incompetent certification could endanger lives through improperly secured arms, ammunition, and explosives.
The arms storage rooms and racks involve arms, ammunition, and explosive materials whose improper storage could endanger military personnel and the surrounding community, making public welfare paramountcy directly relevant to the certification refusal.
Grounding the refusal to certify in the paramount obligation to public safety, recognizing that an incompetent certification of arms/ammunition/explosive storage poses serious public welfare risks
Engineer A Regulatory Domain Compliance Certification Competence Prerequisite
The Army regulations at issue are described as specific, lengthy, detailed, and cross-referenced with other Army regulations — hallmarks of a specialized regulatory domain requiring dedicated training and knowledge.
Regulatory Domain Compliance Certification Competence Prerequisite Obligation
Engineer A must not certify compliance with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations without first possessing substantive domain-specific competence in those regulations, recognizing that the regulations are lengthy, detailed, and cross-referenced — constituting a specialized regulatory domain requiring dedicated expertise beyond general civil engineering licensure.
certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, which are cross-referenced with other Army regulations.
Before issuing any compliance certification
Engineer A Resource Constraint Non-Excuse for Competence Self-Recognition Training Funds Instance
Resource Constraint Non-Excuse for Competence Prerequisite Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer A must recognize that the Army's failure to fund available training programs does not excuse Engineer A from the competence requirement, and that the appropriate response is to decline the certification rather than proceed without competence
Army failed to fund available training programs that could have provided Engineer A with competence in AA&E regulations
BER determination that insufficient training funds do not excuse Engineer A from the obligation to possess competence before certifying compliance
While there may be comprehensive training programs available, the facts reveal that insufficient funds exist for Engineer A to participate in such programs.
Engineer A Resource Constraint Non-Excuse for Competence Self-Recognition — Training Funds
Engineer A must recognize that the Army's failure to fund available training programs in arms storage and physical security regulations does not excuse Engineer A from the professional obligation to possess competence before certifying compliance, and that the appropriate response to this resource constraint is to decline the certification and escalate rather than to proceed without competence.
Comprehensive training programs exist for Army physical security and arms/ammunition/explosive regulations, but training funds are not available, creating pressure to certify without the training that would be required to establish competence.
Recognition that training fund unavailability shifts the obligation from 'obtain training then certify' to 'decline and refer to qualified expert,' rather than justifying proceeding without competence
Engineer A Resource Constraint Training Access Limitation
The unavailability of training funds is a real institutional resource constraint that blocks the competence remediation pathway, but it operates as context rather than justification for the certification refusal.
Engineer A faces a resource constraint in that institutional training funds are unavailable, preventing access to comprehensive training programs that would be necessary to develop competence in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations — but this constraint does not alter the ethical prohibition on performing out-of-competence certification work.
Institutional resource allocation; NSPE Code II.2.a
Engineer A Safety Constraint Arms Storage Certification Public Welfare
Arms storage rooms and racks at a military installation involve public safety implications for military personnel and the surrounding community; improper certification of compliance with physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations could result in catastrophic harm.
Engineer A must hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including military personnel and the surrounding community — by refusing to certify arms storage compliance without the requisite competence, as an improper certification could result in unsafe storage conditions with catastrophic consequences.
NSPE Code I (Fundamental Canon); NSPE Code II.2.a
At the time of the certification request and throughout any period in which arms storage compliance is at issue
Engineer A Sign-Off Substantive Certification Non-Delegation Arms Storage
The Army official's request may implicitly treat Engineer A's Division Chief authority as sufficient basis for sign-off; Engineer A must recognize that the certification is a substantive professional act requiring domain competence, not an administrative formality.
Sign-Off Authority Substantive Certification Non-Delegation Constraint
Engineer A cannot treat the requested certification as a purely administrative act arising from the Division Chief role; the certification requires substantive technical evaluation of compliance with Army physical security regulations, which Engineer A is not competent to perform.
NSPE Code II.2.b; professional engineering certification standards
Engineer A Specialized Military Regulatory Domain Competence Boundary
The Army regulations at issue are described as specific, lengthy, and detailed, cross-referenced with other Army regulations — establishing a distinct and complex regulatory domain that requires specialized knowledge beyond general civil engineering competence.
Specialized Military Regulatory Domain Certification Competence Boundary Constraint
Engineer A's lack of substantive training or knowledge in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations — a specialized military regulatory domain with specific, lengthy, and cross-referenced requirements — constitutes an absolute competence boundary prohibiting Engineer A from certifying compliance with those regulations.
NSPE Code II.2.a; NSPE Code II.2.b; Army physical security regulatory framework
At the time of the certification request and until Engineer A acquires substantive competence through comprehensive training
Engineer A Specialized Military Regulatory Domain Complexity Recognition Instance
Specialized Military Regulatory Domain Complexity Recognition Capability
Engineer A must recognize that Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations constitute a uniquely complex and specialized domain requiring specific training and experience that Engineer A does not possess, making certification impossible without that competence
Engineer A, a civil PE serving as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief, directed to certify compliance with Army AA&E regulations without relevant training
Assessment that military AA&E regulations are cross-referenced, lengthy, and detailed — requiring keen awareness of unique procedures that general civil engineering competence does not provide
Engineer A Training Fund Unavailability Competence Non-Excuse Constraint Instance
Comprehensive training programs were available but the Army had insufficient funds for Engineer A to participate, creating a resource-constrained competence gap that the BER held did not excuse the certification obligation.
Resource Unavailability Non-Excuse for Competence Certification Constraint
The Army's failure to fund available comprehensive training programs did not excuse Engineer A from the obligation to decline certification of arms storage compliance, because resource constraints cannot justify performing or certifying work outside competence.
While there may be comprehensive training programs available, the facts reveal that insufficient funds exist for Engineer A to participate in such programs
Engineer A Training Fund Unavailability Non-Excuse Recognition
Comprehensive training programs exist for Army physical security and explosives certification work, but the Army has not made training funds available — creating institutional pressure on Engineer A to certify without the requisite training.
Training Fund Unavailability Non-Excuse for Competence Obligation
Engineer A must recognize that the Army's failure to fund available training programs does not excuse Engineer A from the competence requirement, and must decline to certify compliance regardless of the institutional resource constraint.
At the time of the certification request and any subsequent pressure citing resource constraints
Engineer A Training Fund Unavailability Non-Excuse for Certification Refusal
Comprehensive training programs exist for Army physical security and arms storage certification, but institutional training funds are unavailable. This resource constraint cannot serve as justification for Engineer A performing out-of-competence certification work.
The Army's failure to fund available comprehensive training programs does not excuse Engineer A from the obligation to decline the arms storage certification assignment; Engineer A must refuse the certification regardless of the institutional resource constraint.
At the time of the certification request, given the current unavailability of training funds
Engineer A Training Funds Unavailable — Discussion Reaffirmation
Competence Remediation Pathway Blocked by Resource Unavailability State
Engineer A's inability to access comprehensive training programs due to insufficient institutional funds
Allocation of sufficient training funds, or Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
Board's finding that while comprehensive training programs exist, insufficient funds prevent Engineer A from participating
Engineer A Unverifiable Army Regulation Compliance Certification Request
From the moment the Army authority requests Engineer A to certify compliance with the detailed Army regulations through Engineer A's decision on whether to issue or decline the certification
Unverifiable Compliance Certification Request State
Engineer A's requested certification of Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulation compliance
Engineer A's refusal to issue the certification, or (unethically) Engineer A's issuance of the certification
By certifying that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations that are cross-referenced with other Army regulations, Engineer A is guaranteeing that this statement is correct.
Army authority's formal request that Engineer A certify that arms storage rooms and racks comply with specific, lengthy, cross-referenced Army physical security and arms/ammunition/explosives regulations
Engineer BER 85-3 County Surveyor Out-of-Competence Appointment Refusal Instance
In BER Case 85-3, a county ordinance required the county surveyor position to be filled by a PE. The county commissioners appointed a chemical engineer. The Board determined it was unethical for the engineer to accept the position because effective oversight of surveying and highway improvement work required domain competence the engineer did not possess.
Chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor (BER Case 85-3)
The chemical engineer was obligated to decline the appointment as county surveyor because the duties of the position — oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — fell substantially outside the engineer's domain of competence in chemical engineering.
At the time the appointment was offered and accepted
whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor
Engineer BER 85-3 Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap Declination County Surveyor Instance
Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap Declination Capability
The chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor should have declined the appointment, recognizing that the surveying oversight duties required competence the engineer did not possess and that no practical remediation was available in the employment context
Chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor with duties including oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
BER determination that accepting the county surveyor position was unethical because whatever course of action the engineer took would result in unethical conduct
The Board could not see any way in which the engineer could be acting in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts, because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor
Engineer BER 85-3 Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap Declination Instance
The chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor should have recognized that the role required competence in surveying oversight that could not be remediated in an employment context, making acceptance of the role unethical
Chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor by county commissioners; duties included oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
BER determination that it was unethical to accept the county surveyor position because no practical arrangement could remediate the competence gap in an employment context
Engineer (BER Case 85-3 county surveyor appointee)
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Chemical Engineering', 'appointed_position': 'County Surveyor', 'out_of_competence_domain': 'Land surveying and highway improvement oversight', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 85-3'}
A professional engineer with background solely in chemical engineering who accepted appointment as county surveyor, a position requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects outside their area of competence. The Board determined this acceptance was unethical.
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'County Commissioners BER 85-3'}
Out-of-Competence Public Sector Appointee Engineer
the county commissioners met and decided to appoint an engineer, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor
it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible in the usual employment context, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight
Engineer B BER 94-8 Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Structural Footings Instance
Engineer B, a chemical engineer, should have recognized that structural footing design falls outside the boundary of chemical engineering competence, and declined the assignment accordingly
Engineer B, a chemical engineer, retained by construction contractor to design structural footings for an industrial facility
BER determination that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of structural footings given chemical engineering background and no apparent subsequent training in foundation design
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Chemical Engineering', 'out_of_competence_domain': 'Structural footing design', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 94-8'}
A chemical engineer retained by a construction contractor to design structural footings for an industrial facility, a task outside their domain of competence. The Board determined it was unethical for Engineer B to perform this work.
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 94-8 Competency Challenger'}
Engineer B, a professional engineer, to design structural footings as part of the facility
it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings
Engineer B BER 94-8 Structural Footing Out-of-Competence Refusal Instance
In BER Case 94-8, a construction contractor separately retained Engineer B, a chemical engineer, to design structural footings. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any subsequent training in foundation design.
Engineer B (chemical engineer, BER Case 94-8)
Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no apparent training in foundation design, was obligated to refuse to design structural footings for an industrial facility, as this task fell outside Engineer B's domain of competence.
At the time Engineer B accepted the engagement to design structural footings
Engineer B's retention by contractor during construction of the project (BER Case 94-8)
Engineer Pressure Resistance Invoked Against Military Authority Direction
Army official's certification request directed at Engineer A
Engineer A faces organizational pressure from an Army official — a non-engineering authority — to perform a certification that exceeds Engineer A's professional competence; the principle requires Engineer A to resist this pressure and maintain professional standards
Military institutional authority and organizational hierarchy do not override the engineer's professional ethical obligations; the pressure from an Army official represents exactly the type of organizational demand that the principle holds cannot subordinate professional standards
Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
Professional ethical obligations are not subordinated by military or governmental organizational hierarchy; Engineer A must refuse the certification as outside competence
Escalating Confrontation — Engineer A to Engineer B to Contractor (BER 94-8)
Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse When Safety Standards Rejected
In BER Case 94-8, Engineer A's obligation follows a structured escalation: first confront Engineer B directly and recommend withdrawal; if Engineer B refuses, bring the matter to the attention of the client (contractor) and authorities as appropriate; and if concerns are not met, withdraw from the project.
The escalation sequence is mandatory and sequential; Engineer A cannot skip directly to reporting without first confronting Engineer B, and cannot remain on the project if concerns are unresolved.
Escalating Confrontation Obligation for Subcontractor Ethics Violations
Escalation obligation overrides collegial deference; project withdrawal is the final ethical recourse if all escalation steps fail.
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Invoked for Division Chief Assignment
Engineer A's institutional role as Building and Grounds Division Chief
Engineer A's title as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a military installation does not confer competence in Army physical security, arms, and explosives regulations merely because such matters arise within the administrative scope of that role
The administrative breadth of the Division Chief role does not translate into technical competence across all regulatory domains that may fall within that role's jurisdiction; Engineer A must assess actual competence against each specific technical task
Role title and administrative assignment do not substitute for professional competence; Engineer A must recognize the competence gap and respond accordingly
Institutional Role Non-Expansion — Building and Grounds Division Chief
Army physical security and arms storage regulatory compliance certification
Regulatory Domain Competence Prerequisite for Compliance Certification
Engineer A's assignment as Building and Grounds Division Chief at a military installation does not expand Engineer A's professional competence to encompass Army physical security, arms storage, and explosive safety regulations, even though such matters fall within the administrative jurisdiction of the division; the role title cannot substitute for domain expertise.
The administrative scope of the Building and Grounds Division Chief role may encompass arms storage facilities, but this administrative jurisdiction does not translate into technical competence in the specialized regulatory framework governing those facilities.
Institutional role assignment is irrelevant to the competence determination; Engineer A must decline the certification regardless of role title.
the obligation of the engineer to practice solely within the engineer's area of professional competency
U.S. Army Physical Security, Arms, Ammunition, and Explosive Regulations (cross-referenced)
certify compliance with the military regulations as requested
Engineer A (requested to certify compliance); NSPE BER in establishing the scope of required competence
The specific, lengthy, and detailed Army regulations that Engineer A was asked to certify compliance with for arms storage rooms and racks; cited to establish the complexity and specialized nature of the knowledge required, which Engineer A lacked
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers — Section II.2.a (Practice Within Area of Competence)
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's situation
Cited as the primary normative basis for the obligation of engineers to practice solely within their area of professional competency
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers — Section II.2.b (Certification of Facts)
the certification of certain facts by an engineer, which has been the subject of state engineering board regulation in recent years. (See Code Section II.2.b.)
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's certification request
Cited as the normative basis for the ethical obligations surrounding engineer certification of facts, and applied to the county surveyor scenario in BER Case 85-3
Engineer A (in deliberation); BER (in analysis)
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligation to practice only within areas of competence and to decline certification work for which they lack training and knowledge
Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Invoked Against Army Official Direction
The Army official directing Engineer A to certify compliance is a non-engineering military authority whose institutional directive does not carry professional engineering authority; the official cannot confer upon Engineer A the competence or professional basis to make the certification
A non-engineer military official's request or directive cannot override the engineer's professional competence requirement; the official's authority is institutional, not professional, and cannot substitute for the domain expertise the certification requires
Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Principle
Non-engineer institutional authority does not create professional engineering authority; Engineer A retains full professional responsibility for the certification act and cannot delegate that responsibility to the requesting official
Out-of-Competence Certification Inherent Deception — Army Arms Storage
Certification of compliance with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations
Professional Certification as Guarantee Obligation and Limitation Principle
Even if Engineer A were hypothetically deemed to have sufficient competence, the certification would remain ethically impermissible because it would be impossible for Engineer A to perform the detailed and exhaustive inspection required to support the certification — making the certification inherently misleading and deceptive regardless of intent.
The Board's 'even if' analysis establishes that the deception principle operates independently of the competence principle: even a competent engineer who cannot perform the required inspection cannot ethically certify compliance, because the certification would misrepresent that an adequate inspection had been performed.
Out-of-Competence Certification Inherent Deception Principle
because it is clear that such information is clearly beyond the scope of knowledge of Engineer A (since it would be impossible for Engineer A to perform the detailed and exhaustive inspection of the facility that would be required), such a statement, if made by Engineer A would be misleading, deceptive and, on that basis, not ethical.
The inherent deception prohibition is absolute when verification is structurally impossible; no degree of general competence or good faith can cure the deceptive character of a certification that cannot be supported by adequate inspection.
even if Engineer A had the ethical competency to perform the services required, it would not have been ethically proper for Engineer A to 'certify' compliance with the military regulations as requested.
Prior BER Precedents Activated (Event 4) → Refuse Certification Assignment (Action 5) — ethically required conclusion
NSPE / professional engineering community
Professional Competence Standard — Practice Within Area of Competence
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligation to decline the military facility project
Applied throughout the case discussion as the overarching professional norm requiring engineers to perform services only in areas where they have demonstrated competence, and not to be unduly influenced by employer or client pressure to exceed those limits
Professional Competence Standard — Practice Within Area of Expertise
Governs Engineer A's ethical obligation to decline or disclose inability to certify compliance with Army arms storage regulations given lack of training and knowledge in physical security domains
Professional Certification as Guarantee — Army Compliance Certification
Certification of arms storage rooms and racks compliance with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations
The Board determines that Engineer A's requested certification of arms storage compliance would constitute a professional guarantee that the certified statements are correct — a guarantee Engineer A cannot support because Engineer A lacks both domain competence and the practical capacity to conduct the required exhaustive inspection.
The certification act is not a routine administrative function but a professional guarantee; because Engineer A cannot genuinely guarantee compliance — lacking both domain knowledge and inspection capacity — the certification is ethically prohibited.
The guarantee character of certification makes the ethical prohibition absolute: Engineer A must refuse regardless of institutional pressure or role assignment.
the certification of certain facts by an engineer, which has been the subject of state engineering board regulation in recent years. (See Code Section II.2.b.).
Professional Competence Boundary Invoked by Engineer A Current Case
Certification of arms storage rooms and racks compliance with Army physical security regulations
Engineer A, a civil engineer, is asked to certify compliance with specialized Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations — a domain entirely outside civil engineering expertise — and must recognize this as a competence boundary that cannot be crossed regardless of institutional pressure
Professional competence in this context requires Engineer A to recognize that civil engineering expertise does not extend to physical security and explosives regulations, and that certifying compliance in this domain without requisite knowledge would constitute a violation of the fundamental competence obligation
Competence obligation prevails; the unavailability of training funds does not create an exception to the requirement to possess genuine domain knowledge before certifying compliance
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Arms Storage Safety Certification Context
Safety implications of arms storage compliance certification
The certification of compliance for arms storage rooms and racks with physical security and explosives regulations directly implicates public and military personnel safety; an incompetent certification could create false assurance of safety for facilities storing dangerous materials
The paramount public welfare obligation requires Engineer A to recognize that an incompetent certification of arms/ammunition/explosive storage compliance could endanger military personnel and others who rely on that certification as assurance of safety
Public welfare and safety of persons relying on the certification override institutional pressure to certify; Engineer A must decline rather than provide false assurance of compliance
Public Welfare Paramount — Military Hardware Safety Context
Certification of arms storage room and rack compliance with Army physical security regulations
The Board identifies that the competency issues in the military hardware storage facility context pose a 'clear and present danger to the public health and safety,' elevating the public welfare obligation to its highest urgency level and grounding the refusal to certify in the paramount duty to protect the public.
Public welfare is not merely a background consideration but the primary ethical driver requiring Engineer A to refuse certification; the military hardware context — involving arms, ammunition, and explosives — means that incompetent certification could expose the public to catastrophic harm.
the competency issues at stake pose a clear and present danger to the public health and safety.
Public welfare paramount overrides institutional pressure and employer loyalty; the Board explicitly states that engineers 'must make all efforts to perform professional services solely within their area of competence and not be unduly influenced either by employer or by client pressures that could cause grave danger to the public health and safety.'
Would it be appropriate for Engineer A to certify as a qualified engineer the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks as requested by the Army official?
Does Engineer A have an affirmative obligation to proactively notify the Army official and relevant supervisors of the competence gap before any formal certification request is made, rather than waiting until the request arrives?
After refusing to certify, what specific steps is Engineer A ethically required to take — such as identifying a qualified expert, escalating to higher authority, or formally documenting the refusal — to ensure the arms storage safety gap does not remain unaddressed?
Does the institutional decision to withhold training funds create any shared ethical responsibility on the part of the Army organization itself, and does that institutional failure in any way alter Engineer A's individual ethical obligations?
Is there a meaningful ethical distinction between Engineer A certifying compliance with Army physical security regulations as a civilian employee under institutional pressure versus certifying the same documents as an independent consulting engineer, and should that employment context affect the ethical analysis?
Does the principle that public welfare is paramount — which might seem to demand that someone certify the arms storage rooms to ensure safety oversight occurs — conflict with the principle that an engineer must not certify outside their domain of competence, given that an incompetent certification could itself create greater public safety risk than no certification at all?
Does the principle that an engineer must resist employer and client pressure conflict with the principle that an engineer in an institutional role owes a degree of responsiveness to legitimate organizational authority, and how should Engineer A navigate the boundary between appropriate deference to the Army official and principled refusal?
Does the principle of disinterested peer reporting — which obligates Engineer A to challenge a colleague's out-of-competence work as illustrated in BER 94-8 — conflict with the principle of competence boundary self-recognition when Engineer A is simultaneously the engineer whose own competence is in question, creating a potential blind spot in self-assessment?
Does the principle that a professional certification constitutes a guarantee of compliance — making out-of-competence certification inherently deceptive — conflict with the principle of escalating confrontation and graduated response, which might suggest Engineer A should attempt partial or conditional engagement with the certification request before outright refusal?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A have an absolute duty to refuse the certification regardless of the institutional consequences — such as career repercussions or mission disruption — that refusal might cause, given that the NSPE Code imposes a categorical obligation to practice only within areas of qualified competence?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the potential harm to public safety from an incompetent arms storage certification — including risks of improper storage of weapons, ammunition, and explosives — outweigh any institutional benefit gained by Engineer A complying with the Army official's request and avoiding administrative friction?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A demonstrate professional integrity and intellectual honesty by recognizing and openly declaring the boundaries of their civil engineering competence rather than allowing institutional role, title, or authority pressure to substitute for genuine domain expertise in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations?
From a deontological perspective, does the act of affixing a professional seal to an Army compliance certification constitute an implicit guarantee of substantive correctness — making Engineer A's potential certification not merely imprudent but a form of professional deception that violates a categorical duty of truthfulness independent of whether any actual harm results?
If training funds had been available and Engineer A had completed the comprehensive training programs in Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations before the certification request was made, would the ethical analysis change — and would certification then be permissible, or would additional experience beyond training still be required to satisfy the competence standard?
What if Engineer A had accepted the certification assignment without disclosing the competence gap — would the Army official, the installation personnel, and the broader public have had any realistic mechanism to detect that the certification was issued outside the engineer's domain of expertise, and what does this information asymmetry reveal about the systemic importance of self-enforced professional competence boundaries?
If Engineer A had refused the certification and proactively identified and referred a qualified expert in Army physical security and explosives regulations — as the post-refusal escalation obligation suggests — would this course of action have fully discharged Engineer A's ethical responsibilities, or does the engineer bear any residual obligation to advocate for institutional changes such as securing training funds or modifying state board certification rules?
Drawing on the BER 85-3 precedent involving a chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor, what if Engineer A had accepted the Division Chief role on the condition that arms storage certification responsibilities would be excluded from the assignment — would such a negotiated role boundary have been ethically sufficient, or does the BER 85-3 reasoning suggest that accepting any role where out-of-competence certification demands are foreseeable is itself ethically problematic?
Regulatory Domain Competence Prerequisite Invoked for Arms Storage Certification
Engineer A is asked to certify that arms storage rooms and racks comply with lengthy, detailed, cross-referenced Army physical security and explosives regulations — a specialized regulatory framework requiring domain-specific knowledge that Engineer A does not possess, making the certification professionally impermissible
The act of certifying regulatory compliance is a professional attestation requiring genuine knowledge of the regulatory framework at issue; Engineer A's civil engineering expertise provides no basis for certifying compliance with specialized arms/ammunition/explosive regulations
Certification authority is bounded by regulatory domain competence; Engineer A must decline and either seek training or identify a qualified specialist
Regulatory Domain Competence Prerequisite — Army Physical Security Certification
Certification of compliance with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations cross-referenced with other Army regulations
Engineer A's general PE licensure and role as Building and Grounds Division Chief do not provide the domain-specific competence required to certify compliance with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations — a highly specialized regulatory framework requiring knowledge that Engineer A does not possess and cannot acquire given available resources.
The regulatory framework at issue (Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations) constitutes a specialized technical domain entirely outside civil engineering training; PE licensure in civil engineering provides no basis for certifying compliance with this framework.
certify that arms storage rooms and racks comply with detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations
The regulatory domain competence prerequisite is absolute; no institutional role, employer directive, or resource constraint can substitute for genuine domain expertise as the basis for compliance certification.
Engineer A is clearly not knowledgeable in this very technical and complicated area.
Request Certification of Compliance (Action 2) → Competence Gap Revealed (Event 1) and Physical Security Risk Exposed (Event 3)
At the time of the certification request and throughout the period of fund unavailability
Institutional resource availability for Engineer A's professional competence development in the required domain
Allocation of training funds or identification of alternative resource pathway
Training funds determined to be unavailable for the required competence remediation programs
Various state engineering licensure boards
State Engineering Licensure Board Rules of Professional Conduct (Certification Violations)
State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in supporting its conclusion and encouraging regulatory development
Referenced as an emerging regulatory trend in which state engineering boards are codifying improper certification of compliance as a violation of professional conduct rules; the BER explicitly endorses this rulemaking direction
State Board Out-of-Competence Certification Violation Rule BER Encouragement
The BER noted that state engineering licensure boards are beginning to codify out-of-competence certifications as violations and affirmatively encouraged these rule modifications.
State Engineering Licensure Boards and Professional Engineers
State Board Out-of-Competence Certification Violation Rule Encouragement Constraint
State engineering licensure boards are encouraged by the BER to adopt rules of professional conduct classifying improper compliance certifications — i.e., certifications issued by engineers lacking competence in the certified domain — as violations of state board rules, and engineers and their representative bodies are normatively constrained to support rather than resist such regulatory developments.
BER present case concluding statement; emerging state board regulatory trend
Ongoing; as state boards consider rule modifications
the BER encourages these rule modifications
Training Funds Unavailable Blocking Competence Remediation
Concurrent with the certification request; persists as long as training funds remain unavailable
Institutional unavailability of training funds preventing Engineer A from accessing comprehensive training programs for arms storage certification domain
Training funds becoming available, alternative funding identified, or task reassigned to already-qualified personnel
Discovery that training funds are not available despite comprehensive training programs existing for the required domain
Unethical Certification Conclusion Reached
Universal Engineer Competence Scope Limitation Invoked for Civil PE in Arms Regulation Context
Scope of Engineer A's professional authority to certify Army regulatory compliance
Engineer A's PE licensure in civil engineering does not authorize certification of compliance with Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations — domains requiring specialized knowledge that civil engineering training does not encompass
The PE license is a credential of professional standing, not a grant of authority to certify compliance in any regulatory domain; Engineer A's civil engineering expertise does not extend to physical security and explosives regulations
Universal Engineer Competence Scope Limitation Principle
PE licensure scope does not expand to cover all matters within an assigned institutional role; competence is domain-specific
Withhold Training Funds (Action 3) → Training Programs Rendered Inaccessible (Event 2)
first appointee deemed unqualified (BER Case 85-3) before county commissioners appointing chemical engineer (BER Case 85-3)
lack of training funds overlaps Army official's certification request
state engineering board regulation of certifications before present case analysis