BER 71-2 Prime Professional Specialist-Retaining Prime Consulting Engineer
{'standing': 'Prime consultant performing substantial services on a project', 'obligation': 'Retain or recommend retention of qualified experts and specialists outside own competence'}
Referenced from BER Case 71-2: the prime professional or client retaining experts and specialists in the interests of the project. The Board recognized the propriety and ethical value of a prime professional retaining specialists when performing substantial services on a project, and affirmed that engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas of competence or to retain individuals with the necessary background and experience.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Specialist sub-consultants'}
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Project client'}
Specialist-Retaining Prime Consulting Engineer
the Board recognized 'the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interests of the project'
a prime professional will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional is performing substantial services on the project
engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work
BER 71-2 Prime Professional Specialist Competence Verification
Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Capability
The BER 71-2 prime professional illustrates the capability to recognize when specialist competence is required and to retain qualified specialists — including verifying their qualifications — in the interests of the project, rather than proceeding with unqualified personnel.
BER Case 71-2 referenced as precedent for the duty to engage qualified specialists
BER Case 71-2 precedent recognizing the prime professional's duty to retain qualified specialists and verify their competence
BER Case 71-2: the prime professional or client retaining experts and specialists in the interests of the project
BER 71-2 Prime Professional Specialist Retention Competence Gap Remediation
The prime professional in BER Case 71-2 possessed the capability to recognize when specialist expertise was required for a project and to plan and execute retention of qualified specialists — establishing the normative principle that consulting engineers must seek work only in areas of established competence or retain individuals with the necessary background and experience.
BER Case 71-2 precedent: prime professional retaining specialist engineers for government work, establishing the consulting practice competence-or-retain principle
The Board's recognition in BER Case 71-2 of 'the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interests of the project'
The Board, in examining predecessor Section 6, recognized 'the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interests of the project'
The Board affirmed its decision rendered in BER Case 71-2 that in the field of consulting practice, engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work.
BER 85-3 County Surveyor Chemical Engineer Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Obligation
BER Case 85-3 reference case: a county ordinance required a PE as county surveyor; the appointed PE had background solely in chemical engineering; the Board found it unethical to accept the position because the institutional role did not confer the requisite technical competence.
BER 85-3 County Surveyor Appointee (Chemical Engineer)
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Scope Obligation
The chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor in BER Case 85-3 was obligated to recognize that the institutional title and authority of the county surveyor position did not expand their technical competence into surveying and highway improvement domains, and to decline the appointment on competence grounds.
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.
At the time of accepting the county surveyor appointment
The Board concluded in BER Case 85-3 that at a bare minimum, one who is serving in the role as a county surveyor must have at least some substantive degree of background and experience in order to accept such a position.
We fail to see how an individual, without such background or experience, could properly perform and exercise the judgment and discretion required by the job.
BER 85-3 County Surveyor Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Self-Recognition
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Self-Recognition Capability
The chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor in BER Case 85-3 was required to possess the capability to recognize that the institutional title and authority of the county surveyor position did not confer, expand, or substitute for substantive competence in surveying and highway engineering — domains outside his chemical engineering background.
BER Case 85-3 precedent: chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor with oversight responsibilities for surveying reports and highway improvement projects
The Board's conclusion that it was unethical for the chemical engineer to accept the county surveyor position, reasoning that he could not properly perform and exercise the judgment and discretion required by the job without the relevant background and experience
BER 85-3 County Surveyor Chemical Engineer
After considering the two earlier cases, the Board decided it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor
BER 85-3 County Surveyor Irreconcilable Competence Gap Declination
Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap Declination Capability
The BER 85-3 county surveyor case illustrates the capability — which the appointee failed to exercise — to recognize that a chemical engineering background does not qualify an engineer for a county surveyor role requiring civil/structural competence, and to decline the appointment accordingly.
BER Case 85-3 referenced as precedent for cross-discipline competence obligations
BER 85-3 precedent finding that a PE with solely chemical engineering background should not have accepted the county surveyor appointment requiring civil engineering competence
BER 85-3 County Surveyor Out-of-Competence Public Sector Appointee Engineer
BER Case 85-3: a PE with background solely in chemical engineering accepted appointment as county surveyor, a position requiring overall civil engineering competence
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (chemical engineering background)', 'position': 'County Surveyor', 'competence_gap': 'No background or expertise in surveying or highway improvement'}
Referenced from BER Case 85-3: a PE with background solely in chemical engineering accepted appointment as county surveyor, a position requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — a domain entirely outside the appointee's competence. The Board held this acceptance was unethical because the engineer could not effectively perform the required oversight without substantive background in surveying.
{'type': 'analogical_precedent_for', 'target': 'Engineer B Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'appointing_authority', 'target': 'County Commissioners'}
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. The engineer accepted the position.
In BER Case 71-2, a case involving the brokerage of engineering services by two firms competing for government work and the question of competence.
Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about Engineer B's competence
Established that engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience, or to retain individuals who possess the necessary background; recognized the propriety of prime professionals retaining specialists
BER Case 78-5, involved an effort by a consulting firm under consideration to perform services to a public utility in which the firm sought to alter its qualifications following its interview with the public utility in order to improve its position to secure the contract.
Involved a consulting firm that sought to alter its qualifications after an interview to improve its position to secure a contract; affirmed the obligation to represent qualifications honestly and practice within areas of competence
More recently, in BER Case 85-3, a local county ordinance required that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
In the present case, we follow the same reasoning and conclude that there is at least a reasonable basis for Engineer A to conclude that Engineer B does not possess the competence to perform the required task.
Board of Ethical Review as primary precedent for the present case analysis
Held that a chemical engineer accepting the position of county surveyor was unethical because he lacked substantive background in surveying; established that even oversight roles require a minimum degree of relevant background and experience; directly analogized to Engineer B's situation
BER Case 85-3 County Surveyor Oversight Role Substantive Background Minimum Threshold
Chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor whose duties included oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
Chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor (BER Case 85-3)
Oversight Role Substantive Domain Background Minimum Threshold Constraint
The chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor was constrained from accepting the position because, even though the role involved oversight rather than direct preparation of engineering documents, the engineer lacked any substantive background in surveying necessary to exercise the judgment and discretion required.
at a bare minimum, one who is serving in the role as a county surveyor must have at least some substantive degree of background and experience in order to accept such a position
At time of accepting the county surveyor appointment
BER Case 85-3 County Surveyor Section II.2.b Inescapable Ethical Violation Recognition
Chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor with no surveying background; Board found no ethical path forward under II.2.b
The Board found that the chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor could not comply with NSPE Code Section II.2.b under any course of action available — creating an inescapable ethical constraint that prohibited acceptance of the position regardless of any remediation strategy attempted.
The Board could not see any way in which the engineer could be 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.
At time of and throughout the county surveyor appointment
BER Case 85-3 Employment Context Competence Constraint — County Surveyor
From the chemical engineer's acceptance of the county surveyor appointment
Engineer A (county surveyor appointee in BER 85-3)
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
Employment Context Competence Constraint State
The county surveyor appointment situation from BER Case 85-3, cited as precedent
Board's determination that acceptance was unethical; engineer's withdrawal from position
it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, 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
Chemical engineer accepted county surveyor position requiring oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects — domains outside chemical engineering competence — with no mechanism to subcontract or restructure the role
BER Case 85-3 before current case analysis
BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 Cross-Domain Analogical Application to BER Case 85-3
Board applying consulting-practice competence precedents to an employment-context county surveyor appointment
BER Precedent Cross-Domain Analogical Application Constraint
The Board was constrained to acknowledge factual dissimilarities between BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 (consulting firm contexts) and BER Case 85-3 (employment/appointment context) while still applying the same underlying Code provisions to reach its conclusion.
NSPE BER Case 94-8 Discussion; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3
while the facts of the two aforementioned cases were quite dissimilar to BER Case 85-3, those two cases related to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon the Board's consideration of those provisions
At time of BER Case 85-3 and BER Case 94-8 deliberation
CausalLink_Contractor Retains Engineer B
CausalLink_Engineer A Confronts Engineer
CausalLink_Engineer A Escalates to Client
CausalLink_Engineer A Investigates Engine
CausalLink_Engineer A Reports Concerns to
CausalLink_Engineer B Accepts Structural
CausalLink_Engineer B Decides Whether to
Collegial Notification Before Reporting Standard
Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
Engineer A in deciding how to handle competence concerns about Engineer B
Governs whether Engineer A should first notify Engineer B directly about competence concerns before escalating to the contractor or licensing board; Engineer A has reported concerns to the contractor but the standard raises the question of whether direct collegial notification to Engineer B was the appropriate first step
It would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer B's acceptance of the structural footing assignment is unethical, Engineer B bore an independent and antecedent ethical obligation to conduct a candid self-assessment of his own competence before accepting the engagement — not merely to decline if challenged by a peer. The chemical engineering background that defines Engineer B's training is substantively remote from the soil mechanics, load-path analysis, and foundation design principles required for structural footing work. Because Engineer B's sole-purpose retention was specifically and exclusively for structural footing design, there was no broader project role within which a competence gap could be absorbed, delegated, or remediated through collaboration with a qualified structural engineer. The circularity is decisive: Engineer B could not ethically seal work he lacked the competence to perform, and he could not ethically oversee a qualified structural engineer performing that work without himself possessing the substantive background necessary to evaluate it. Holding a general PE license does not dissolve this constraint; the ethics code imposes a higher standard than the legal minimum of licensure, and that higher standard required Engineer B to proactively disclose his disciplinary background to the contractor and decline the assignment before any peer raised concerns.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer B's assignment is unethical carries an important but unaddressed implication for the construction contractor: the contractor's failure to verify Engineer B's disciplinary background and domain-specific qualifications before retention constitutes an independent ethical failure that neither diminishes nor displaces Engineer A's reporting obligation but does amplify the systemic risk to public safety. The contractor, operating in a design-build context, assumed a coordination and oversight role that included a duty to confirm that each retained engineer possessed qualifications aligned to the specific technical task assigned. Retaining a chemical engineer for structural footing design without investigating whether that engineer had subsequent training in foundation design represents a degree-to-task alignment verification failure. However, assigning primary responsibility for this failure to the contractor must not be permitted to dilute the engineering profession's internal self-policing norms: the contractor's negligence does not reduce Engineer A's obligation to report, nor does it excuse Engineer B's obligation to decline. Rather, the contractor's verification failure and the engineers' individual competence obligations operate in parallel, each independently required by the ethical framework governing their respective roles.
The Board's treatment of Engineer B's situation is further illuminated by the BER Case 85-3 analogy: just as the county surveyor's appointment to a public role did not expand the technical scope of that engineer's competence, Engineer B's retention by the contractor for a specific structural task did not confer structural engineering competence that Engineer B did not independently possess. The institutional or contractual framing of an assignment — whether a public appointment or a private consulting engagement — is ethically inert with respect to the competence boundary. This principle forecloses any argument that Engineer B's status as a retained PE, or the contractor's apparent confidence in retaining him, could serve as a substitute for substantive domain-specific qualification. From a deontological standpoint, Engineer B's categorical duty to practice only within competence was violated at the moment of acceptance, entirely independent of whether the resulting footing design might have proven structurally adequate. The outcome of the design is irrelevant to the ethical violation; the violation was complete upon acceptance of an assignment for which Engineer B lacked the requisite education or experience in the specific technical domain.
While the Board left unresolved whether Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to report concerns to the contractor, the analytical framework strongly supports the conclusion that Engineer A's reporting was not merely permissible but obligatory — subject to an important sequencing condition the Board did not explicitly address. The ethics code's peer competence challenge obligation activates upon reasonable doubt about a colleague's competence, and Engineer A's inability to establish any subsequent training in foundation design for a chemical engineer assigned to structural footing work constitutes a sufficient objective basis for that reasonable doubt. However, the principle of peer confrontation before authority escalation suggests that Engineer A's ethical obligation was sequenced: first, directly confront Engineer B and recommend withdrawal from the assignment; second, if Engineer B refused or the concern remained unresolved, escalate to the contractor. The fact that Engineer A reported to the contractor does not itself establish whether Engineer A first confronted Engineer B — and the Board's silence on this sequencing question leaves open whether Engineer A fully discharged the collegial dimension of the obligation or appropriately compressed the sequence given the structural safety stakes involved.
The Board's unresolved question about Engineer A's reporting obligation has a further dimension that the Board did not reach: if the contractor receives Engineer A's concerns and takes no corrective action, Engineer A's ethical obligation does not terminate at the contractor level. The structural footing context is particularly significant here because footing failures are catastrophic, irreversible, and capable of causing loss of life to building occupants who have no knowledge of and no ability to protect themselves from the competence deficiency. This asymmetry between the severity and irreversibility of potential harm and the relative ease of remediation — replacing Engineer B with a qualified structural engineer — means that the public welfare paramount principle accelerates the escalation threshold. Engineer A's obligation would progress from contractor notification to state licensing board notification if the contractor failed to act, and continued participation in the project alongside an unqualified Engineer B performing structural footing design could, under sufficiently unresponsive circumstances, constitute complicity requiring Engineer A's withdrawal from the project entirely.
Engineer A has an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
In response to Q101: Engineer B bears an independent and primary ethical obligation to proactively disclose his chemical engineering background and lack of structural training to the contractor before accepting the structural footing assignment. This obligation flows directly from Section II.2.a, which requires engineers to undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical field involved. The duty to disclose is not contingent on a peer raising concerns; it is self-executing and arises at the moment Engineer B evaluates whether to accept the engagement. Waiting for Engineer A or another party to surface the competence gap inverts the ethical architecture of the code, which places primary gatekeeping responsibility on the individual engineer. A fully ethical Engineer B would have declined the assignment outright or, at minimum, disclosed his background limitations to the contractor before any design work commenced, allowing the contractor to make an informed retention decision. The fact that Engineer B accepted the assignment without apparent disclosure compounds the ethical violation beyond mere incompetence into a failure of professional candor.
In response to Q102: The construction contractor bears an independent ethical and practical responsibility to verify Engineer B's qualifications before retaining him for structural footing design, as implied by the degree-to-task alignment verification obligation. However, the contractor's failure to perform adequate pre-retention screening does not diminish Engineer A's reporting obligations — it amplifies them. The contractor's negligence creates a gap in the competence gatekeeping system that Engineer A's reporting obligation is specifically designed to fill. The engineering profession's self-policing norms, reflected in Section II.2 and the broader code structure, exist precisely because clients and contractors often lack the technical sophistication to independently assess cross-discipline competence deficiencies. Assigning primary responsibility to the contractor would dangerously dilute the profession's internal accountability norms and undermine the public trust that professional licensure is meant to guarantee. The contractor's failure is a contributing factor to the ethical problem, but it does not transfer or reduce Engineer A's independent duty to act upon reasonable knowledge of a competence violation that threatens public safety.
In response to Q103: If Engineer A reports concerns to the contractor and the contractor takes no corrective action, Engineer A's ethical obligation escalates progressively and does not terminate at the contractor notification step. The structural safety risk inherent in footing design — where failure can cause catastrophic, irreversible harm to building occupants — materially accelerates the escalation threshold. Under the public welfare paramount principle and the engineer's duty to hold public safety above client interests, Engineer A's next obligation would be to directly confront Engineer B and recommend withdrawal. If Engineer B also refuses to withdraw and the contractor continues to permit the incompetent design work, Engineer A's obligation escalates further to notification of the state licensing board or other relevant public authorities. The severity and irreversibility of potential structural footing failure means that the threshold for escalation beyond the contractor is lower in this context than it would be for a less safety-critical assignment. Continued silence after contractor inaction would risk making Engineer A complicit in a foreseeable public safety harm, which the code does not permit. At that stage, project withdrawal by Engineer A may also become ethically necessary.
In response to Q104: Engineer B could theoretically cure the competence deficiency by engaging a qualified structural engineer to perform the actual footing design under proper supervision, as contemplated by Section II.2.c, which permits accepting coordination responsibility for an entire project while retaining specialists for components outside one's competence. However, the sole-purpose nature of Engineer B's engagement with the contractor makes this remedy structurally circular and ethically unavailable. Engineer B was retained specifically and exclusively to design the structural footings — that task is not a subsidiary component of a broader coordination role but the entirety of his engagement. If Engineer B sub-delegated the actual design to a qualified structural engineer, he would be providing no independent value to the engagement while retaining the ethical and legal responsibility of sealing work he cannot competently review. Furthermore, Engineer B's inability to competently oversee, evaluate, or seal the delegated structural work means the sub-delegation would not satisfy Section II.2.b's prohibition on affixing signatures to plans dealing with subject matter in which the engineer is not competent. The II.2.c remedy is designed for prime professionals with genuine coordination competence, not as a mechanism for incompetent engineers to launder out-of-discipline assignments through nominal delegation.
In response to Q201: The principle requiring Engineer A to confront Engineer B directly before escalating to the contractor or authorities does create a sequencing tension with the public welfare paramount principle, but this tension is resolvable rather than irreconcilable. The graduated escalation sequence — direct confrontation of Engineer B, then contractor notification, then authority escalation — is not merely a procedural courtesy; it reflects the profession's commitment to collegial self-regulation and gives Engineer B the opportunity to self-correct before external intervention. However, the structural footing context materially compresses the acceptable timeline for each escalation step. Because structural footing failures can cause catastrophic and irreversible harm, Engineer A cannot afford extended deliberation at any stage. The public welfare paramount principle does not eliminate the direct confrontation step but it does mean that Engineer A's tolerance for delay or non-response at each stage must be significantly shorter than it would be for a less safety-critical assignment. If direct confrontation of Engineer B produces no corrective action within a reasonable and compressed timeframe, the public welfare obligation overrides any residual collegial deference and compels immediate escalation.
In response to Q202: The tension between incomplete situational knowledge restraint and the peer competence challenge obligation resolves at the point where Engineer A has made a reasonable, good-faith investigation of Engineer B's credentials and background and has been unable to establish any qualifying education or experience in foundation design. The standard is not certainty of incompetence but reasonable doubt grounded in objective evidence — or the absence of evidence — following diligent inquiry. In this case, Engineer A investigated Engineer B's qualifications, found that his degree is in chemical engineering, and could not establish any subsequent training in foundation design. That combination of positive evidence of a non-structural background and absence of evidence of remedial qualification is sufficient to activate the peer competence challenge obligation. Engineer A is not required to prove Engineer B incompetent beyond doubt; the code's protective purpose for public safety means that reasonable, evidence-based doubt about competence in a safety-critical domain is sufficient to trigger the reporting obligation. Epistemic caution is appropriate before investigation but cannot serve as a perpetual shield against action once investigation has produced a reasonable basis for concern.
In response to Q203: The principle that the ethics code sets a higher standard than mere PE licensure and the principle that consulting contexts afford engineers greater competence flexibility than employment contexts do create a genuine tension, but that tension does not benefit Engineer B in this case. The consulting context flexibility principle, as illustrated in BER cases 71-2 and 78-5, applies to situations where a consulting firm or prime professional can restructure its workforce, retain specialists, or otherwise adapt its organizational capacity to address competence gaps. That flexibility is organizational and structural in nature — it permits a consulting firm to cure a competence gap through legitimate subconsultant arrangements. It does not permit an individual engineer to accept an assignment for which he personally lacks competence on the theory that consulting contexts are more permissive. Engineer B's sole-purpose engagement means there is no organizational flexibility to invoke; the consulting context flexibility principle simply has no application to his situation. Meanwhile, the ethics code higher standard principle directly forecloses any argument that Engineer B's general PE licensure authorizes structural footing design. The two principles are not in genuine conflict as applied to Engineer B — the consulting flexibility principle is inapplicable, and the higher standard principle is directly operative.
In response to Q204: The degree-to-task alignment verification obligation applicable to the contractor and the engineering self-policing obligation applicable to Engineer A and Engineer B are not fundamentally in conflict, but assigning meaningful responsibility to the contractor does carry a risk of diluting the profession's internal accountability norms if not carefully bounded. The contractor's verification duty is real but it is a secondary safeguard — it exists because contractors sometimes retain engineers without adequate credential scrutiny, and the profession's ethical framework anticipates this gap. The primary burden of competence gatekeeping remains on Engineer B himself, who must self-assess and decline out-of-competence assignments, and on Engineer A, who must challenge apparent competence violations when discovered. Treating the contractor's verification failure as a primary or co-equal responsibility risks creating a moral hazard where engineers assume that contractor screening will catch competence problems they themselves should have prevented. The correct framing is that the contractor's verification obligation and the engineers' self-policing obligations operate in parallel and are mutually reinforcing, but the engineers' obligations are primary and non-delegable, while the contractor's obligation is a secondary institutional check that does not substitute for professional self-regulation.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B violated a categorical duty to practice only within competence by accepting the structural footing assignment, regardless of whether the resulting design might have turned out to be structurally sound. The deontological analysis under Section II.2.a is outcome-independent: the duty is to undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical field, and that duty is violated at the moment of acceptance, not at the moment of failure. A fortuitously adequate design produced by an incompetent engineer does not retroactively cure the ethical violation, just as a lucky outcome does not transform a reckless act into a prudent one. The categorical nature of this duty reflects the code's recognition that competence cannot be reliably assessed after the fact by non-expert clients or the public, and that the profession's trustworthiness depends on engineers self-enforcing competence boundaries unconditionally. Engineer B's chemical engineering background and absence of established foundation design training place him categorically outside the competence boundary for structural footing design, making the acceptance of the assignment an unconditional ethical violation.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the potential harm to public safety from an incompetently designed structural footing vastly outweighs any project efficiency or cost benefits gained by retaining Engineer B rather than a qualified structural engineer. Structural footing failures can cause building collapse, loss of life, and severe injury to occupants and workers — harms that are catastrophic in magnitude, irreversible in nature, and potentially affect many people beyond the immediate parties to the contract. The cost savings or scheduling convenience of retaining an already-engaged chemical engineer for a structural task are marginal and speculative benefits by comparison. A rigorous consequentialist calculus, properly accounting for the probability of harm, the severity and irreversibility of potential outcomes, and the breadth of persons affected, would unambiguously favor retaining a qualified structural engineer. This analysis should directly inform the contractor's retention decision: the contractor's duty to verify Engineer B's qualifications before retention is not merely a procedural nicety but a consequentially critical safeguard against a foreseeable and preventable catastrophic outcome.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A demonstrated the professional virtues of courage and integrity by reporting concerns about Engineer B's competence to the contractor, particularly given the professional and social pressures that typically discourage engineers from challenging colleagues on a shared project. However, a fully virtuous engineer would also have directly confronted Engineer B before or alongside escalating to the contractor. Direct confrontation reflects the virtues of honesty, respect for professional peers, and commitment to collegial self-regulation — it gives Engineer B the opportunity to self-correct and preserves the dignity of the professional relationship. Bypassing direct confrontation in favor of immediate contractor notification, while not necessarily unethical, reflects a less complete expression of professional virtue. The virtuous sequence would be: investigate Engineer B's credentials thoroughly, confront Engineer B directly with the concern and recommend withdrawal, and then escalate to the contractor and authorities if Engineer B refuses to act. This sequence embodies both the courage to challenge a peer and the integrity to follow through with escalation when self-correction fails.
In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty to protect public safety creates a strong but not unconditional obligation to escalate concerns beyond the contractor to the state licensing board if the contractor fails to act. The duty is strong because structural footing design implicates irreversible public safety risks that cannot be adequately addressed by private contractual arrangements alone. However, the duty remains sensitive to the severity and imminence of the risk in determining the appropriate escalation pathway and timing. Where the risk is severe and imminent — as it is in structural footing design for an industrial facility under active construction — the threshold for escalating to the licensing board is materially lower than it would be for a speculative or remote risk. The structural safety context means that Engineer A cannot indefinitely defer licensing board notification while waiting for the contractor to act. If the contractor fails to take corrective action within a reasonable and compressed timeframe, the deontological duty to protect public safety becomes an unconditional obligation to escalate to the licensing board, because at that point Engineer A possesses knowledge of an ongoing competence violation that poses a direct threat to public welfare and no private remedy has been effective.
In response to Q401: Substantial post-degree self-study and informal mentorship in foundation design, without formal credentials or documented training, would not be sufficient to satisfy the competence standard for structural footing design under the code's requirements. Section II.2.a requires qualification by education or experience in the specific technical field, and the word 'experience' in this context implies documented, verifiable, and professionally supervised practice — not self-directed study or informal mentorship that cannot be independently assessed. The structural footing context is particularly demanding because the consequences of incompetence are catastrophic and irreversible, which means the competence threshold must be reliably verifiable rather than self-reported. Engineer A and the contractor evaluating such informal experience should apply a high degree of skepticism and require objective evidence: documented project history, references from supervising engineers, and ideally formal continuing education records. Absent such documentation, informal self-study claims should not override the reasonable doubt that Engineer B's chemical engineering background and absence of formal structural training creates. The burden of demonstrating competence rests on Engineer B, and unverifiable informal experience does not discharge that burden.
In response to Q402: If Engineer B had accepted the structural footing assignment but immediately sub-delegated the actual design work to a qualified structural engineer while retaining overall coordination responsibility, that arrangement would not have resolved the ethical problem. The core issue is not merely who performs the physical design calculations but who bears the professional responsibility for reviewing, evaluating, and sealing the work. Engineer B's inability to competently oversee and seal the structural footing design means that any sub-delegation would be nominal rather than substantive — Engineer B would be affixing his seal to plans dealing with subject matter in which he is not competent, which is directly prohibited by Section II.2.b. Furthermore, the sole-purpose nature of Engineer B's engagement means that his coordination role has no independent content beyond the structural footing design itself; there is no broader project coordination function that would justify invoking the Section II.2.c exception. The sub-delegation arrangement would create a false appearance of professional oversight while providing none of its substance, which is arguably more ethically problematic than straightforward incompetent practice because it actively misleads the contractor and the public about the quality of professional review.
In response to Q403: If Engineer A had not reported concerns to the contractor and the structural footings subsequently failed causing injury, Engineer A would bear significant ethical responsibility for the harm. Engineer A possessed knowledge — grounded in objective credential investigation — that Engineer B lacked apparent competence for the structural footing assignment. The engineering profession's self-policing obligation and the public welfare paramount principle together create an affirmative duty to act upon such knowledge. Silence in the face of a known, foreseeable public safety risk is not ethically neutral; it constitutes a failure of the professional duty to protect public welfare. The fact that Engineer A did not design the footings himself does not insulate him from ethical responsibility, because his knowledge of Engineer B's apparent incompetence created an independent obligation to intervene. This analysis reinforces the Board's implicit conclusion that Engineer A's reporting to the contractor was not merely permissible but ethically required. Failure to report would have transformed Engineer A from a bystander into a passive participant in the competence violation, with corresponding ethical culpability for foreseeable harms that his intervention could have prevented.
In response to Q404: If the contractor ignored Engineer A's reported concerns and directed Engineer A to continue working on the project alongside Engineer B, Engineer A's ethical obligation would require serious consideration of withdrawal from the project, and continued participation would risk becoming complicity in the competence violation. The threshold for required withdrawal is reached when Engineer A has exhausted available internal remedies — reporting to the contractor — and the contractor has not only failed to act but has affirmatively directed continuation of the problematic arrangement. At that point, Engineer A's continued participation lends professional credibility and implicit endorsement to a project in which a known competence violation is ongoing. The project withdrawal obligation is not triggered by mere disagreement with a client decision; it is triggered when continued participation would require Engineer A to act contrary to the code's requirements or to remain silent about an ongoing public safety threat. Before withdrawing, Engineer A should also escalate to the state licensing board, because withdrawal alone does not protect the public from the ongoing risk — it only removes Engineer A from personal complicity. The combination of licensing board notification and project withdrawal represents the full discharge of Engineer A's ethical obligations when contractor-level remedies have failed.
The most fundamental tension in this case — between the principle that public welfare is paramount and the principle of incomplete situational knowledge restraint — was resolved by the Board in favor of a graduated, sequenced response rather than immediate escalation. The Board did not treat public safety as a trump card that collapses all procedural steps into an immediate duty to report to authorities. Instead, it preserved the collegial-first sequencing: Engineer A should confront Engineer B directly before escalating to the contractor or beyond. This resolution implicitly teaches that 'public welfare is paramount' functions as a ceiling constraint on inaction, not as a lever that bypasses professional process. The principle only overrides procedural sequence when the risk is imminent and the process has already failed — not at the moment reasonable doubt first arises. In the structural footing context, where failures can be catastrophic, this sequencing remains intact precisely because early-stage intervention (direct confrontation, then contractor notification) is itself a public-safety-protective act, not a delay of it.
The case reveals a decisive resolution of the tension between the ethics code as a higher standard than mere PE licensure and the principle that consulting contexts afford engineers greater competence flexibility than employment contexts. The Board's analysis makes clear that these two principles operate on different axes and do not cancel each other out: consulting flexibility is a real and recognized principle, but it applies to how competence gaps are remediated organizationally — through subconsultant retention, team structuring, or specialist delegation — not to whether a given engineer may personally seal work outside their domain. Because Engineer B was retained on a sole-purpose basis specifically to design structural footings, the consulting-context flexibility principle had no operative purchase: there was no organizational structure through which Engineer B could legitimately route the work to a qualified structural engineer while retaining meaningful oversight. The ethics code's higher standard therefore prevailed unconditionally in Engineer B's situation, and the consulting flexibility principle was effectively neutralized by the sole-purpose engagement constraint. This teaches that consulting flexibility is an organizational remedy, not a personal competence waiver.
A subtler but important principle tension exists between the degree-to-task alignment verification obligation — which implies the contractor bore a duty to screen Engineer B before retention — and the engineering self-policing obligation that places primary competence gatekeeping on engineers themselves. The Board's analysis does not explicitly resolve this tension, but its structure implicitly prioritizes the internal professional obligation: the ethical conclusions are directed at Engineer B's acceptance decision and Engineer A's reporting duty, not at the contractor's screening failure. This prioritization carries a normative lesson: assigning primary responsibility to the contractor risks diluting the profession's internal accountability norms by suggesting that engineers may accept assignments unless externally screened out. The profession's ethical framework instead demands that Engineer B self-screen before acceptance and that Engineer A police the boundary when Engineer B fails to do so. The contractor's verification duty is real but secondary — a backstop, not the primary line of defense. Allowing contractor negligence to diminish Engineer A's reporting obligation would invert this hierarchy and undermine the self-regulating character of professional engineering ethics.
Construction Contractor Competence Gap Subconsultant Verification Responsibility
The construction contractor, as the retaining party for Engineer B's structural footing design services, bore responsibility for verifying that Engineer B possessed the requisite competence for the assigned structural task — a capability the contractor failed to adequately exercise when separately retaining a chemical engineer for structural footing design.
Design-build industrial facility project — contractor's separate retention of Engineer B for structural footing design
The contractor's separate retention of Engineer B for structural footing design without apparent verification of structural engineering competence, leading to Engineer A's competence concerns
Construction Contractor Design-Build Project Retaining Contractor Client
the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
Construction Contractor Consulting Practice Workforce Structuring Competence Gap Remediation
Consulting Practice Workforce Structuring Competence Gap Remediation Capability
The construction contractor possessed or was required to possess the capability to understand that consulting practice flexibility — joint ventures, subconsultants, additional qualified hires — could remediate competence gaps in general consulting engagements, but that sole-purpose retention of Engineer B for structural footing design foreclosed this flexibility, making the contractor's retention decision ethically problematic.
Construction contractor executing design-build industrial facility project who separately retained Engineer B for structural footing design
The contractor's failure to verify Engineer B's structural engineering competence before sole-purpose retention, and the Board's analysis that sub-delegation was not feasible under the sole-purpose retention arrangement
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 for which the firm is being retained.
Because of the relatively dynamic nature of private consulting practice, 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.
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, we do not think this would be feasible under the facts.
Construction Contractor Degree-to-Task Alignment Verification Before Engineer B Retention Obligation
The construction contractor separately retained Engineer B — a chemical engineer — for structural footing design on the design/build industrial facility project without verifying that Engineer B possessed structural engineering competence.
Consulting Practice Sole-Purpose Retention Competence Scope Non-Expandability Obligation
The construction contractor was obligated, before retaining Engineer B for the sole and exclusive purpose of structural footing design, to verify that Engineer B's academic degree and professional experience aligned with the structural engineering demands of the task, rather than assuming that a PE license was sufficient qualification.
The construction contractor's separate retention of a chemical engineer for structural footing design — without verifying that Engineer B possessed the requisite structural engineering competence — implicates the contractor's own obligation to ensure that retained engineers are qualified for the specific tasks assigned.
Before executing the retention agreement with Engineer B for structural footing design
It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.
{'project_role': 'Design/build contractor', 'action': 'Separately retained Engineer B for structural footing design sub-scope', 'recipient_of': "Engineer A's competence concerns regarding Engineer B"}
Construction contractor executing the design/build industrial facility project who separately retains Engineer B for structural footing design and receives Engineer A's competence concerns about Engineer B.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer B Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'works_with', 'target': 'Engineer A Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer'}
Design-Build Project Retaining Contractor Client
Engineer A, a professional engineer works with a construction contractor on a design/build project
Engineer A reports his concerns to the contractor
the construction contractor separately retains the services of Engineer B
Consulting Context Competence Remediation Flexibility — General Principle
Operative as background ethical framework throughout the Board's analysis of Engineer B's situation
Consulting Context Competence Remediation Flexibility State
The general consulting practice context as distinguished from employment contexts in the Board's analysis
Not applicable — this is a general contextual state applicable to consulting engagements broadly; terminated in specific cases when engagement scope narrows to sole-purpose task
As the Board noted in BER Case 85-3, obviously, there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship.
in the field of consulting practice, engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work
Board's recognition that consulting practice provides structural flexibility to retain specialists, distinguishing it from employment contexts
Consulting Firm Workforce Restructuring Permissibility — General Principle
Board distinguishing consulting flexibility from employment context rigidity in BER Case 94-8
Consulting Firm Workforce Restructuring Competence Gap Remediation Permissibility Constraint
A consulting engineering firm retained to perform services including domains outside its current competence may ethically remedy the gap through joint ventures, subcontracts, or additional hires — but only where the engagement is not a sole-purpose retention for the specific task in question.
NSPE Code II.2; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3
At time of accepting and structuring consulting engagement
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
Consulting vs. Employment Competence Flexibility Differential — BER Case 94-8 Application
Board distinguishing Engineer B's sole-purpose consulting retention from general consulting firm flexibility
Engineer B and consulting engineers generally
Consulting vs. Employment Context Competence Flexibility Differential Constraint
While consulting firms generally have flexibility to remedy competence gaps through workforce restructuring, Engineer B's sole-purpose retention collapsed this flexibility differential, making the competence requirement for structural footing design inviolable for Engineer B personally — analogous to the employment context constraint applied in BER Case 85-3.
At time of accepting and structuring the consulting retention
In the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility
Contractor Competence Verification Duty Engineer B Structural Footing Retention
The contractor separately retained Engineer B for structural footing design without apparent verification of domain-specific competence, and has now received Engineer A's formal competence concerns.
Contractor Competence Verification Duty Before Specialist Retention Constraint
The contractor bears a duty to verify Engineer B's demonstrated competence in structural footing and foundation design before retaining Engineer B for this sole-purpose engagement, and must act on Engineer A's reported competence concerns by requiring competence demonstration or replacing Engineer B with a structurally competent engineer.
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering practice standards
At the time of Engineer B's retention and upon receipt of Engineer A's competence concerns
Contractor Retains Engineer B → Engineer B's Lack of Qualifications Confirmed
Should Engineer B accept the structural footing design assignment based on holding a valid PE license, or decline the assignment and disclose his chemical engineering background to the contractor before any design work commences?
Engineer B, holding a PE license with educational background and experience solely in chemical engineering, must decide whether to accept the contractor's retention for structural footing design. The core tension is between the legal permissibility of the assignment under a general PE license and the ethics code's higher standard requiring domain-specific competence defined by education or experience in the specific technical field.
Proactively inform the contractor of his chemical engineering background and absence of structural engineering training before any design work commences, and decline the structural footing assignment, allowing the contractor to retain a qualified structural engineer.
Accept the structural footing assignment on the basis that a valid PE license legally authorizes the work, treating licensure as sufficient qualification and proceeding with the design without disclosing the chemical engineering background.
Accept the engagement but immediately retain a qualified structural engineer to perform the actual footing design, positioning Engineer B as the coordinating professional who reviews and seals the work — invoking the consulting-context flexibility available under II.2.c.
Should Engineer A first directly confront Engineer B and recommend withdrawal from the structural footing assignment before reporting concerns to the contractor, or should Engineer A report concerns directly to the contractor given the structural safety risk without first confronting Engineer B?
Engineer A has investigated Engineer B's credentials and found that Engineer B's degree is in chemical engineering with no apparent subsequent training in foundation design. Engineer A must decide how to sequence his response: whether to first directly confront Engineer B and recommend withdrawal before escalating to the contractor, or to report concerns directly to the contractor without prior collegial confrontation. The tension is between the peer confrontation sequencing norm and the public welfare paramount principle given the structural safety stakes.
Directly confront Engineer B with the credential findings, recommend that Engineer B withdraw from the structural footing assignment, and escalate to the contractor only if Engineer B refuses — honoring the collegial-first sequencing norm while preserving the escalation pathway.
Bypass direct confrontation with Engineer B and report competence concerns immediately to the contractor, on the basis that the structural safety stakes are too high to risk delay and that the contractor, as the retaining party, is the appropriate decision-maker.
Defer both direct confrontation and contractor reporting pending further investigation to establish whether Engineer B has any undisclosed structural training or experience, applying incomplete situational knowledge restraint to avoid acting on potentially unverified assumptions.
If the contractor takes no corrective action after Engineer A reports concerns about Engineer B's competence, should Engineer A escalate to the state licensing board and withdraw from the project, or continue participation while deferring to the contractor's authority over the retention decision?
After Engineer A reports concerns to the contractor, the contractor takes no corrective action and directs Engineer A to continue working on the project alongside Engineer B. Engineer A must decide whether to escalate beyond the contractor to the state licensing board and potentially withdraw from the project, or to continue participation while relying on the contractor's authority to manage the situation. The tension is between the progressive escalation norm, the complicity avoidance principle, and the limits of Engineer A's independent authority to override a client's project decision.
Notify the state licensing board of the ongoing competence violation and withdraw from the project, recognizing that contractor inaction has exhausted internal remedies and that continued participation would constitute complicity in a foreseeable public safety harm.
Withdraw from the project to avoid personal complicity but refrain from notifying the state licensing board, treating withdrawal as a sufficient discharge of Engineer A's ethical obligations and leaving further action to the contractor's discretion.
Continue working on the project under the contractor's direction while formally documenting Engineer A's objections in writing to the contractor, on the basis that the contractor bears primary responsibility for the retention decision and Engineer A's reporting obligation was discharged by the initial notification.
Should Engineer B attempt to cure the structural footing competence deficiency by sub-delegating the actual design to a qualified structural engineer while retaining coordination responsibility, or must Engineer B recognize that the sole-purpose nature of his engagement makes sub-delegation an ethically unavailable remedy and decline the assignment entirely?
Engineer B, having accepted the structural footing assignment, considers whether the competence deficiency can be cured by immediately sub-delegating the actual design work to a qualified structural engineer while retaining overall coordination responsibility and sealing the final plans. The tension is between the consulting-practice flexibility available under II.2.c — which permits prime professionals to retain specialists for competence gaps — and the sole-purpose nature of Engineer B's engagement, which forecloses organizational remediation and makes sub-delegation structurally circular.
Recognize that the sole-purpose nature of the engagement forecloses sub-delegation as an ethical remedy, decline the structural footing assignment entirely, and inform the contractor that a qualified structural engineer must be retained directly for the work.
Accept the engagement and immediately retain a qualified structural engineer to perform the actual footing design calculations, invoking the II.2.c consulting-practice flexibility that permits prime professionals to engage specialists for competence gaps, while retaining coordination and sealing responsibility.
Accept the engagement but proactively disclose to the contractor that a qualified structural engineer will perform the design work under Engineer B's coordination, allowing the contractor to make an informed decision about whether this arrangement satisfies the project's technical and liability requirements.
Should the construction contractor independently verify Engineer B's structural engineering qualifications before retention, or rely on Engineer B's PE license as sufficient evidence of competence for the structural footing assignment?
The construction contractor must decide whether to verify Engineer B's domain-specific qualifications — including academic degree discipline and relevant structural engineering experience — before retaining him for the sole and exclusive purpose of structural footing design, or to rely on Engineer B's general PE license as sufficient qualification for the assignment. The tension is between the contractor's independent degree-to-task alignment verification obligation and the engineering profession's primary self-policing norm, which places the competence gatekeeping burden on engineers themselves rather than on clients.
Independently investigate Engineer B's academic degree discipline and documented structural engineering experience before finalizing the retention, requiring evidence of domain-specific qualification beyond general PE licensure before assigning the structural footing task.
Treat Engineer B's valid PE license as sufficient evidence of competence for the structural footing assignment, on the basis that professional licensure is the established legal standard for engineering qualification and that the contractor is not positioned to second-guess the licensing board's determination.
Require Engineer B to provide a written self-certification of competence for structural footing design before retention, placing the verification burden on Engineer B's professional representation rather than conducting an independent credential investigation — consistent with the profession's primary self-policing norm.
Has Engineer A's credential investigation produced a sufficient objective basis to activate the peer competence challenge obligation and proceed with confronting Engineer B, or must Engineer A conduct further investigation before concluding that reasonable doubt about Engineer B's structural competence is warranted?
Engineer A must determine whether his credential investigation of Engineer B — which revealed a chemical engineering degree and no apparent subsequent training in foundation design — constitutes a sufficient objective basis to activate the peer competence challenge obligation, or whether epistemic caution requires further investigation before concluding that reasonable doubt exists. The tension is between the incomplete situational knowledge restraint that cautions against acting on unverified assumptions and the peer competence challenge obligation that activates upon reasonable doubt grounded in objective evidence.
Treat the combination of Engineer B's chemical engineering degree and absence of any apparent subsequent training in foundation design as a sufficient objective basis for reasonable doubt, and proceed to directly confront Engineer B and recommend withdrawal from the structural footing assignment.
Defer the peer competence challenge pending additional investigation — including direct inquiry to Engineer B about any post-degree structural training, review of Engineer B's project history, and consultation with the contractor about the basis for Engineer B's retention — before concluding that a reasonable basis for challenge exists.
Rather than unilaterally concluding that reasonable doubt exists, formally request that Engineer B provide documentation of his structural engineering qualifications — including any post-degree training, relevant project experience, or continuing education — before deciding whether to activate the peer competence challenge obligation.
Degree-to-Task Alignment Verification Obligation Applied to Contractor Retention of Engineer B
Construction contractor's retention of Engineer B for structural footing design
Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection
The construction contractor, in retaining Engineer B for structural footing design, bore an obligation to verify that Engineer B's academic degree and professional background aligned with structural engineering — not merely that Engineer B held a PE license — because the PE credential alone does not certify cross-disciplinary competence.
The retaining contractor's due diligence obligation extends to verifying disciplinary alignment between the retained engineer's background and the specific technical task, independent of licensure status.
Degree-to-Task Alignment Verification Obligation in Retained Engineer Selection
engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work.
Client autonomy in selecting engineers does not override the obligation to verify that the selected engineer's disciplinary background matches the task — particularly for safety-critical structural work.
the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interests of the project
Degree-to-Task Alignment Verification Obligation Implicated in Contractor Retention of Engineer B
Design/build industrial facility project
Engineer B's retention for structural footing design
The construction contractor's separate retention of a chemical engineer for structural footing design — without verifying that Engineer B possessed relevant foundation design training — implicates the contractor's obligation to verify disciplinary alignment between the retained engineer's background and the assigned structural task.
The contractor's retention decision should have included verification that Engineer B's chemical engineering background was supplemented by foundation design training; the absence of such verification contributed to the competence concern that Engineer A subsequently identified.
the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility. Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering.
Contractor autonomy in selecting retained engineers does not override the obligation to verify disciplinary competence for safety-critical structural tasks; the design/build delivery model does not reduce this verification obligation.
Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering.
the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility.
Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption from Competence Boundary Applied to Engineer B
Structural footing design assignment accepted by Engineer B
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Engineer B's acceptance of the structural footing design assignment at the contractor's request does not constitute an ethical defense; the contractor's retention decision and any implicit pressure to accept the assignment do not exempt Engineer B from the obligation to practice only within their area of competence.
The fact that the contractor separately retained Engineer B for this task does not create a competence exemption; Engineer B bore an independent obligation to assess whether the assignment fell within their competence and to decline or disclose limitations if it did not.
Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption from Competence Boundary
Faithful agent obligations to the contractor are bounded by the competence obligation; Engineer B cannot fulfill the faithful agent role by accepting work outside their competence, as doing so would ultimately disserve the contractor and endanger the public.
Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
Professional engineering ethics norms codified in NSPE Code
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
Engineer A after reporting concerns to the contractor
Governs Engineer A's duty to escalate safety concerns beyond the contractor if the contractor fails to act on the reported competence concerns about Engineer B's structural footing design; structural footing failures carry significant public safety implications for an industrial facility
State licensing board rules and NSPE professional ethics norms
Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
Engineer A in determining next steps after reporting concerns to the contractor
Governs whether Engineer A has a duty to report Engineer B's apparent practice outside their area of competence to the relevant state licensing board, particularly if the contractor takes no corrective action
Engineer A BER Three-Precedent Consulting-Employment Competence Flexibility Spectrum Synthesis
BER Three-Precedent Consulting-Employment Competence Flexibility Spectrum Synthesis Capability
Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer on the design-build project, possessed or was required to possess the capability to synthesize BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, and 85-3 to understand the normative framework governing Engineer B's competence obligations and the limits of consulting flexibility in sole-purpose retention arrangements.
Design-build industrial facility project where Engineer A identified concerns about Engineer B's structural engineering competence
Application of the three-precedent framework to assess whether Engineer B's acceptance of the structural footing design assignment was ethically permissible given his chemical engineering background
The Board has had occasion to consider cases involving ethical issues that are somewhat related to the issues involved in this case.
We follow the same reasoning and conclude that there is at least a reasonable basis for Engineer A to conclude that Engineer B does not possess the competence to perform the required task.
Engineer A Client and Authority Escalation Upon Engineer B Refusal Obligation
The Board prescribed a conditional escalation path for Engineer A: if Engineer B refused the recommendation to withdraw, Engineer A must escalate to the contractor and authorities, and ultimately withdraw if the concern is not resolved.
Out-of-Competence Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, if Engineer B refused to withdraw from the structural footing design assignment after direct confrontation, to bring the competence concern to the attention of the contractor-client and to appropriate authorities, and if necessary to withdraw from the project if concerns remained unaddressed.
If Engineer B refuses to acquiesce to Engineer A's recommendation, Engineer A has 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 are not met.
Conditionally, upon Engineer B's refusal to withdraw following direct confrontation by Engineer A
Engineer A Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Design/build industrial facility engineering', 'action_taken': 'Reported competence concerns to the construction contractor'}
Professional engineer working on the design/build industrial facility project who identifies and reports to the contractor his reservations about Engineer B's competence to perform structural footing design given Engineer B's chemical engineering background and lack of demonstrated foundation design training.
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Construction Contractor Design-Build Project Retaining Contractor Client'}
Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer
Engineer A Confronts Engineer B Directly
Engineer A Confronts Engineer B Directly → Engineer B Confrontation Outcome Determined
Engineer A Consulting Context Competence Flexibility Differential Awareness
The BER analysis distinguishes employment from consulting contexts for competence remediation. Engineer A must correctly apply this distinction when assessing whether Engineer B's consulting status mitigates the competence concern.
Engineer A must recognize that while consulting contexts generally permit competence gap remediation through subcontracting or specialist engagement, Engineer B's sole-purpose consulting retainer for structural footing design eliminates this flexibility — the consulting context differential does not excuse Engineer B's competence deficiency in this specific engagement structure.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Cases 85-3, 94-8
Throughout Engineer A's assessment of Engineer B's situation and escalation decisions
Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
Engineer A Cross-Discipline Structural Footing Competence Boundary Recognition
Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that structural footing design falls outside the competence boundary established by a chemical engineering degree and background, and to identify that the absence of subsequent training in foundation design constitutes a meaningful competence gap.
Design-build industrial facility project — structural footing design assigned to a chemical engineer
Engineer A's identification that Engineer B's chemical engineering degree does not establish competence for structural footing design and his reporting of this concern
Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design and Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings
Engineer A Design-Build Separately Retained Engineer Competence Verification Duty Recognition
Design-Build Separately Retained Engineer Competence Verification Duty Recognition Capability
Engineer A recognized that the contractor's separate retention of Engineer B for structural footing design did not relieve him of the professional duty to assess and report concerns about Engineer B's competence, and acted on that duty by reporting to the contractor.
Design-build industrial facility project where the contractor independently retained Engineer B outside Engineer A's direct supervisory chain
Engineer A's decision to report his competence reservations about Engineer B to the contractor despite Engineer B being separately retained
Engineer A Direct Confrontation of Engineer B Recommending Withdrawal Obligation
Engineer A identified Engineer B's apparent lack of structural engineering background on the design/build industrial facility project and was required by the Board to follow a mandatory two-step sequence: direct confrontation first, then authority escalation only upon refusal.
Peer Competence Challenge Direct Confrontation Before Authority Escalation Sequencing Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, upon determining an objective basis to conclude Engineer B lacked structural engineering competence, to directly confront Engineer B and recommend that Engineer B withdraw from the structural footing design assignment before escalating the concern to the contractor-client or authorities.
we believe Engineer A has an ethical obligation to confront Engineer B to make his concerns known to Engineer B, recommending that Engineer B withdraw from the project.
Upon forming an objective basis to conclude Engineer B lacked the requisite competence, before any client or authority notification
If Engineer B refuses to acquiesce to Engineer A's recommendation, Engineer A has an obligation under the Code to bring the matter to the attention of his client and to the authorities as appropriate
Engineer A Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition for Structural Footing
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that structural footing design constitutes a specific technical subdiscipline requiring education and experience in structural or geotechnical engineering, and that a chemical engineering background does not confer competence in this domain — enabling correct classification of Engineer B's assignment as outside Engineer B's competence boundary.
Engineer A assessing whether Engineer B's chemical engineering credentials qualified him for structural footing design on the design-build project
Engineer A's identification that Engineer B's chemical engineering background provided no apparent background or expertise for structural footing design, consistent with NSPE Code Section II.2.a
In the case at hand, Engineer B appear to be accepting an assignment in an area in which he possesses no apparent background or expertise.
Section II.2.a. states that an engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
Under the facts of this case, the job responsibilities of Engineer B includes the design of structural footings as part of the facility.
Engineer A Employment vs Consulting Competence Flexibility Distinction Application
Employment vs Consulting Competence Flexibility Distinction Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly distinguish between the consulting practice context — where firms have flexibility to engage subconsultants and structure their workforce — and the employment context — where such flexibility is unavailable — and to apply this distinction to assess whether Engineer B's sole-purpose consulting retention could be remediated through sub-delegation.
Engineer A's analysis of whether Engineer B could ethically remediate the structural engineering competence gap through subconsultant engagement
Application of the consulting/employment distinction from BER Case 85-3 to conclude that while consulting flexibility theoretically existed, sole-purpose retention made sub-delegation infeasible in Engineer B's case
Engineer A Escalates to Client and Authorities
Engineer A Investigates Engineer B's Qualifications
Engineer A Investigates Engineer B's Qualifications → Engineer A Reports Concerns to Contractor
Engineer A Non-Imminent Reporting Non-Compulsion Collegial First Step
Engineer A has identified competence concerns and reported to the contractor. The design is apparently still in progress, meaning immediate formal board reporting is not yet compelled, though graduated escalation must continue.
Non-Imminent Licensure Violation Immediate Reporting Non-Compulsion Constraint
Engineer A is not compelled to immediately file a formal complaint with the state licensing board regarding Engineer B's apparent practice outside area of competence, as no imminent public danger has yet materialized; Engineer A may first pursue collegial engagement with Engineer B and contractor-level resolution before escalating to formal regulatory reporting.
At the current stage of the project, before structural footing design is completed or sealed
Engineer A Objective Basis Peer Competence Challenge Graduated Escalation
Engineer A on shared project with Engineer B (chemical engineer) assigned to structural footing design
Peer Competence Challenge Graduated Escalation Constraint
Engineer A, upon determining an objective basis to conclude Engineer B lacked structural engineering competence, was constrained to follow a graduated escalation sequence: (1) directly confront Engineer B recommending withdrawal; (2) if refused, escalate to the contractor-client; (3) escalate to authorities as appropriate; (4) withdraw from the project if concerns remain unmet.
Upon determining objective basis for competence concern about Engineer B
Engineer A Objective Credential Investigation Before Peer Competence Challenge Obligation
Engineer A, working on the same design/build industrial facility project, identified that Engineer B appeared to have only a chemical engineering background with no apparent structural engineering training, and investigated Engineer B's credentials before raising concerns.
Objective Credential Investigation Before Peer Competence Challenge Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to conduct an objective, evidence-based investigation of Engineer B's educational background, degree discipline, and relevant experience before concluding that a reasonable basis existed to challenge Engineer B's competence for structural footing design.
We believe that Engineer A has an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B has sufficient education, experience and training to perform the required structural design services.
Upon observing Engineer B's assignment to structural footing design and before initiating any competence challenge
there is at least a reasonable basis for Engineer A to conclude that Engineer B does not possess the competence to perform the required task.
Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge Direct Confrontation Before Client-Authority Escalation Sequencing
Peer Competence Challenge Direct Confrontation Before Client-Authority Escalation Sequencing Capability
Engineer A possessed and was obligated to exercise the capability to correctly sequence his response to Engineer B's competence deficiency: first directly confronting Engineer B and recommending withdrawal, then escalating to the contractor-client if Engineer B refused, then escalating to appropriate authorities, and finally withdrawing from the project if all escalation steps failed.
Engineer A identified an objective basis to conclude Engineer B lacked structural engineering competence on the design-build industrial facility project
Engineer A's obligation to confront Engineer B directly before escalating to the contractor or authorities, as articulated by the Board's ethical analysis
If Engineer A determines that Engineer B does not possess the required education, training and experience to perform the services, we believe Engineer A has 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 Peer Competence Challenge Graduated Escalation Structural Footing Project
Engineer A has reported competence concerns to the contractor. The graduated escalation framework requires Engineer A to also directly engage Engineer B and, if unresolved, escalate further to licensing authorities.
Engineer A, having identified an objective basis to question Engineer B's competence in structural footing design, must follow a graduated escalation sequence: (1) directly confront Engineer B and recommend withdrawal; (2) if Engineer B refuses, escalate to the contractor (already initiated); (3) escalate to relevant authorities if the contractor fails to act; (4) withdraw from the project if concerns remain unaddressed — prohibiting both premature external escalation and indefinite continuation without further escalation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2, III.2; BER Case 94-8
From the point Engineer A identified competence concerns through resolution of the matter
Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation
From Engineer A's formation of an objective basis to question Engineer B's competence through completion of the sequential escalation process
Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation State
Engineer A's professional obligation upon determining Engineer B lacks structural competence
Engineer B's withdrawal from the project, or client and authorities addressing Engineer A's concerns, or Engineer A's own withdrawal from the project
Engineer A's objective assessment that Engineer B lacks the education, training, and experience to perform the required structural footing design
Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation Activated
From Engineer A's report of concerns to the contractor onward, pending resolution
Engineer A's obligation — having identified an objective basis to question Engineer B's competence on a shared project — to report concerns to the contractor and potentially escalate further
Contractor remediation (replacing or qualifying Engineer B), Engineer B's withdrawal, or Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
Engineer A reporting reservations about Engineer B's competence to the contractor, initiating the sequential escalation obligation
Engineer A Peer Competency Objective Basis Assessment
Peer Competency Objective Basis Assessment Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to objectively assess, on the basis of Engineer B's educational background (chemical engineering degree), apparent lack of structural engineering training, and the nature of the structural footing design task, whether there was a reasonable basis to conclude Engineer B lacked the required competence.
Engineer A working alongside Engineer B on design-build industrial facility project, investigating Engineer B's credentials for structural footing design
Engineer A's assessment that Engineer B's chemical engineering background provided no apparent basis for structural footing design competence, leading to the conclusion that there was an objective basis to challenge Engineer B's competence
Engineer A Peer Engineer Out-of-Discipline Competence Evidence Investigation
Engineer A possessed the capability to objectively investigate and assess Engineer B's competence for structural footing design by examining academic credentials and seeking evidence of subsequent training, forming an evidence-based judgment before reporting concerns to the contractor.
Design-build industrial facility project where the contractor separately retained Engineer B for structural footing design
Engineer A's investigation of Engineer B's chemical engineering background, inability to establish subsequent training in foundation design, and consequent reporting of reservations to the contractor
Engineer A Professional Withdrawal Decision Upon Unresolved Competence Concern
Professional Withdrawal Decision Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that if escalation to the contractor-client and appropriate authorities failed to resolve the concern about Engineer B's structural engineering competence, withdrawal from the project was the ethically required final recourse.
Engineer A's escalation pathway on the design-build industrial facility project after Engineer B's refusal to withdraw
The Board's articulation of Engineer A's obligation to withdraw from the project if his concerns about Engineer B's competence were not met after escalation to client and authorities
Engineer A Project Withdrawal If Competence Concerns Unmet Obligation
The Board prescribed project withdrawal as the final recourse for Engineer A if all escalation steps failed to address the competence concern about Engineer B on the design/build industrial facility project.
Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, if escalation to the contractor-client and authorities failed to resolve the competence concern about Engineer B's structural footing design, to withdraw from the project rather than continue participation in a project where an incompetent engineer was performing safety-critical structural design.
if necessary, withdraw from the project if his concerns are not met.
Conditionally, after exhausting escalation to contractor-client and authorities without resolution of the competence concern
Engineer A Project Withdrawal If Competence Concerns Unmet — Conditional Trigger
Engineer A's withdrawal obligation contingent on Engineer B's refusal and client/authority non-response
Conditional Withdrawal Trigger Exhaustion Constraint
Engineer A's obligation to withdraw from the project was conditioned on exhaustion of graduated escalation steps — direct confrontation of Engineer B, escalation to client, escalation to authorities — and became mandatory only if those steps failed to resolve the competence concern.
if necessary, withdraw from the project if his concerns are not met
After exhaustion of graduated escalation steps
Engineer A Reports Concerns to Contractor
Engineer A Reports Concerns to Contractor → Contractor Receives Safety Concern
Engineer A Unverified Competence Concern About Engineer B
From Engineer A's discovery of Engineer B's background through any formal investigation or resolution
Engineer A's inability to confirm Engineer B's competence in foundation design — a concern grounded in credential mismatch but not yet elevated to confirmed violation
Formal competence assessment, Engineer B's withdrawal, or escalation to licensing authority
Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings
Engineer A's investigation revealing Engineer B holds a chemical engineering degree with no apparent subsequent training in foundation design
Engineer A confronting Engineer B before Engineer B potentially withdrawing from project
Engineer A escalating to client and authorities before Engineer A potentially withdrawing from project
Engineer A investigating Engineer B's qualifications before Engineer A reporting concerns to contractor
Engineer A working on design/build project overlaps contractor retaining Engineer B
Engineer B Accepts Structural Assignment
Engineer B Accepts Structural Assignment → Engineer B's Lack of Qualifications Confirmed
Engineer B Chemical Engineer Structural Footing Assignment Incompetence
From the moment Engineer B is retained by the contractor to design structural footings through resolution of the competence concern
Domain-Specific Incompetence with General Licensure State
Engineer B's assignment to design structural footings despite chemical engineering background and no established training in foundation design
Not yet terminated — Engineer B remains assigned to structural footing design
Contractor's separate retention of Engineer B (chemical engineer) to design structural footings for the industrial facility
Engineer B Chemical Engineering Background Structural Footing Assignment Competence Boundary
Chemical engineer retained by contractor for sole purpose of structural footing design
Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
Engineer B, whose educational background and experience were solely in chemical engineering, was constrained from accepting the structural footing design assignment because they lacked both the educational foundation and domain-specific practical experience required for competence in structural/foundation engineering.
NSPE Code II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 85-3, 94-8
At time of accepting and performing the structural footing design retention
an engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved
Engineer B Confrontation Outcome Determined
Engineer B Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Design Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'degree_discipline': 'Chemical Engineering', 'assigned_scope': 'Structural footing design', 'competence_gap': 'No apparent subsequent training in foundation design'}
Professional engineer with a chemical engineering degree and background, separately retained by the construction contractor to design structural footings for the industrial facility, with no apparent subsequent training in foundation design identified by Engineer A.
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer'}
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Construction Contractor Design-Build Project Retaining Contractor Client'}
Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Design Engineer
the construction contractor separately retains the services of Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings
Engineer B Cross-Discipline Structural Footing Assignment Acceptance Refusal Obligation
Design/build industrial facility project in which the construction contractor separately retained Engineer B — a chemical engineer — for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing structural footings, a task requiring structural engineering competence Engineer B did not possess.
Cross-Discipline PE License Non-Sufficiency for Structural Assignment Acceptance Obligation
Engineer B, holding a PE license with educational background and experience solely in chemical engineering, was obligated to decline the contractor's retention for structural footing design because a PE license alone does not satisfy the ethical competence requirement for cross-discipline structural engineering work.
At the time of accepting the retention from the contractor, before commencing structural footing design work
While it is true that the engineer meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
Engineer B Decides Whether to Withdraw → Escalation Necessity Triggered
Engineer B Domain-Specific Competence Verification Before Structural Footing Acceptance Obligation
Engineer B, with educational background and experience solely in chemical engineering, accepted a sole-purpose retention for structural footing design on a design/build industrial facility project without verifying or possessing the requisite structural engineering competence.
Domain-Specific Competence Verification Before Assignment Acceptance Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to verify, before accepting the contractor's retention for structural footing design, that their competence — established by both education AND relevant experience in structural engineering — was sufficient to perform the work, and to decline the engagement given the absence of structural engineering background.
Before accepting the retention from the construction contractor
Engineer B Domain-Specific Incompetence Seal Prohibition Structural Footings
Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no established foundation design training, has been retained to design structural footings and would be expected to seal those design documents.
Domain-Specific Incompetence Seal Prohibition Constraint
Engineer B is prohibited from affixing a professional seal or signature to structural footing design documents for the industrial facility, as Engineer B lacks demonstrated competence in foundation/structural engineering despite holding a valid PE license in chemical engineering.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; BER Cases 94-8, 85-3
Throughout the structural footing design engagement
Engineer B Domain-Specific Incompetence Structural Footing Seal Prohibition
Chemical engineer with PE license assigned to design structural footings for a facility
Engineer B was prohibited from affixing their professional seal to structural footing design documents because Engineer B lacked competence in structural/foundation engineering, notwithstanding valid PE licensure in chemical engineering.
Engineer B appear to be accepting an assignment in an area in which he possesses no apparent background or expertise.
Throughout the structural footing design assignment
the engineer is obligated to perform services only in his area of competence
Engineer B Domain-Specific Incompetence in Structural Engineering
From the time Engineer B accepted the structural footing design assignment through the resolution of Engineer A's concerns
Engineer B's professional competence relative to structural footing design assignment
Engineer B's withdrawal from the project, or acquisition of a competent structural engineer to perform the work (if feasible), or Engineer A's determination that Engineer B is in fact competent
the job responsibilities of Engineer B includes the design of structural footings as part of the facility
there is at least a reasonable basis for Engineer A to conclude that Engineer B does not possess the competence to perform the required task
Engineer B accepted a consulting engagement requiring structural footing design despite lacking apparent background or expertise in structural engineering
Engineer B Education-Experience Competence Threshold Structural Footing Design
Engineer B accepted a structural footing design assignment despite a chemical engineering background and no established training in foundation design, on a design/build industrial facility project.
Engineer B lacks both the foundational education (chemical engineering, not structural/geotechnical) and the domain-specific practical experience in foundation design necessary to meet the competence threshold for structural footing design, prohibiting acceptance of this assignment.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Case 85-3
At the time of and throughout the structural footing design engagement
Engineer B General PE License Non-Authorization for Structural Footing Practice
Chemical engineer with PE license accepting structural footing design assignment
General PE Licensure Universal Practice Non-Authorization Constraint
Engineer B's general PE license did not authorize practice in structural/foundation engineering, a domain outside Engineer B's demonstrated competence, regardless of the license's general validity.
At time of accepting the structural footing design retention
Engineer B General PE Licensure Non-Authorization for Structural Footing Design
Engineer B, a chemical engineer, has been retained by the contractor to design structural footings for an industrial facility. Engineer A cannot establish any subsequent training in foundation design.
Engineer B's general PE license, obtained through a chemical engineering background, does not authorize practice in structural footing and foundation design, which requires demonstrated education and experience in structural/geotechnical engineering disciplines that Engineer B has not established.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3, 94-8
Throughout the duration of Engineer B's engagement on the structural footing design task
Engineer B Irreconcilable Sole-Purpose Competence Gap Declination
Engineer B was required to possess the capability to recognize that the sole-purpose structural footing design retention created an irreconcilable competence gap — his chemical engineering background was insufficient for the task, and the sole-purpose nature of the retention made subconsultant remediation infeasible — and to correctly conclude that the assignment should be declined.
Engineer B retained by construction contractor for sole-purpose structural footing design despite chemical engineering background
Failure to apply this capability — Engineer B accepted the structural footing design assignment despite the irreconcilable gap between his chemical engineering competence and the structural engineering requirements of the task
We do not think this would be feasible under the facts.
Engineer B Outside Area of Competence for Structural Footing Design
Coextensive with Engineer B's retention on the structural footing design task
Engineer B's professional competence boundary — chemical engineering background does not encompass structural footing/foundation design without demonstrated supplemental training
Demonstrated acquisition of foundation design competence, reassignment, or withdrawal
Engineer B accepting the structural footing design assignment despite chemical engineering background
Engineer B PE License Legal Minimum Ethics Code Higher Standard
Engineer B holding PE license with chemical engineering background accepting structural footing design assignment
Ethics Code Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Competence Constraint
Engineer B's possession of a valid PE license satisfied only the legal minimum requirement for the structural footing assignment; the NSPE Code of Ethics imposed a higher standard requiring Engineer B to practice only within their demonstrated area of competence (structural engineering), which the PE license alone did not satisfy.
NSPE Code II.2; BER Case 85-3 as applied in BER Case 94-8
Engineer B PE License Legal Minimum vs Ethics Code Higher Standard Self-Recognition
PE License Legal Minimum vs Ethics Code Higher Standard Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer B was required to possess the capability to recognize that his PE license satisfied only the legal minimum for accepting the structural footing design assignment, and that NSPE Code Section II.2 imposed a higher ethical standard requiring domain-specific competence in structural/geotechnical engineering that his chemical engineering background did not provide.
Engineer B, with chemical engineering background, accepted contractor retention for sole-purpose structural footing design
Failure to apply this capability — Engineer B accepted the structural footing design assignment despite lacking structural engineering education and experience, relying on PE licensure as sufficient authorization
Engineer B PE License Non-Sufficiency Ethics Code Higher Standard Recognition Obligation
Engineer B's implicit defense that a PE license satisfies all ethical obligations for accepting the structural footing design assignment was rejected by the Board, which held that ethics requires more than legal minimum compliance.
Ethics Code Supersession of Legal Minimum Safety Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to recognize that holding a PE license satisfied only the legal minimum requirement for the structural footing assignment, and that professional ethics required going beyond what was legally permitted — specifically, declining the assignment due to lack of structural engineering competence.
At the time of accepting and performing the structural footing design assignment
The Board then reviewed Code Section II.2., the introductory section which makes the clear statement that the engineer is obligated to perform services only in his area of competence
Engineer B Pre-Acceptance Structural Footing Competence Self-Assessment Deficit
Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
Engineer B failed to adequately exercise the capability to self-assess whether his chemical engineering background and training qualified him to design structural footings, accepting the engagement without establishing that he possessed the requisite competence.
Engineer B's acceptance of structural footing design engagement from the contractor
Engineer B's acceptance of structural footing design work for which Engineer A could find no evidence of qualifying subsequent training
Engineer B Public Safety Paramount Structural Footing Incompetence
Structural footings for an industrial facility are safety-critical elements. Engineer B's chemical engineering background without established foundation design training creates a direct public safety risk if the design proceeds.
Engineer B's obligation to hold public safety paramount prohibits continuation of structural footing design work for which Engineer B lacks demonstrated competence, as incompetent foundation design for an industrial facility creates direct risk of structural failure and harm to future occupants and users.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; BER Case 94-8
Engineer B Sole-Purpose Engagement Competence Delegation Non-Availability
The contractor separately retained Engineer B specifically for structural footing design. This sole-purpose engagement means Engineer B cannot ethically remedy the competence gap by delegating the core task.
Sole-Purpose Consulting Engagement Competence Delegation Non-Availability Constraint
Because Engineer B was retained by the contractor solely and exclusively to design structural footings, the consulting flexibility to remedy the competence gap through subcontracting or workforce restructuring is unavailable — the entire retainer is the task for which competence is lacking, making withdrawal or competence demonstration the only ethical options.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2; BER Case 94-8
Throughout the duration of Engineer B's sole-purpose structural footing design engagement
Engineer B Sole-Purpose Retention Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition
Sole-Purpose Retention Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition Capability
Engineer B was required to possess the capability to recognize that, having been retained solely and exclusively to design structural footings, sub-delegating that very task to a qualified structural engineer was not a feasible ethical remediation strategy — because doing so would render his own engagement purposeless.
Engineer B retained by construction contractor for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing structural footings for the industrial facility
Failure to apply this capability — Engineer B accepted the sole-purpose structural footing design retention without recognizing that the consulting flexibility to engage subconsultants was unavailable in this arrangement
If Engineer B were to seek a separate firm to perform that very task, we have to seriously wonder what it was Engineer B was actually hired to perform and for what it was being paid.
Engineer B Sole-Purpose Structural Footing Engagement Precluding Delegation
From Engineer B's acceptance of the engagement through resolution
It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings for the facility.
Sole-Purpose Engagement Precluding Competence Delegation State
Engineer B's consulting engagement with the contractor for structural footing design
Engineer B's withdrawal from the project or restructuring of the engagement scope
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, we do not think this would be feasible under the facts
Engineer B retained specifically and exclusively to design structural footings — the very task for which Engineer B lacks competence — making specialist subcontracting contractually and practically infeasible
Engineer B Sole-Purpose Structural Footing Sub-Delegation Circular Nullification
Engineer B (chemical engineer) retained by contractor solely to design structural footings for a facility
Sole-Purpose Consulting Sub-Delegation Circular Nullification Constraint
Engineer B, retained solely and exclusively to design structural footings, was constrained from sub-delegating that task to a competent structural engineer because doing so would circularly nullify the purpose of the retention — raising the question of what Engineer B was actually hired to perform and for what they were being paid.
Engineer B Sole-Purpose Structural Footing Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition Obligation
Engineer B was retained by the construction contractor specifically for structural footing design; the Board considered and rejected sub-delegation as a viable compliance path given the sole-purpose nature of the retention.
Sole-Purpose Retained Engineer Cross-Discipline Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition Obligation
Engineer B, retained solely and exclusively to design structural footings, was obligated to recognize that sub-delegating the structural footing design to a competent structural engineer was not a feasible ethical escape route, because doing so would render Engineer B's own retention purposeless.
Upon recognizing the competence gap, before or upon accepting the sole-purpose retention
Engineer B Structural Footing Foundation Design Competence Deficit
Structural Engineering Design Competence
Engineer B's chemical engineering degree and background, combined with no apparent subsequent training in foundation design, indicates a deficit in the structural footing design competence required for the assigned task of designing structural footings for the industrial facility.
Design-build industrial facility project — Engineer B retained to design structural footings despite chemical engineering background
Engineer B's acceptance of structural footing design work despite a chemical engineering background and no established subsequent training in foundation design
Engineer B refusing Engineer A's recommendation before Engineer A escalating to client and authorities
Engineer B's Lack of Qualifications Confirmed
Engineering Firm Consulting Practice Subconsultant Engagement for Competence Gap Obligation
The Board affirmed the general consulting-practice principle from BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 that firms have flexibility to structure their workforce to meet client needs, including through subconsultants — while distinguishing this from the sole-purpose retention context of Engineer B.
Engineering Firm (General Consulting Context)
Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Obligation
An engineering firm retained to perform services that include technical domains outside the firm's competence is obligated to engage qualified subconsultants, establish joint ventures, or hire additional qualified personnel to fill those competence gaps, rather than performing the out-of-competence work directly — a flexibility available in consulting practice but not applicable when the retention is sole-purpose.
When accepting multi-discipline consulting engagements that include domains outside the firm's competence
the Board affirmed its decision rendered in BER Case 71-2 that in the field of consulting practice, engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work.
Engineering Self-Policing Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Reporting to Contractor
Construction contractor's retention decision
Engineer B's structural footing design competence
Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
Engineer A, upon identifying that Engineer B lacked apparent foundation design training, fulfilled the profession's self-policing obligation by formally reporting his competence reservations to the construction contractor rather than remaining silent.
Engineering's status as a self-policing profession requires co-engineers to come forward with competence concerns; Engineer A's report to the contractor represents the first stage of this obligation, with potential escalation to licensing authorities if the contractor fails to act.
Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor.
The self-policing obligation is triggered by reasonable grounds for competence doubt, not certainty of violation; Engineer A's inability to establish relevant training provides sufficient basis for the report without requiring definitive proof of incompetence.
Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Applied to Engineer B PE Licensure Defense
Engineer B's reliance on PE licensure as justification for accepting structural design work
Universal Engineer Competence Scope Limitation Principle
The Board rejected the implicit argument that Engineer B's PE license satisfies all ethical obligations for accepting the structural footing design work, affirming that the NSPE Code requires more than legal licensure compliance — it requires actual disciplinary competence in the specific technical field.
PE licensure is a legal credential; the ethics code imposes an additional, higher standard requiring that the engineer's education and experience align with the specific technical field of the assigned work.
Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
No tension — the higher-standard principle reinforces the competence scope limitation: legal sufficiency (PE license) does not exhaust ethical obligation.
Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Balanced Against Reporting Obligation by Engineer A
Engineer A's assessment of Engineer B's competence for structural footing design
Engineer A's inability to definitively establish Engineer B's training history creates a tension between the restraint principle (avoid critique without full situational knowledge) and the reporting obligation; the case resolves this tension by holding that reasonable inability to establish relevant training is sufficient to trigger reporting, without requiring exhaustive investigation.
The restraint principle applies to competitive critique aimed at injuring a peer's reputation, not to good-faith safety-motivated competence reports; Engineer A's report is grounded in observable credential facts (chemical engineering degree, no apparent foundation training) rather than speculative professional criticism.
Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design and Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings.
The restraint principle yields to the reporting obligation when the competence concern is grounded in observable credential facts and the safety stakes involve structural integrity of an industrial facility.
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Technical Competence Scope Applied via BER 85-3 Analogy
BER Case 85-3 county surveyor appointment analogy applied to Engineer B's structural retention
The Board's reliance on BER Case 85-3 illustrates that appointment to the county surveyor role — an institutional position — did not expand a chemical engineer's competence to encompass surveying and highway improvement oversight; by analogy, being retained as Engineer B for structural footing design does not expand a chemical engineer's competence to encompass structural engineering.
Whether the context is institutional appointment (county surveyor) or private retention (structural footing designer), the principle is the same: the role assignment does not create the competence the role requires.
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Technical Competence Scope
No tension — the institutional role non-expansion principle reinforces the competence scope limitation in both employment and consulting contexts.
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer A evaluating Engineer B's qualifications; Engineer B in accepting the structural footing design assignment
Governs the obligation of engineers to practice only within their areas of competence; Engineer B, a chemical engineer, is designing structural footings without demonstrated training in foundation design, implicating the competence canon
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Rule of Practice Section II.2 (Competence)
Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer B's conduct and Engineer A's obligations
Establishes the overarching obligation that engineers perform services only in their area of competence; applied to determine whether Engineer B's acceptance of a structural design assignment was ethical
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Rule of Practice Section II.2.a (Qualified by Education or Experience)
Board of Ethical Review in assessing Engineer B's qualifications for structural footing design
Specifies that an engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved; directly applied to Engineer B's lack of structural engineering background
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Rule of Practice Section II.2.b
Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 85-3 analysis imported into the present case
Applied in BER Case 85-3 to conclude that the engineer could not comply with this provision regardless of the course of action taken; referenced as a binding constraint on Engineer B's conduct
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Rule of Practice Section II.2.c
It may seem plausible that Section II.2.c. would provide some ethical avenue through which the engineer could perform the job as county surveyor. While it is true that the engineer meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
Considered as a potential ethical avenue allowing an engineer to meet legal requirements; rejected as insufficient because professional ethics requires going beyond what is specifically permitted by law
NSPE Code of Ethics – Professional Competence Standard
NSPE Code of Ethics – Collective Competence Obligation (Sections II.2 and predecessor Section 6)
Engineer A has an ethical obligation to confront Engineer B to make his concerns known to Engineer B, recommending that Engineer B withdraw from the project.
Board of Ethical Review in determining Engineer A's obligations when confronting Engineer B's apparent lack of structural engineering competence
Grounds the ethical obligation for engineers to practice only within areas of demonstrated competence, to retain qualified specialists when needed, and for Engineer A to confront Engineer B and escalate to the client and authorities if necessary
Peer Competence Challenge Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Based on Credential Inspection
Engineer B's structural footing design assignment
Engineer A, having investigated Engineer B's credentials and found only a chemical engineering background with no apparent foundation design training, exercised the peer competence challenge obligation by reporting reservations to the contractor — the retaining party — at the threshold of reasonable doubt rather than waiting for a structural failure.
The reporting threshold is reasonable doubt based on credential inspection, not demonstrated incompetence; Engineer A's inability to establish relevant training constitutes sufficient grounds for the reporting obligation to activate.
Peer Competence Challenge Obligation Upon Reasonable Doubt
Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design and Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor.
The public safety risk posed by structurally incompetent footing design outweighs the risk of reputational harm to Engineer B from a good-faith competence report; the report is directed to the contractor (not a public forum), limiting reputational exposure while fulfilling the safety obligation.
Peer Competence Challenge Obligation Upon Reasonable Doubt Applied to Engineer A Assessment of Engineer B
Engineer A's assessment of Engineer B's qualifications for structural footing design
Premature External Escalation Reputational Harm Avoidance Principle
Professional Reciprocity and Collegial Solidarity Principle
Engineer A, having observed Engineer B's chemical engineering background and absence of structural engineering training, has a reasonable — not conclusive — basis to doubt Engineer B's competence to design structural footings, and this reasonable doubt triggers an affirmative obligation to formally report those reservations to the contractor-client.
The threshold for triggering the reporting/confrontation duty is reasonable doubt based on observable credentials and background, not demonstrated failure or conclusive proof of incompetence.
we conclude that there is at least a reasonable basis for Engineer A to conclude that Engineer B does not possess the competence to perform the required task.
Reasonable doubt is sufficient to trigger the obligation; Engineer A need not wait for Engineer B to produce a deficient design before acting.
Peer Competence Confrontation Before Authority Escalation Sequencing Applied to Engineer A Obligations
Engineer A's response to Engineer B's apparent cross-discipline incompetence
Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
The Board prescribed a mandatory sequence for Engineer A: (1) directly confront Engineer B and recommend withdrawal; (2) if Engineer B refuses, bring the matter to the contractor-client; (3) if concerns remain unmet, report to appropriate authorities; (4) if still unresolved, withdraw from the project.
The sequencing requirement ensures collegial confrontation precedes external escalation, preserving professional dignity while guaranteeing that the public safety concern is ultimately addressed through escalating channels if direct confrontation fails.
Peer Competence Confrontation Before Authority Escalation Sequencing Principle
The sequence balances collegial respect (direct confrontation first) with public protection (mandatory escalation if confrontation fails); neither value is sacrificed — they are ordered temporally.
Prior BER Precedents Established → Engineer A Investigates Engineer B's Qualifications
Professional engineering norms codified in NSPE Code and state licensing rules
Engineer A in assessing Engineer B's qualifications and reporting concerns to the contractor
Establishes that engineers must practice only within their areas of demonstrated competence; directly implicated by Engineer B (chemical engineer) designing structural footings without apparent training in foundation design
Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse Applied to Engineer A If Concerns Unmet
Engineer A's ultimate response if contractor-client and authorities fail to act on competence concerns
If Engineer A's escalation to the contractor-client and authorities fails to resolve the competence concern about Engineer B's structural footing design, Engineer A's final ethical recourse is withdrawal from the project — refusing to lend professional credibility to a design process that Engineer A has determined is being executed by an engineer lacking the requisite disciplinary competence.
Withdrawal is the ethical backstop when all other escalation steps have failed; it prevents Engineer A from becoming complicit in a structurally deficient design process.
Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse When Safety Standards Rejected
Loyalty to the client and project does not extend to remaining on a project where a co-engineer's incompetence poses public safety risks that the client refuses to address.
Public Safety at Risk from Engineer B Incompetent Structural Footing Design — Safety Constraint
Structural footings designed by a chemical engineer with no structural engineering background pose safety risk to facility occupants
The public safety risk arising from incompetent structural footing design imposed an absolute constraint on both Engineer B (prohibiting acceptance of the assignment) and Engineer A (requiring escalation and potential withdrawal) to prevent harm to future occupants and users of the facility.
we follow the same reasoning and conclude that there is at least a reasonable basis for Engineer A to conclude that Engineer B does not possess the competence to perform the required task
Throughout the structural footing design and construction period
Engineer A has an obligation under the Code to bring the matter to the attention of his client and to the authorities as appropriate
Public Safety at Risk from Incompetent Structural Footing Design
From Engineer B's acceptance of the structural footing design assignment through completion of competent design review
The safety of future occupants and users of the facility whose structural footings may be designed by an incompetent engineer
Competent structural engineer performs or reviews the footing design; Engineer B withdraws
Engineer B appear to be accepting an assignment in an area in which he possesses no apparent background or expertise
Engineer B, lacking apparent structural engineering competence, accepted responsibility for designing structural footings for a facility
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Structural Footing Competence Context
Structural footing design for industrial facility
The structural integrity of industrial facility footings directly affects the safety of workers, occupants, and the surrounding public; Engineer A's competence challenge is grounded in the paramount obligation to protect public welfare from the risk of structural failure caused by out-of-domain engineering practice.
Public welfare in this context requires that structural components of an industrial facility be designed by engineers with demonstrated competence in foundation design; the risk of footing failure from incompetent design constitutes a public welfare threat sufficient to trigger reporting obligations.
Public welfare paramount overrides the contractor's preference to retain Engineer B; Engineer A's reporting obligation is not negated by the contractor's role as the retaining party.
Would it be ethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility?
Does Engineer B bear an independent ethical obligation to proactively disclose his chemical engineering background and lack of structural training to the contractor before accepting the structural footing assignment, rather than waiting for a peer to raise concerns?
What ethical responsibility, if any, does the construction contractor bear for failing to verify Engineer B's qualifications before retaining him for structural footing design, and does the contractor's negligence in this regard diminish or amplify Engineer A's reporting obligations?
If Engineer A's concerns are reported to the contractor but the contractor takes no corrective action, at what point does Engineer A's ethical obligation escalate from internal reporting to notification of the state licensing board or other public authorities, and does the structural safety risk inherent in footing design accelerate that threshold?
Could Engineer B ethically cure the competence deficiency by collaborating with or directly supervising a qualified structural engineer, and if so, would that arrangement satisfy the ethical requirements of Section II.2.c, or does the sole-purpose nature of his engagement make such delegation structurally impossible?
Did Engineer A have an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor?
Does the principle requiring Engineer A to confront Engineer B directly before escalating to the contractor or authorities conflict with the principle that public welfare is paramount, particularly when structural footing failures could cause catastrophic and irreversible harm to building occupants?
How should the principle of incomplete situational knowledge restraint — which cautions Engineer A against acting on unverified assumptions about Engineer B's competence — be reconciled with the peer competence challenge obligation that activates upon reasonable doubt, and where precisely does reasonable doubt become sufficient to override epistemic caution?
Does the principle that the ethics code sets a higher standard than mere PE licensure conflict with the principle that consulting contexts afford engineers greater competence flexibility than employment contexts, and if so, does that flexibility have any legitimate application to Engineer B's situation or is it entirely foreclosed by the sole-purpose nature of his engagement?
Does the degree-to-task alignment verification obligation — which implies the contractor should have screened Engineer B before retention — conflict with the engineering self-policing obligation that places the primary burden of competence gatekeeping on Engineer A and Engineer B themselves, and does assigning responsibility to the contractor risk diluting the profession's internal accountability norms?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B violate a categorical duty to practice only within competence by accepting the structural footing assignment, regardless of whether the resulting design might have turned out to be structurally sound?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the potential harm to public safety from an incompetently designed structural footing outweigh any project efficiency or cost benefits gained by retaining Engineer B rather than a qualified structural engineer, and how should that calculus inform the contractor's retention decision?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of courage and integrity by reporting concerns about Engineer B's competence to the contractor, and would a fully virtuous engineer have gone further by directly confronting Engineer B before escalating to the contractor?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty to protect public safety create an unconditional obligation to escalate concerns beyond the contractor to the state licensing board if the contractor fails to act, or does the duty remain conditional on the severity and imminence of the risk?
If Engineer B had substantial post-degree self-study and informal mentorship in foundation design but no formal credentials or documented training, would that be sufficient to satisfy the competence standard for structural footing design, and how should Engineer A or the contractor evaluate such informal experience?
If Engineer B had accepted the structural footing assignment but immediately sub-delegated the actual design work to a qualified structural engineer while retaining overall coordination responsibility, would that arrangement have resolved the ethical problem, or would Engineer B's inability to competently oversee and seal the work still constitute an ethical violation?
If Engineer A had not reported concerns to the contractor and the structural footings subsequently failed causing injury, would Engineer A bear any ethical or professional responsibility for the harm, given that Engineer A possessed knowledge of Engineer B's apparent incompetence?
If the contractor had ignored Engineer A's reported concerns and directed Engineer A to continue working on the project alongside Engineer B, would Engineer A's ethical obligation require withdrawal from the project entirely, and at what point does continued participation become complicity in the competence violation?
Retained-Engineer Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Constraint Applied to Engineer B Structural Footing Sole-Purpose Retention
Engineer B's potential sub-delegation of structural footing design to a competent structural engineer
Although consulting-practice flexibility generally permits retaining specialists, the Board determined that Engineer B could not discharge the competence obligation by sub-delegating the structural footing design to a competent structural engineer, because Engineer B was retained solely and exclusively for that task — sub-delegation would render Engineer B's retention purposeless and raise unanswerable questions about what Engineer B was actually being paid to perform.
The consulting-practice flexibility recognized in BER Case 71-2 (retaining specialists) does not extend to sole-purpose retentions where sub-delegation would entirely hollow out the retained engineer's assigned function.
Retained-Engineer Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Constraint Principle
Sub-delegation infeasibility prevails: the sole-purpose character of Engineer B's retention makes sub-delegation of the entire assigned task ethically and practically impermissible.
Universal Competence Scope Limitation Invoked Against Engineer B Structural Footing Assignment
Engineer B, holding a chemical engineering degree and background, accepted a structural footing design assignment without demonstrated training in foundation design — a distinct structural engineering subdomain — thereby practicing beyond the scope of competence that a PE license alone authorizes.
A PE license in chemical engineering does not authorize structural footing design; the license certifies professional standing, not unlimited technical scope. Engineer B's acceptance of this assignment without relevant training constitutes a competence scope violation.
Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering. Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design.
The competence scope limitation prevails over the contractor's prerogative to retain the engineer of their choice; client autonomy does not extend to retaining engineers for tasks outside their competence domain.
Universal Engineer Competence Scope Limitation Invoked Against Engineer B Chemical-to-Structural Practice
Engineer B's acceptance of structural footing design assignment
Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation
Engineer B, holding a PE license with educational background and experience solely in chemical engineering, accepted a sole-purpose retention to design structural footings — a task requiring structural engineering competence — thereby violating the principle that PE licensure does not authorize cross-disciplinary practice beyond one's actual area of competence.
The Board applied the principle that a PE license satisfies legal requirements but not ethical requirements when the engineer's disciplinary background does not align with the assigned technical task; chemical engineering background provides no apparent qualification for structural footing design.
The competence scope limitation principle prevails: the contractor's freedom to retain Engineer B and Engineer B's commercial interest in accepting the work do not override the ethical obligation to practice only within actual disciplinary competence.
construction of the project starts contractor retaining Engineer B
public utility interview before firm altering its qualifications