ProEthica Case 110 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.186837
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER 71-2 Prime Professional Specialist-Retaining Prime Consulting Engineer
type: Specialist-RetainingPrimeConsultingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'standing': 'Prime consultant performing substantial services on a project', 'obligation': 'Retain or recommend retention of qualified experts and specialists outside own competence'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:10:19.476710+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:10:19.476710+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Specialist sub-consultants'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Project client'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Specialist-Retaining Prime Consulting Engineer
sourcetext: 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'
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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'
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.191460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER 71-2 Prime Professional Specialist Competence Verification
type: CompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementPlanningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: BER Case 71-2 referenced as precedent for the duty to engage qualified specialists
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: BER Case 71-2 precedent recognizing the prime professional's duty to retain qualified specialists and verify their competence
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER 71-2 Prime Professional Specialist-Retaining Prime Consulting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: BER Case 71-2: the prime professional or client retaining experts and specialists in the interests of the project
textreferences: BER Case 71-2: the prime professional or client retaining experts and specialists in the interests of the project
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.201684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER 71-2 Prime Professional Specialist Retention Competence Gap Remediation
type: CompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementPlanningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: BER Case 71-2 precedent: prime professional retaining specialist engineers for government work, establishing the consulting practice competence-or-retain principle
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: 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'
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: BER 71-2 Prime Professional Specialist-Retaining Prime Consulting Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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'
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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'
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.211956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER 85-3 County Surveyor Chemical Engineer Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Obligation
type: InstitutionalRoleNon-ExpansionofCompetenceScopeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: BER 85-3 County Surveyor Appointee (Chemical Engineer)
obligationclass: Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Scope Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the county surveyor appointment
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.205995
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER 85-3 County Surveyor Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Self-Recognition
type: InstitutionalRoleNon-ExpansionofCompetenceSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: BER Case 85-3 precedent: chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor with oversight responsibilities for surveying reports and highway improvement projects
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER 85-3 County Surveyor Chemical Engineer
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: After considering the two earlier cases, the Board decided it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.211227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER 85-3 County Surveyor Irreconcilable Competence Gap Declination
type: IrreconcilableEmploymentRoleCompetenceGapDeclinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap Declination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: BER Case 85-3 referenced as precedent for cross-discipline competence obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER 85-3 County Surveyor Out-of-Competence Public Sector Appointee Engineer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: BER Case 85-3: a PE with background solely in chemical engineering accepted appointment as county surveyor, a position requiring overall civil engineering competence
textreferences: BER Case 85-3: a PE with background solely in chemical engineering accepted appointment as county surveyor, a position requiring overall civil engineering competence
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.201443
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER 85-3 County Surveyor Out-of-Competence Public Sector Appointee Engineer
type: Out-of-CompetencePublicSectorAppointeeEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (chemical engineering background)', 'position': 'County Surveyor', 'competence_gap': 'No background or expertise in surveying or highway improvement'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:10:19.476710+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:10:19.476710+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'analogical_precedent_for', 'target': 'Engineer B Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'appointing_authority', 'target': 'County Commissioners'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Out-of-Competence Public Sector Appointee Engineer
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: After considering the two earlier cases, the Board decided it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.190951
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER Case 71-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 71-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about Engineer B's competence
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.191725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER Case 71-2 before BER Case 78-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER Case 78-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 78-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about Engineer B's competence
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.191938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER Case 78-5 before BER Case 85-3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER Case 85-3
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 85-3
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: More recently, in BER Case 85-3, a local county ordinance required that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: More recently, in BER Case 85-3, a local county ordinance required that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review as primary precedent for the present case analysis
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.192359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER Case 85-3 County Surveyor Oversight Role Substantive Background Minimum Threshold
type: OversightRoleSubstantiveDomainBackgroundMinimumThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor whose duties included oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor (BER Case 85-3)
constraintclass: Oversight Role Substantive Domain Background Minimum Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code II.2.a; BER Case 85-3
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: At time of accepting the county surveyor appointment
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.202196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER Case 85-3 County Surveyor Section II.2.b Inescapable Ethical Violation Recognition
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor with no surveying background; Board found no ethical path forward under II.2.b
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Chemical engineer appointed as county surveyor (BER Case 85-3)
constraintclass: Competence Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code II.2.b; BER Case 85-3
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At time of and throughout the county surveyor appointment
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.209230
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER Case 85-3 Employment Context Competence Constraint — County Surveyor
type: EmploymentContextCompetenceConstraintState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the chemical engineer's acceptance of the county surveyor appointment
affectedparties: County commissioners
affectedparties: Engineer A (county surveyor appointee in BER 85-3)
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:11:07.850411+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:11:07.850411+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Employment Context Competence Constraint State
subject: The county surveyor appointment situation from BER Case 85-3, cited as precedent
terminatedby: Board's determination that acceptance was unethical; engineer's withdrawal from position
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.195263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER Case 85-3 before current case analysis
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 Cross-Domain Analogical Application to BER Case 85-3
type: BERPrecedentCross-DomainAnalogicalApplicationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Board applying consulting-practice competence precedents to an employment-context county surveyor appointment
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Ethics Review Board
constraintclass: BER Precedent Cross-Domain Analogical Application Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Case 94-8 Discussion; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: At time of BER Case 85-3 and BER Case 94-8 deliberation
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.206482
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Case 110 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.213279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

CausalLink_Contractor Retains Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Confronts Engineer
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Escalates to Client
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Investigates Engine
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Reports Concerns to
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer B Accepts Structural
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer B Decides Whether to
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Collegial-Notification-Before-Reporting-Standard-Engineer-B
type: CollegialNotificationBeforeReportingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional engineering ethics norms
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Collegial Notification Before Reporting Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:09:16.896374+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:09:16.896374+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Collegial Notification Before Reporting Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
usedby: Engineer A in deciding how to handle competence concerns about Engineer B
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.188161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.840440
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
cited provision4: II.2.c.
cited provision5: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.840146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.840516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.840599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.840677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.840755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: Engineer A has an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839492
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.840822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.840890
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.b.
cited provision3: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.840994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.b.
cited provision3: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.841097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.841191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.841293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.841375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.841445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.841518
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.841588
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.841678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.b.
cited provision3: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.841757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.841829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.b.
cited provision3: II.2.c.
cited provision4: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.841916
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.841988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.b.
cited provision3: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
cited provision4: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842268
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Construction Contractor Competence Gap Subconsultant Verification Responsibility
type: CompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementPlanningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Design-build industrial facility project — contractor's separate retention of Engineer B for structural footing design
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Construction Contractor Design-Build Project Retaining Contractor Client
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.201234
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Construction Contractor Consulting Practice Workforce Structuring Competence Gap Remediation
type: ConsultingPracticeWorkforceStructuringCompetenceGapRemediationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Consulting Practice Workforce Structuring Competence Gap Remediation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Construction contractor executing design-build industrial facility project who separately retained Engineer B for structural footing design
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Construction Contractor Design-Build Project Retaining Contractor Client
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.211445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Construction Contractor Degree-to-Task Alignment Verification Before Engineer B Retention Obligation
type: ConsultingPracticeSole-PurposeRetentionCompetenceScopeNon-ExpandabilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Construction Contractor
obligationclass: Consulting Practice Sole-Purpose Retention Competence Scope Non-Expandability Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Before executing the retention agreement with Engineer B for structural footing design
textreferences: It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.205766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Construction Contractor Design-Build Project Retaining Contractor Client
type: Design-BuildProjectRetainingContractorClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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"}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:09:36.536427+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:09:36.536427+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer B Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'works_with', 'target': 'Engineer A Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Design-Build Project Retaining Contractor Client
sourcetext: Engineer A, a professional engineer works with a construction contractor on a design/build project
textreferences: Engineer A reports his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: Engineer A, a professional engineer works with a construction contractor on a design/build project
textreferences: the construction contractor separately retains the services of Engineer B
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.190099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Consulting Context Competence Remediation Flexibility — General Principle
type: ConsultingContextCompetenceRemediationFlexibilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Operative as background ethical framework throughout the Board's analysis of Engineer B's situation
affectedparties: Clients of consulting engineers
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineering firms generally
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:11:07.850411+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:11:07.850411+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: 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.
stateclass: Consulting Context Competence Remediation Flexibility State
subject: The general consulting practice context as distinguished from employment contexts in the Board's analysis
terminatedby: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Board's recognition that consulting practice provides structural flexibility to retain specialists, distinguishing it from employment contexts
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.194967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Consulting Firm Workforce Restructuring Permissibility — General Principle
type: ConsultingFirmWorkforceRestructuringCompetenceGapRemediationPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Board distinguishing consulting flexibility from employment context rigidity in BER Case 94-8
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Consulting engineering firms generally
constraintclass: Consulting Firm Workforce Restructuring Competence Gap Remediation Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code II.2; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At time of accepting and structuring consulting engagement
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.206738
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Consulting vs. Employment Competence Flexibility Differential — BER Case 94-8 Application
type: Consultingvs.EmploymentContextCompetenceFlexibilityDifferentialConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Board distinguishing Engineer B's sole-purpose consulting retention from general consulting firm flexibility
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B and consulting engineers generally
constraintclass: Consulting vs. Employment Context Competence Flexibility Differential Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code II.2; BER Cases 85-3, 94-8
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At time of accepting and structuring the consulting retention
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: In the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility
textreferences: It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.208692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Contractor Competence Verification Duty Engineer B Structural Footing Retention
type: ContractorCompetenceVerificationDutyBeforeSpecialistRetentionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.8
constrainedentity: Contractor
constraintclass: Contractor Competence Verification Duty Before Specialist Retention Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering practice standards
sourcetext: the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
temporalscope: At the time of Engineer B's retention and upon receipt of Engineer A's competence concerns
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.199488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Contractor Receives Safety Concern
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.187396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Contractor Retains Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Contractor Retains Engineer B → Engineer B's Lack of Qualifications Confirmed
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212418
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838267
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Construction Contractor
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838570
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Degree-to-Task Alignment Verification Obligation Applied to Contractor Retention of Engineer B
type: Degree-to-TaskAlignmentVerificationObligationinRetainedEngineerSelection
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Construction contractor's retention of Engineer B for structural footing design
balancingwith: Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Degree-to-Task Alignment Verification Obligation in Retained Engineer Selection
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interests of the project
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.203917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Degree-to-Task Alignment Verification Obligation Implicated in Contractor Retention of Engineer B
type: Degree-to-TaskAlignmentVerificationObligationinRetainedEngineerSelection
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Design/build industrial facility project
appliedto: Engineer B's retention for structural footing design
balancingwith: Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Construction Contractor
principleclass: Degree-to-Task Alignment Verification Obligation in Retained Engineer Selection
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering.
textreferences: the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.196546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption from Competence Boundary Applied to Engineer B
type: EmployerandClientPressureNon-ExemptionfromCompetenceBoundary
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Structural footing design assignment accepted by Engineer B
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer B
principleclass: Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption from Competence Boundary
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering.
textreferences: the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.197087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer-Public-Safety-Escalation-Standard-Competence-Context
type: EngineerPublicSafetyEscalationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Professional engineering ethics norms codified in NSPE Code
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:09:16.896374+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:09:16.896374+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
usedby: Engineer A after reporting concerns to the contractor
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.188296
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer-Reporting-Obligation-to-State-Board-Competence-Violation
type: EngineerReportingObligationtoStateBoardStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: State licensing board rules and NSPE professional ethics norms
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:09:16.896374+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:09:16.896374+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
usedby: Engineer A in determining next steps after reporting concerns to the contractor
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.188730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A BER Three-Precedent Consulting-Employment Competence Flexibility Spectrum Synthesis
type: BERThree-PrecedentConsulting-EmploymentCompetenceFlexibilitySpectrumSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Three-Precedent Consulting-Employment Competence Flexibility Spectrum Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Design-build industrial facility project where Engineer A identified concerns about Engineer B's structural engineering competence
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The Board has had occasion to consider cases involving ethical issues that are somewhat related to the issues involved in this case.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: More recently, in BER Case 85-3, a local county ordinance required that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
textreferences: The Board has had occasion to consider cases involving ethical issues that are somewhat related to the issues involved in this case.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.209487
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Client and Authority Escalation Upon Engineer B Refusal Obligation
type: Out-of-CompetencePeerCompetencyChallengeandEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Out-of-Competence Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Conditionally, upon Engineer B's refusal to withdraw following direct confrontation by Engineer A
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.205099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer
type: Competency-ChallengingCo-ProjectEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Design/build industrial facility engineering', 'action_taken': 'Reported competence concerns to the construction contractor'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:09:36.536427+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:09:36.536427+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Construction Contractor Design-Build Project Retaining Contractor Client'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, a professional engineer works with a construction contractor on a design/build project
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: Engineer A, a professional engineer works with a construction contractor on a design/build project
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.190716
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Confronts Engineer B Directly
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.187119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Confronts Engineer B Directly → Engineer B Confrontation Outcome Determined
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212627
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Consulting Context Competence Flexibility Differential Awareness
type: Consultingvs.EmploymentContextCompetenceFlexibilityDifferentialConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Consulting vs. Employment Context Competence Flexibility Differential Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Cases 85-3, 94-8
sourcetext: the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's assessment of Engineer B's situation and escalation decisions
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
textreferences: the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.199016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Cross-Discipline Structural Footing Competence Boundary Recognition
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Design-build industrial facility project — structural footing design assigned to a chemical engineer
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.200299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Design-Build Separately Retained Engineer Competence Verification Duty Recognition
type: Design-BuildSeparatelyRetainedEngineerCompetenceVerificationDutyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Design-Build Separately Retained Engineer Competence Verification Duty Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Design-build industrial facility project where the contractor independently retained Engineer B outside Engineer A's direct supervisory chain
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's decision to report his competence reservations about Engineer B to the contractor despite Engineer B being separately retained
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.200543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Direct Confrontation of Engineer B Recommending Withdrawal Obligation
type: PeerCompetenceChallengeDirectConfrontationBeforeAuthorityEscalationSequencingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Peer Competence Challenge Direct Confrontation Before Authority Escalation Sequencing Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon forming an objective basis to conclude Engineer B lacked the requisite competence, before any client or authority notification
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.204872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition for Structural Footing
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer A assessing whether Engineer B's chemical engineering credentials qualified him for structural footing design on the design-build project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Section II.2.a. states that an engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
textreferences: Under the facts of this case, the job responsibilities of Engineer B includes the design of structural footings as part of the facility.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.210757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Employment vs Consulting Competence Flexibility Distinction Application
type: EmploymentvsConsultingCompetenceFlexibilityDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employment vs Consulting Competence Flexibility Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer A's analysis of whether Engineer B could ethically remediate the structural engineering competence gap through subconsultant engagement
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Escalates to Client and Authorities
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.187232
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Investigates Engineer B's Qualifications
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Investigates Engineer B's Qualifications → Engineer A Reports Concerns to Contractor
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212538
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Imminent Reporting Non-Compulsion Collegial First Step
type: Non-ImminentLicensureViolationImmediateReportingNon-CompulsionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Imminent Licensure Violation Immediate Reporting Non-Compulsion Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
temporalscope: At the current stage of the project, before structural footing design is completed or sealed
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.198780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Objective Basis Peer Competence Challenge Graduated Escalation
type: PeerCompetenceChallengeGraduatedEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A on shared project with Engineer B (chemical engineer) assigned to structural footing design
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Peer Competence Challenge Graduated Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code; BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon determining objective basis for competence concern about Engineer B
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.207947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Objective Credential Investigation Before Peer Competence Challenge Obligation
type: ObjectiveCredentialInvestigationBeforePeerCompetenceChallengeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Objective Credential Investigation Before Peer Competence Challenge Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon observing Engineer B's assignment to structural footing design and before initiating any competence challenge
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.201940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge Direct Confrontation Before Client-Authority Escalation Sequencing
type: PeerCompetenceChallengeDirectConfrontationBeforeClient-AuthorityEscalationSequencingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Competence Challenge Direct Confrontation Before Client-Authority Escalation Sequencing Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer A identified an objective basis to conclude Engineer B lacked structural engineering competence on the design-build industrial facility project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's obligation to confront Engineer B directly before escalating to the contractor or authorities, as articulated by the Board's ethical analysis
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.210185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge Graduated Escalation Structural Footing Project
type: PeerCompetenceChallengeGraduatedEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Peer Competence Challenge Graduated Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2, III.2; BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
temporalscope: From the point Engineer A identified competence concerns through resolution of the matter
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.198534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation
type: PeerCompetenceChallengeReportingObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's formation of an objective basis to question Engineer B's competence through completion of the sequential escalation process
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
affectedparties: Relevant authorities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:11:07.850411+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:11:07.850411+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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.
stateclass: Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's professional obligation upon determining Engineer B lacks structural competence
terminatedby: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's objective assessment that Engineer B lacks the education, training, and experience to perform the required structural footing design
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.194702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation Activated
type: PeerCompetenceChallengeReportingObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's report of concerns to the contractor onward, pending resolution
affectedparties: Construction Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public safety stakeholders
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:09:22.826305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:09:22.826305+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
stateclass: Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation State
subject: 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
terminatedby: Contractor remediation (replacing or qualifying Engineer B), Engineer B's withdrawal, or Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
triggeringevent: Engineer A reporting reservations about Engineer B's competence to the contractor, initiating the sequential escalation obligation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.189366
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Peer Competency Objective Basis Assessment
type: PeerCompetencyObjectiveBasisAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Competency Objective Basis Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer A working alongside Engineer B on design-build industrial facility project, investigating Engineer B's credentials for structural footing design
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.210455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Peer Engineer Out-of-Discipline Competence Evidence Investigation
type: PeerCompetencyObjectiveBasisAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Competency Objective Basis Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Design-build industrial facility project where the contractor separately retained Engineer B for structural footing design
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.200026
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Withdrawal Decision Upon Unresolved Competence Concern
type: ProfessionalWithdrawalDecisionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Withdrawal Decision Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer A's escalation pathway on the design-build industrial facility project after Engineer B's refusal to withdraw
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.211725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Project Withdrawal If Competence Concerns Unmet Obligation
type: ClientSafetyViolationInsistenceorProjectWithdrawalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: if necessary, withdraw from the project if his concerns are not met.
temporalscope: Conditionally, after exhausting escalation to contractor-client and authorities without resolution of the competence concern
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: if necessary, withdraw from the project if his concerns are not met.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.204637
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Project Withdrawal If Competence Concerns Unmet — Conditional Trigger
type: ConditionalWithdrawalTriggerExhaustionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's withdrawal obligation contingent on Engineer B's refusal and client/authority non-response
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Conditional Withdrawal Trigger Exhaustion Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code; BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: if necessary, withdraw from the project if his concerns are not met
temporalscope: After exhaustion of graduated escalation steps
textreferences: if necessary, withdraw from the project if his concerns are not met
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.208186
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Reports Concerns to Contractor
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.187063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Reports Concerns to Contractor → Contractor Receives Safety Concern
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212590
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A Unverified Competence Concern About Engineer B
type: UnverifiedConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's discovery of Engineer B's background through any formal investigation or resolution
affectedparties: Construction Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:09:22.826305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:09:22.826305+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
stateclass: Unverified Concern State
subject: 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
terminatedby: Formal competence assessment, Engineer B's withdrawal, or escalation to licensing authority
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings
triggeringevent: Engineer A's investigation revealing Engineer B holds a chemical engineering degree with no apparent subsequent training in foundation design
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.189165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A confronting Engineer B before Engineer B potentially withdrawing from project
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.213082
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A escalating to client and authorities before Engineer A potentially withdrawing from project
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.213183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A investigating Engineer B's qualifications before Engineer A reporting concerns to contractor
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.213026
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer A working on design/build project overlaps contractor retaining Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212762
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Accepts Structural Assignment
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Accepts Structural Assignment → Engineer B's Lack of Qualifications Confirmed
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212492
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Chemical Engineer Structural Footing Assignment Incompetence
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetencewithGeneralLicensureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer B is retained by the contractor to design structural footings through resolution of the competence concern
affectedparties: Construction Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Future occupants of industrial facility
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:09:22.826305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:09:22.826305+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
stateclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence with General Licensure State
subject: Engineer B's assignment to design structural footings despite chemical engineering background and no established training in foundation design
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — Engineer B remains assigned to structural footing design
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
triggeringevent: Contractor's separate retention of Engineer B (chemical engineer) to design structural footings for the industrial facility
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.188965
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Chemical Engineering Background Structural Footing Assignment Competence Boundary
type: Education-ExperienceCompetenceThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Chemical engineer retained by contractor for sole purpose of structural footing design
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 85-3, 94-8
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At time of accepting and performing the structural footing design retention
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: an engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.207455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Confrontation Outcome Determined
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.187437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Design Engineer
type: Cross-DisciplineOut-of-CompetenceStructuralDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'degree_discipline': 'Chemical Engineering', 'assigned_scope': 'Structural footing design', 'competence_gap': 'No apparent subsequent training in foundation design'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:09:36.536427+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:09:36.536427+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Construction Contractor Design-Build Project Retaining Contractor Client'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Design Engineer
sourcetext: the construction contractor separately retains the services of Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
textreferences: the construction contractor separately retains the services of Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.189867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Cross-Discipline Structural Footing Assignment Acceptance Refusal Obligation
type: Cross-DisciplinePELicenseNon-SufficiencyforStructuralAssignmentAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Cross-Discipline PE License Non-Sufficiency for Structural Assignment Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting the retention from the contractor, before commencing structural footing design work
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Section II.2.a. states that an engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.204188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Decides Whether to Withdraw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.187185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Decides Whether to Withdraw → Escalation Necessity Triggered
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Domain-Specific Competence Verification Before Structural Footing Acceptance Obligation
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceVerificationBeforeAssignmentAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Domain-Specific Competence Verification Before Assignment Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Section II.2.a. states that an engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
temporalscope: Before accepting the retention from the construction contractor
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Section II.2.a. states that an engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.205311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Domain-Specific Incompetence Seal Prohibition Structural Footings
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetenceSealProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence Seal Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; BER Cases 94-8, 85-3
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
temporalscope: Throughout the structural footing design engagement
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.198035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Domain-Specific Incompetence Structural Footing Seal Prohibition
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetenceSealProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Chemical engineer with PE license assigned to design structural footings for a facility
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence Seal Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code II.2.b; BER Cases 85-3, 94-8
sourcetext: Engineer B appear to be accepting an assignment in an area in which he possesses no apparent background or expertise.
temporalscope: Throughout the structural footing design assignment
textreferences: Engineer B appear to be accepting an assignment in an area in which he possesses no apparent background or expertise.
textreferences: the engineer is obligated to perform services only in his area of competence
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.208446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Domain-Specific Incompetence in Structural Engineering
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetencewithGeneralLicensureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer B accepted the structural footing design assignment through the resolution of Engineer A's concerns
affectedparties: Contractor client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public users of the facility
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:11:07.850411+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:11:07.850411+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B appear to be accepting an assignment in an area in which he possesses no apparent background or expertise.
stateclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence with General Licensure State
subject: Engineer B's professional competence relative to structural footing design assignment
terminatedby: 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
textreferences: Engineer B appear to be accepting an assignment in an area in which he possesses no apparent background or expertise.
textreferences: the job responsibilities of Engineer B includes the design of structural footings as part of the facility
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Engineer B accepted a consulting engagement requiring structural footing design despite lacking apparent background or expertise in structural engineering
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.191228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Education-Experience Competence Threshold Structural Footing Design
type: Education-ExperienceCompetenceThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Case 85-3
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
temporalscope: At the time of and throughout the structural footing design engagement
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.197840
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B General PE License Non-Authorization for Structural Footing Practice
type: GeneralPELicensureUniversalPracticeNon-AuthorizationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Chemical engineer with PE license accepting structural footing design assignment
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: General PE Licensure Universal Practice Non-Authorization Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code II.2; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3, 94-8
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At time of accepting the structural footing design retention
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: the engineer is obligated to perform services only in his area of competence
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.207718
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B General PE Licensure Non-Authorization for Structural Footing Design
type: GeneralPELicensureUniversalPracticeNon-AuthorizationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: General PE Licensure Universal Practice Non-Authorization Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 85-3, 94-8
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of Engineer B's engagement on the structural footing design task
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.197575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Irreconcilable Sole-Purpose Competence Gap Declination
type: IrreconcilableEmploymentRoleCompetenceGapDeclinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap Declination Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer B retained by construction contractor for sole-purpose structural footing design despite chemical engineering background
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: We do not think this would be feasible under the facts.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.211002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Outside Area of Competence for Structural Footing Design
type: OutsideAreaofCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Coextensive with Engineer B's retention on the structural footing design task
affectedparties: Construction Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Industrial facility users
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:09:22.826305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:09:22.826305+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
stateclass: Outside Area of Competence
subject: Engineer B's professional competence boundary — chemical engineering background does not encompass structural footing/foundation design without demonstrated supplemental training
terminatedby: Demonstrated acquisition of foundation design competence, reassignment, or withdrawal
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
triggeringevent: Engineer B accepting the structural footing design assignment despite chemical engineering background
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.189646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B PE License Legal Minimum Ethics Code Higher Standard
type: EthicsCodeHigherStandardThanLegalMinimumCompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B holding PE license with chemical engineering background accepting structural footing design assignment
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Ethics Code Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Competence Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code II.2; BER Case 85-3 as applied in BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At time of accepting the structural footing design retention
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: the engineer is obligated to perform services only in his area of competence
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.207220
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B PE License Legal Minimum vs Ethics Code Higher Standard Self-Recognition
type: PELicenseLegalMinimumvsEthicsCodeHigherStandardSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: PE License Legal Minimum vs Ethics Code Higher Standard Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer B, with chemical engineering background, accepted contractor retention for sole-purpose structural footing design
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Section II.2.a. states that an engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.209740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B PE License Non-Sufficiency Ethics Code Higher Standard Recognition Obligation
type: EthicsCodeSupersessionofLegalMinimumSafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Ethics Code Supersession of Legal Minimum Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At the time of accepting and performing the structural footing design assignment
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.205550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Pre-Acceptance Structural Footing Competence Self-Assessment Deficit
type: Pre-AcceptanceCompetenceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer B's acceptance of structural footing design engagement from the contractor
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's acceptance of structural footing design work for which Engineer A could find no evidence of qualifying subsequent training
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Design Engineer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering.
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.200993
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Public Safety Paramount Structural Footing Incompetence
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
temporalscope: Throughout the structural footing design engagement
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.199253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Sole-Purpose Engagement Competence Delegation Non-Availability
type: Sole-PurposeConsultingEngagementCompetenceDelegationNon-AvailabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Sole-Purpose Consulting Engagement Competence Delegation Non-Availability Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.314009+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2; BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of Engineer B's sole-purpose structural footing design engagement
textreferences: the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.198320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Sole-Purpose Retention Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition
type: Sole-PurposeRetentionSub-DelegationInfeasibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sole-Purpose Retention Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Engineer B retained by construction contractor for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing structural footings for the industrial facility
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:47.828956+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.209952
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Sole-Purpose Structural Footing Engagement Precluding Delegation
type: Sole-PurposeEngagementPrecludingCompetenceDelegationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's acceptance of the engagement through resolution
affectedparties: Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:11:07.850411+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:11:07.850411+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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.
stateclass: Sole-Purpose Engagement Precluding Competence Delegation State
subject: Engineer B's consulting engagement with the contractor for structural footing design
terminatedby: Engineer B's withdrawal from the project or restructuring of the engagement scope
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.194445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Sole-Purpose Structural Footing Sub-Delegation Circular Nullification
type: Sole-PurposeConsultingSub-DelegationCircularNullificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B (chemical engineer) retained by contractor solely to design structural footings for a facility
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Sole-Purpose Consulting Sub-Delegation Circular Nullification Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code II.2.a; BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.
temporalscope: At time of accepting and performing the structural footing design retention
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.206975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Sole-Purpose Structural Footing Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition Obligation
type: Sole-PurposeRetainedEngineerCross-DisciplineSub-DelegationInfeasibilityRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Sole-Purpose Retained Engineer Cross-Discipline Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.
temporalscope: Upon recognizing the competence gap, before or upon accepting the sole-purpose retention
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.204405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B Structural Footing Foundation Design Competence Deficit
type: StructuralEngineeringDesignCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Structural Engineering Design Competence
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: Design-build industrial facility project — Engineer B retained to design structural footings despite chemical engineering background
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's acceptance of structural footing design work despite a chemical engineering background and no established subsequent training in foundation design
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:15:11.814326+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Design Engineer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering.
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.200785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B refusing Engineer A's recommendation before Engineer A escalating to client and authorities
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.213143
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineer B's Lack of Qualifications Confirmed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.187337
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineering Firm Consulting Practice Subconsultant Engagement for Competence Gap Obligation
type: ConsultingPracticeCompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:19:49.626913+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineering Firm (General Consulting Context)
obligationclass: Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: When accepting multi-discipline consulting engagements that include domains outside the firm's competence
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.206276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Engineering Self-Policing Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Reporting to Contractor
type: EngineeringSelf-PolicingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Construction contractor's retention decision
appliedto: Engineer B's structural footing design competence
balancingwith: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Engineering Self-Policing Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.196064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Escalation Necessity Triggered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.187475
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Applied to Engineer B PE Licensure Defense
type: EthicsCodeasHigherStandardThanLegalMinimum
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's reliance on PE licensure as justification for accepting structural design work
balancingwith: Universal Engineer Competence Scope Limitation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: No tension — the higher-standard principle reinforces the competence scope limitation: legal sufficiency (PE license) does not exhaust ethical obligation.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.202954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

II.2.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

II.2.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

II.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

II.2.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

III.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Balanced Against Reporting Obligation by Engineer A
type: IncompleteSituationalKnowledgeRestraintinCompetitorCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's assessment of Engineer B's competence for structural footing design
balancingwith: Engineering Self-Policing Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.197334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Technical Competence Scope Applied via BER 85-3 Analogy
type: InstitutionalRoleNon-ExpansionofTechnicalCompetenceScope
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: BER Case 85-3 county surveyor appointment analogy applied to Engineer B's structural retention
balancingwith: Universal Engineer Competence Scope Limitation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Technical Competence Scope
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: No tension — the institutional role non-expansion principle reinforces the competence scope limitation in both employment and consulting contexts.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.203706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Professional-Competence
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:09:16.896374+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:09:16.896374+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
usedby: Engineer A evaluating Engineer B's qualifications; Engineer B in accepting the structural footing design assignment
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.187782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Rule of Practice Section II.2 (Competence)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer B's conduct and Engineer A's obligations
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.192532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Rule of Practice Section II.2.a (Qualified by Education or Experience)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section II.2.a. states that an engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Section II.2.a. states that an engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in assessing Engineer B's qualifications for structural footing design
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.192746
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Rule of Practice Section II.2.b
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 85-3 analysis imported into the present case
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.193097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.c
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Rule of Practice Section II.2.c
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 85-3 analysis imported into the present case
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.193915
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics – Professional Competence Standard
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics – Collective Competence Obligation (Sections II.2 and predecessor Section 6)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:10:26.818216+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in determining Engineer A's obligations when confronting Engineer B's apparent lack of structural engineering competence
usedincontext: 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
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.194155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Peer Competence Challenge Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Based on Credential Inspection
type: PeerCompetenceChallengeObligationUponReasonableDoubt
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Construction contractor's retention decision
appliedto: Engineer B's structural footing design assignment
balancingwith: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Peer Competence Challenge Obligation Upon Reasonable Doubt
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.196306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Peer Competence Challenge Obligation Upon Reasonable Doubt Applied to Engineer A Assessment of Engineer B
type: PeerCompetenceChallengeObligationUponReasonableDoubt
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's assessment of Engineer B's qualifications for structural footing design
balancingwith: Premature External Escalation Reputational Harm Avoidance Principle
balancingwith: Professional Reciprocity and Collegial Solidarity Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Peer Competence Challenge Obligation Upon Reasonable Doubt
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: Reasonable doubt is sufficient to trigger the obligation; Engineer A need not wait for Engineer B to produce a deficient design before acting.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.203198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Peer Competence Confrontation Before Authority Escalation Sequencing Applied to Engineer A Obligations
type: PeerCompetenceConfrontationBeforeAuthorityEscalationSequencingPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's response to Engineer B's apparent cross-discipline incompetence
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Premature External Escalation Reputational Harm Avoidance Principle
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Peer Competence Confrontation Before Authority Escalation Sequencing Principle
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: The sequence balances collegial respect (direct confrontation first) with public protection (mandatory escalation if confrontation fails); neither value is sacrificed — they are ordered temporally.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.190445
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Prior BER Precedents Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.187528
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Prior BER Precedents Established → Engineer A Investigates Engineer B's Qualifications
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212719
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Professional-Competence-Standard-Structural-Footing-Design
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: Professional engineering norms codified in NSPE Code and state licensing rules
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Competence Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:09:16.896374+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:09:16.896374+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
usedby: Engineer A in assessing Engineer B's qualifications and reporting concerns to the contractor
usedincontext: 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
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.187978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Project Construction Commences
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.187292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse Applied to Engineer A If Concerns Unmet
type: ProjectWithdrawalasEthicalRecourseWhenSafetyStandardsRejected
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's ultimate response if contractor-client and authorities fail to act on competence concerns
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse When Safety Standards Rejected
sourcetext: if necessary, withdraw from the project if his concerns are not met.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: if necessary, withdraw from the project if his concerns are not met.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.203412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk from Engineer B Incompetent Structural Footing Design — Safety Constraint
type: SafetyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Structural footings designed by a chemical engineer with no structural engineering background pose safety risk to facility occupants
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B and Engineer A
constraintclass: Safety Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:22:05.175025+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code I.1; BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Throughout the structural footing design and construction period
textreferences: Engineer A has an obligation under the Code to bring the matter to the attention of his client and to the authorities as appropriate
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.208964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk from Incompetent Structural Footing Design
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's acceptance of the structural footing design assignment through completion of competent design review
affectedparties: Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Future facility occupants
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:11:07.850411+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:11:07.850411+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the job responsibilities of Engineer B includes the design of structural footings as part of the facility
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: The safety of future occupants and users of the facility whose structural footings may be designed by an incompetent engineer
terminatedby: Competent structural engineer performs or reviews the footing design; Engineer B withdraws
textreferences: Engineer B appear to be accepting an assignment in an area in which he possesses no apparent background or expertise
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: the job responsibilities of Engineer B includes the design of structural footings as part of the facility
triggeringevent: Engineer B, lacking apparent structural engineering competence, accepted responsibility for designing structural footings for a facility
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.195521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Structural Footing Competence Context
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's out-of-competence practice
appliedto: Structural footing design for industrial facility
balancingwith: Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.196846
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837392
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837451
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837537
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837593
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842552
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837323
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Would it be ethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839249
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Did Engineer A have an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839545
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.839961
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.840203
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.840255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.840307
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.840376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837850
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837926
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838104
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.838188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.842826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:45:06.837675
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Retained-Engineer Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Constraint Applied to Engineer B Structural Footing Sole-Purpose Retention
type: Retained-EngineerSub-DelegationInfeasibilityConstraintPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's potential sub-delegation of structural footing design to a competent structural engineer
balancingwith: Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection
balancingwith: Universal Engineer Competence Scope Limitation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Retained-Engineer Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Constraint Principle
sourcetext: It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.202442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Universal Competence Scope Limitation Invoked Against Engineer B Structural Footing Assignment
type: UniversalEngineerCompetenceScopeLimitationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Design/build industrial facility project
appliedto: Engineer B's structural footing design assignment
balancingwith: Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection
balancingwith: Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption from Competence Boundary
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:12:52.651583+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Universal Engineer Competence Scope Limitation Principle
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.195794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

Universal Engineer Competence Scope Limitation Invoked Against Engineer B Chemical-to-Structural Practice
type: UniversalEngineerCompetenceScopeLimitationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's acceptance of structural footing design assignment
balancingwith: Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection
balancingwith: Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 110
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 110
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: Board of Ethical Review
invokedby: Engineer A
principleclass: Universal Engineer Competence Scope Limitation Principle
sourcetext: Engineer B appear to be accepting an assignment in an area in which he possesses no apparent background or expertise.
tensionresolution: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Section II.2.a. states that an engineer should undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 110 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.202701
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

construction of the project starts contractor retaining Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.212806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction

public utility interview before firm altering its qualifications
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T10:30:44.213235
was generated by: ProEthica Case 110 Extraction