ProEthica Case 121 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.138807
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER-Case-71-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 71-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:29.349049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:29.349049+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 professional competence, 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: In BER Case 71-2, a case involving the brokerage of engineering services by two firms competing for government work and the question of professional competence, 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'
usedby: Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning on competency and specialist retention
usedincontext: Cited as precedent recognizing the propriety of retaining specialists and establishing that engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where they possess educational background and experience, or to retain those who do
version: 1971
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.141432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

BER-Case-78-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 78-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:29.349049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:29.349049+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… 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
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… 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
usedby: Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning on qualification representation and competency limits
usedincontext: Cited as precedent affirming BER Case 71-2's holding that engineers must seek work only in areas of genuine competence and may not misrepresent qualifications to secure contracts; used to reinforce the obligation against practicing outside one's competency
version: 1978
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.141568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

BER-Case-94-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 94-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:29.349049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:29.349049+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: in Case 94-8, Engineer A, a professional engineer, worked with a construction contractor on a design/build project… Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering… The Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings
textreferences: in Case 94-8, Engineer A, a professional engineer, worked with a construction contractor on a design/build project… Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering… The Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings
usedby: Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning on competency limits
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that it is unethical for an engineer to perform design work (structural footings) outside their area of competence (chemical engineering background), and that a co-engineer has an ethical responsibility to question and report such competency concerns
version: 1994
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.141285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

BER Board Multi-Precedent Competence Domain Synthesis BER 94-8 71-2 78-5
type: BERMulti-PrecedentCompetenceDomainObligationSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Multi-Precedent Competence Domain Obligation Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated the multi-precedent competence domain obligation synthesis capability by retrieving and synthesizing BER Cases 94-8, 71-2, and 78-5 to extract the shared normative principle that engineers must seek work only in areas of established competence or retain qualified specialists, and applying that synthesized framework to the CD-ROM facilities design expansion case.
casecontext: The BER applied its multi-precedent synthesis capability to determine that Engineer A's reliance on a CD-ROM to expand into facilities design violated the competence domain obligations established across BER 94-8, 71-2, and 78-5.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The Board's discussion section systematically citing and synthesizing three prior BER cases on competence domain obligations to derive the applicable ethical standard for Engineer A's situation.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Over the years, the Board of Ethical Review has examined the issue of professional competency on numerous occasions under a variety of factual situations.
textreferences: In BER Case 71-2... the Board recognized 'the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists'.
textreferences: In Case 94-8... The Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings.
textreferences: Likewise, BER Case 78-5... 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.
textreferences: Over the years, the Board of Ethical Review has examined the issue of professional competency on numerous occasions under a variety of factual situations.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.154047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

BER Board Precedent-Informed Competence Standard Application CD-ROM Case
type: Precedent-InformedCompetenceStandardApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Informed Competence Standard Application Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER demonstrated the precedent-informed competence standard application capability by applying BER Cases 94-8, 71-2, and 78-5 to determine that Engineer A's reliance on a CD-ROM to expand into facilities design constituted an ethical violation of the competence domain obligation.
casecontext: The BER applied precedent-informed competence standard reasoning to determine that Engineer A's consideration of facilities design services based on a CD-ROM violated established ethical standards for professional competence.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The BER's systematic application of prior competence-domain precedents to reach the conclusion that Engineer A's CD-ROM-based competence claim was ethically impermissible.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Over the years, the Board of Ethical Review has examined the issue of professional competency on numerous occasions under a variety of factual situations.
textreferences: Over the years, the Board of Ethical Review has examined the issue of professional competency on numerous occasions under a variety of factual situations.
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.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

BER Case 71-2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.713807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

BER Case 71-2 (1971) before BER Case 78-5 (1978)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

BER Case 71-2 precedent before BER Case 78-5 affirmation of BER Case 71-2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.156132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

BER Case 78-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.713842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

BER Case 78-5 (1978) before Case 94-8 (1994)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

CD-ROM Product Delivered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

CD-ROM Vendor Deceptive Engineering Tool Vendor
type: DeceptiveEngineeringToolVendor
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Commercial software vendor', 'solicitation_method': 'Direct mail', 'product': 'CD-ROM interactive library of standard design'}
caseinvolvement: The unnamed commercial entity that mailed the solicitation to Engineer A, marketing a CD-ROM as enabling engineers to design in any domain regardless of experience, thereby inducing out-of-competence practice and creating public safety risks.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:39.215985+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:39.215985+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'solicits', 'target': 'Engineer A Solicitation-Induced Out-of-Competence Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Deceptive Engineering Tool Vendor
sourcetext: receives a solicitation in the mail
textreferences: Never designed a highway before? No problem.
textreferences: increase your firm's profits
textreferences: receives a solicitation in the mail
textreferences: thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.140081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

CD-ROM Vendor Deceptive Engineering Tool Vendor Solicitation Misrepresentation
type: DeceptiveSolicitationCompetenceClaimRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Deceptive Solicitation Competence Claim Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The CD-ROM vendor's solicitation exemplifies the type of deceptive competence-substitution claim that licensed engineers must be capable of recognizing and resisting — the vendor explicitly claimed that domain experience is unnecessary and that the software enables design in any domain, which constitutes the paradigm case of a deceptive solicitation against which engineer recognition capability must be calibrated.
casecontext: The CD-ROM vendor is the source of the deceptive solicitation; their marketing materials define the type of claim that engineers must learn to recognize as ethically problematic.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.78
demonstratedthrough: The vendor's solicitation text provides the canonical example of deceptive competence-substitution marketing: 'no matter your design experience', 'never designed a highway before? No problem', framing the CD-ROM as eliminating the need for domain expertise.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: CD-ROM Vendor Deceptive Engineering Tool Vendor
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
textreferences: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
textreferences: never designed a highway before? No problem. Just point to the 'Highways' window and click.
textreferences: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.148735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Case 121 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.156172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Case 94-8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.713762
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Case 94-8 (1994) before current case (Engineer A and CD-ROM)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.156025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

CausalLink_Offering Facilities Design Ser
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

CausalLink_Ordering CD-ROM Product
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override Invoked Against Engineer A Acceptance of CD-ROM Engagement
type: CommercialProfitMotiveNon-OverrideofCompetenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer
balancingwith: Competence Principle
balancingwith: Technology Non-Substitution for Domain Expertise Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's acceptance of the facilities design engagement — motivated by the commercial opportunity presented by the CD-ROM solicitation — was held to be an impermissible subordination of the competence obligation to commercial profit motive, regardless of the financial attractiveness of the engagement.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The commercial appeal of the CD-ROM product and the facilities design opportunity did not constitute legitimate grounds for accepting work outside Engineer A's actual competence in chemical engineering.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation
sourcetext: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
tensionresolution: Commercial motive was explicitly subordinated to competence obligation; the Board found no legitimate basis for the engagement.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
textreferences: The Board considers such activities completely contrary to the basic ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.150069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation Violated by Engineer A
type: CommercialProfitMotiveNon-OverrideofCompetenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's decision to order the CD-ROM and expand service offerings
balancingwith: Competence Principle
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, induced by a solicitation explicitly framing the CD-ROM as a profit-maximization tool that allows engineers to accept any job regardless of experience, allows the commercial appeal of expanded service offerings to override the threshold competence requirement for accepting engineering engagements
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The solicitation's explicit framing that engineers 'cannot afford to pass up a single job' instrumentalizes profit over competence; Engineer A's acceptance of this framing and subsequent service expansion constitutes a subordination of competence obligations to commercial motive
invokedby: Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer
principleclass: Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation
sourcetext: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
tensionresolution: Commercial profit motives cannot override competence obligations; the principle is categorical and admits no balancing against revenue considerations
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
textreferences: increase your firm's profits.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.143979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption Violated by Engineer A CD-ROM Reliance
type: CompetenceAssuranceUnderNovelToolAdoption
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's reliance on CD-ROM software to perform facilities design
balancingwith: Third-Party Inducement to Incompetent Practice Prohibition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A accepts the CD-ROM vendor's claims at face value and begins offering design services without independently verifying whether the tool's outputs are technically sound, without understanding the tool's limitations, and without possessing the domain knowledge necessary to evaluate the tool's outputs critically
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Competence assurance requires engineers to possess sufficient understanding of any tool before relying on it professionally; a chemical engineer cannot evaluate the adequacy of facilities design outputs without the domain expertise that the tool purports to replace
invokedby: Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer
principleclass: Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption
sourcetext: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
tensionresolution: The vendor's solicitation creates a commercial inducement, but the engineer's independent obligation to verify tool adequacy is not diminished by vendor claims
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.143825
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Competence Boundary Recognition and Escalation Obligation Violated by Engineer A
type: CompetenceBoundaryRecognitionandEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's failure to recognize and act upon competence limitations before offering facilities design services
balancingwith: Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A fails to recognize that their chemical engineering background does not qualify them for facilities design and construction work, and instead of escalating to a specialist or declining the work, accepts the engagement based on a commercial software tool's implied promise of domain-agnostic design capability
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation requires not merely refraining from incompetent work but affirmatively recognizing the limitation; Engineer A's failure to recognize that no software tool can substitute for genuine domain expertise is itself an ethical violation
invokedby: Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer
principleclass: Competence Boundary Recognition and Escalation Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail
tensionresolution: Recognition of competence limits is a threshold obligation that precedes any commercial consideration; Engineer A's failure to recognize the limit is compounded by the commercial inducement that obscured it
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.144293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Competence Principle Violated by Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design
type: CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's decision to offer facilities design and construction services
balancingwith: Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, accepts and begins offering facilities design and construction services after receiving a commercial solicitation, violating the core obligation to practice only within areas of genuine competence
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Competence Principle prohibits engineers from accepting work in domains where they lack genuine expertise; the availability of a software tool does not create the domain competence that the principle requires
invokedby: Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer
principleclass: Competence Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
tensionresolution: No balancing is permissible — competence is a threshold requirement, not a factor to be weighed against commercial opportunity
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.141896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Competence Scope Limitation Invoked Against BER 78-5 Qualification Alteration
type: CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Consulting Firm BER 78-5 Qualification Alterer
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER Case 78-5, a consulting firm's attempt to alter its stated qualifications after a public utility interview — to improve its competitive position — was held to violate the ethical obligation to seek work only in areas where the firm possessed actual educational background and experience.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The Competence Principle here operates to prohibit retroactive qualification inflation: a firm cannot expand its claimed competence after the fact to secure a contract, as this would misrepresent the basis of its actual capabilities.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Competence Principle
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: Competence integrity prevailed; post-interview qualification alteration was held unethical regardless of competitive motivation.
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.
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 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.149755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Competence Self-Certification Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A Diploma Mill Analogy
type: CompetenceSelf-CertificationProhibitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer
balancingwith: Competence Principle
balancingwith: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's act of ordering and using the CD-ROM was characterized by the Board as equivalent to obtaining a diploma-mill certification — a perfunctory self-certification of competence in facilities design without the substantive education, examination, and practice experience that genuine competence requires.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The self-certification prohibition operates here to invalidate Engineer A's implicit claim of competence derived from the CD-ROM product, treating the act of ordering and using the product as an ethical violation independent of any specific design error.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Competence Self-Certification Prohibition Principle
sourcetext: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner.
tensionresolution: No competing principle justified the self-certification; the Board found the conduct completely contrary to basic ethical principles.
textreferences: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner.
textreferences: In a sense, the direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills' whereby individuals 'self certify' their competency based upon a perfunctory review process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice.
textreferences: The Board considers such activities completely contrary to the basic ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.148892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was not ethical for Engineer A to offer facilities design and construction services under the facts presented.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's offer of facilities design services was unethical, the ethical violation occurred at the moment Engineer A decided to offer those services to prospective clients — not at the later stage of sealing drawings or completing actual design work. The act of marketing services outside one's competence is itself a misrepresentation to the public, because prospective clients reasonably rely on an engineer's service offering as an implicit representation of qualification. Engineer A's competence gap in facilities design and construction was not remedied by possession of a general professional engineering license, which authorizes practice only within areas of demonstrated competence and does not confer universal disciplinary authority. The structural condition created by general PE licensure — where the license credential does not signal disciplinary boundaries to lay clients — makes Engineer A's implicit misrepresentation particularly dangerous, because clients lack independent means to detect the competence gap before engaging services.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 303
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion is further supported by the observation that the CD-ROM solicitation itself constituted a deceptive commercial inducement that Engineer A had an independent ethical obligation to resist. The solicitation explicitly framed professional competence as irrelevant — stating that engineers could design highways or any unfamiliar project type by simply clicking a menu option — which is a direct contradiction of the foundational engineering ethics principle that competence derives from education and experience, not from access to a software library. Engineer A's failure to critically evaluate this premise and instead accept it as a legitimate basis for practice expansion reflects not merely a lapse in judgment but a failure of the professional character obligation to preserve the honor and dignity of the profession. The CD-ROM vendor bears independent ethical responsibility for marketing a tool in a manner designed to induce engineers to practice outside their competence, but this third-party culpability does not diminish Engineer A's own obligation to exercise independent professional judgment and reject the solicitation's false premise. An engineer's ethical duties are non-delegable and cannot be discharged by reliance on a vendor's implicit assurances of adequacy.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 403
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
cited provision4: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion would not be altered by Engineer A's hypothetical disclosure to clients of the competence gap or by informed client consent, because the ethical obligation to practice only within areas of competence is grounded in public safety and is not waivable by individual client agreement. However, the ethical analysis would change materially if Engineer A had structured the engagement to retain qualified subconsultants with demonstrated facilities design expertise to perform, review, and seal all work outside chemical engineering, with Engineer A serving only as a coordinating prime professional responsible for chemical process integration. Code Section II.2.c explicitly contemplates that engineers may accept coordination responsibility for entire projects provided they ensure that all component work is performed by qualified practitioners. Under that structure, Engineer A would not be substituting a CD-ROM for domain competence but rather fulfilling a legitimate coordination role while ensuring actual design work is performed by those qualified to do so. The precise ethical fault in the present case is therefore not Engineer A's ambition to serve as a prime professional on facilities projects, but rather Engineer A's reliance on a software tool as a functional substitute for the domain-specific engineering judgment that qualified subconsultants would otherwise supply. This distinction reveals that the CD-ROM itself is not categorically impermissible as a productivity aid, but becomes ethically impermissible when used as the sole basis for claiming competence in an unfamiliar discipline.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: The CD-ROM vendor bears independent ethical responsibility for its solicitation conduct, though this responsibility does not diminish Engineer A's own culpability. The vendor's marketing explicitly targets engineers facing financial pressure, frames incompetence as a non-issue ('no matter your design experience'), and implicitly represents that a software library can substitute for domain-specific education and experience. This constitutes a deliberate commercial inducement to incompetent practice. While the NSPE Code directly governs licensed engineers rather than software vendors, the ethical principle that one must not associate with or facilitate deceptive enterprises applies to the engineering profession broadly. The Board's silence on vendor responsibility reflects a jurisdictional limitation — the Code cannot discipline non-engineers — but the ethical analysis is clear: the vendor's conduct is ethically indefensible because it knowingly exploits the financial anxieties of professionals whose competence obligations are well-established. Engineer A's culpability is not diminished by the vendor's inducement because a licensed professional engineer is presumed to know the boundaries of competent practice and cannot delegate that judgment to a commercial solicitation. The appropriate NSPE response would be to issue guidance warning engineers about such solicitations and potentially advocate for consumer protection or professional accountability mechanisms targeting vendors who market tools as competence substitutes.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Engineer A's conduct would become ethical — or at least potentially ethical — if, before offering facilities design services, he engaged qualified subconsultants with demonstrated facilities design expertise to perform, review, and seal all work outside his chemical engineering competence, retaining for himself only coordination responsibilities and chemical process design work within his actual competence. Code Section II.2.c explicitly contemplates that a prime professional may accept responsibility for an entire project and assume overall coordination responsibility, provided that each component is performed by qualified personnel. Under this framework, Engineer A's role would shift from incompetent practitioner to competent coordinator, and the public safety rationale underlying the Board's conclusion would be satisfied. However, this ethical rehabilitation requires more than a nominal subconsultant arrangement: the subconsultants must genuinely perform and independently review the design work, must be qualified by education and experience in the specific facilities design disciplines involved, and must seal their own work. A sham arrangement in which Engineer A uses subconsultants as a fig leaf while retaining substantive design control would remain unethical. The CD-ROM tool could legitimately serve as a productivity aid within such a properly structured arrangement, but it cannot serve as the competence foundation. The critical distinction is whether Engineer A is coordinating competent specialists or merely laundering his own incompetence through a subconsultant label.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: The ethical violation occurs at the moment Engineer A begins offering facilities design and construction services to prospective clients — not at the later stages of accepting a contract or sealing drawings. The act of marketing services one is not competent to perform is itself a misrepresentation to the public and to prospective clients, regardless of whether any contract is signed or any drawing is sealed. Code Section II.2.a requires that engineers undertake assignments only when qualified; the logical corollary is that engineers must not solicit assignments they are not qualified to undertake, because the solicitation itself initiates a chain of reliance by clients who may forego seeking qualified alternatives. Ordering the CD-ROM, while ethically concerning as a signal of Engineer A's susceptibility to the vendor's deceptive framing, does not by itself constitute an ethical violation — the CD-ROM could theoretically be used as a legitimate productivity tool within areas of actual competence. The ethical line is crossed when Engineer A translates the CD-ROM's implicit promise into an affirmative market offering of facilities design services. Each subsequent step — accepting a contract, performing design work, and sealing drawings — compounds the violation but does not constitute its origin. This temporal analysis matters because it establishes that the ethical obligation to self-assess and decline incompetent engagements arises before any client relationship is formed, not merely at the point of professional seal.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: A general professional engineering license does not represent to the public that the licensee is competent across all engineering disciplines, and the licensing system's failure to communicate this limitation clearly does create a structural condition that makes cases like Engineer A's more likely. Licensure in most jurisdictions is granted based on demonstrated competence in a specific discipline or examination domain, but the license itself — a document stating simply that the holder is a 'licensed professional engineer' — does not specify disciplinary boundaries on its face. This creates an information asymmetry: clients and the public may reasonably but incorrectly infer universal competence from the license, while the Code and professional norms impose discipline-specific competence obligations that are not visible to lay persons. Engineer A may have exploited — consciously or not — this ambiguity when offering facilities design services, relying on the general PE credential as implicit authorization. The ethical analysis under the Code is unambiguous: licensure does not confer competence, and Engineer A's general PE license provides no ethical cover for practicing outside chemical engineering. However, the structural problem identified here suggests that the NSPE and state licensing boards have an institutional obligation to better communicate the discipline-specific nature of competence obligations, both to licensees and to the public, to reduce the frequency of cases in which engineers mistake licensure breadth for competence breadth.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.716016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 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: The principle that engineers may adopt novel tools and technologies to enhance their capabilities does not conflict irreconcilably with the principle that technology cannot substitute for domain-specific engineering judgment, provided the distinction between tool and competence surrogate is properly understood. A software tool is a legitimate engineering aid when it accelerates, organizes, or checks work that the engineer is independently capable of performing and evaluating — the engineer can recognize errors, exercise judgment about applicability, and take professional responsibility for outputs. A tool crosses into impermissible competence surrogate territory when the engineer lacks the domain knowledge necessary to evaluate whether the tool's outputs are correct, applicable, or safe. In Engineer A's case, the CD-ROM's standard design library for facilities construction falls squarely in the surrogate category: Engineer A, lacking facilities design education and experience, cannot independently assess whether the library's outputs are appropriate for a given project, cannot identify when standard designs require modification for site-specific conditions, and cannot exercise the professional judgment that the engineering seal represents. The ethical test is not the sophistication of the tool but the engineer's independent capacity to evaluate its outputs. This principle applies equally to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence design tools: an engineer who cannot independently verify AI-generated structural calculations is using AI as a competence surrogate, not a productivity tool, regardless of the tool's technical sophistication.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.716097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: The tension between Engineer A's self-policing obligation regarding Engineer B's apparent structural footing incompetence (Case 94-8) and the requirement that competence assessments rest on objective grounds reveals a genuine ethical paradox: Engineer A, who is himself practicing outside his area of competence, may lack the domain-specific knowledge necessary to objectively evaluate whether Engineer B's structural footing design is actually deficient. This creates a situation in which the self-policing mechanism of the profession — which depends on peer engineers recognizing incompetent work — is compromised when the observing engineer is himself incompetent in the relevant domain. The ethical resolution is not that Engineer A is relieved of reporting obligations, but rather that Engineer A's reporting obligation is conditioned on the basis of his concern: if Engineer A's concern about Engineer B's work is grounded in observable facts accessible to a reasonable engineer (e.g., Engineer B has explicitly stated he has no structural experience, or the design contains errors visible to any competent engineer), the reporting obligation stands. If Engineer A's concern requires domain-specific structural judgment that Engineer A does not possess, he should seek a qualified structural engineer's assessment before making a formal report, to avoid the compounding ethical problem of an incompetent engineer making unfounded competence allegations against a peer. This analysis underscores that the self-policing obligation is not self-executing but requires the reporting engineer to exercise honest self-assessment about the basis of their concern.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.716170
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: The ethical framework distinguishes permissible entrepreneurial growth from impermissible profit-driven competence boundary violation by reference to the sequence of competence acquisition and service offering: an engineer may legitimately expand into new service areas by first acquiring competence — through education, supervised experience, collaboration with qualified specialists, or other recognized means — and then offering services in those areas. What is impermissible is the reverse sequence: identifying a profitable market opportunity and then attempting to manufacture apparent competence through tools, credentials, or arrangements that do not constitute genuine domain expertise. Engineer A's conduct exemplifies the impermissible sequence: the financial framing of the CD-ROM solicitation ('Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job') preceded and motivated the competence claim, rather than genuine competence development preceding the service offering. The commercial profit motive is not inherently unethical — engineers have legitimate interests in firm viability and practice growth — but it cannot serve as the justification for crossing competence boundaries. The ethical engineer asks 'Am I competent to do this?' before asking 'Is this profitable?' Engineer A inverted this sequence, allowing the profit question to answer the competence question by proxy.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.716257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: The potential ambiguity between Code Section II.2.c's authorization for prime professional coordination and the honesty obligation that condemns Engineer A's implicit competence representation is resolvable without genuine conflict. Section II.2.c permits an engineer to accept overall project coordination responsibility provided that each component is performed by engineers competent in the relevant specialty. The provision does not authorize an engineer to offer services in a domain where neither the engineer nor any identified qualified specialist will perform the work — it presupposes that the coordination role is backed by genuine specialist engagement. Engineer A's offer of facilities design services was not structured as a coordination arrangement with identified qualified subconsultants; it was an unqualified offer to perform facilities design, backed only by a CD-ROM library. There is therefore no genuine conflict between II.2.c and the honesty principle: II.2.c would only become relevant — and potentially legitimizing — if Engineer A had structured his offering as a prime professional coordination arrangement with qualified specialists identified and engaged. The ethical problem is not that Engineer A offered to coordinate a project but that he offered to perform design work he is not competent to perform, without any qualified specialist backstop.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.716332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A failed the categorical duty to practice only within areas of demonstrated competence, and the financial framing of the solicitation is ethically irrelevant to this failure. Deontological ethics evaluates the moral quality of an action by reference to the duty it fulfills or violates, not by reference to the consequences that follow or the pressures that motivated the action. Engineer A's duty under the Code — and under the broader professional duty of competence — is unconditional: it does not yield to financial necessity, market opportunity, or the persuasive framing of a commercial solicitation. The solicitation's argument that engineers 'cannot afford to pass up a single job' is precisely the kind of consequentialist reasoning that deontological ethics rejects as a basis for overriding categorical duties. A deontological analysis would further note that Engineer A's acceptance of the solicitation's premise — that a CD-ROM can substitute for domain expertise — reflects a failure to apply the universalizability test: if every engineer adopted the principle 'I may offer services in any domain for which a software tool exists,' the institution of professional engineering competence would be destroyed, and the public safety rationale for licensure would be undermined. Engineer A's conduct therefore fails the categorical duty test on both the specific competence obligation and the universalizability criterion.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.716400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
cited provision4: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, the potential harms from Engineer A's out-of-competence facilities design practice decisively outweigh any economic benefits. The harms are both probable and severe: facilities design errors can result in structural failures, fire hazards, code violations, and physical harm to occupants and workers; clients who rely on Engineer A's implicit competence representation may forego engaging qualified designers, foreclosing safer alternatives; and the broader profession suffers reputational harm when incompetent practice is normalized. The economic benefits — lower-cost design services enabled by the CD-ROM tool — are speculative, contingent on the tool producing adequate designs (which cannot be verified without domain expertise), and do not accrue to the public in any reliable way. A consequentialist analysis would also account for systemic effects: if the CD-ROM vendor's model succeeds, it creates incentives for other engineers to similarly expand into unfamiliar domains, multiplying the aggregate harm potential across the profession. The only consequentialist argument in Engineer A's favor — that clients in underserved markets might benefit from access to any engineering services rather than none — is insufficient because incompetent engineering services are not merely less good than competent ones; they may be actively harmful, producing designs that create risks the client would not have faced without any engineering intervention.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.716478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's acceptance of the CD-ROM solicitation's premise reflects a character deficiency that virtue ethics would identify as a failure of intellectual honesty and professional integrity. The virtuous engineer possesses not only technical competence but the intellectual humility to recognize the boundaries of that competence and the courage to decline profitable opportunities that fall outside those boundaries. Engineer A's conduct reveals the absence of both virtues: the acceptance of the solicitation's claim that a CD-ROM can substitute for domain expertise reflects a failure of intellectual honesty — a willingness to believe a convenient falsehood because it enables a financially attractive course of action. The virtue ethics analysis is particularly illuminating because it focuses on character rather than rule-following: an engineer of genuine professional integrity would have recognized the solicitation as an inducement to self-deception and rejected it, not because a rule prohibited ordering the CD-ROM, but because the claim that software can substitute for engineering judgment is transparently false to anyone with genuine professional self-knowledge. The CD-ROM solicitation's appeal to financial anxiety ('cannot afford to pass up a single job') is designed to exploit a character weakness — the subordination of professional integrity to financial self-interest — and the virtuous engineer's resistance to this appeal is a marker of professional character, not merely rule compliance.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.716547
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, the CD-ROM vendor bears an independent ethical duty not to induce engineers to practice outside their competence, but Engineer A's culpability is not diminished by the vendor's conduct. The vendor's duty arises from the general moral principle that one must not knowingly induce others to violate their professional obligations, particularly when those violations create risks of harm to third parties. The solicitation's explicit framing — 'no matter your design experience' — demonstrates that the vendor was aware that its target audience included engineers without relevant experience and deliberately sought to overcome their competence-based hesitation. This is ethically indefensible on deontological grounds regardless of the vendor's commercial motivations. However, Engineer A's culpability is not diminished by the vendor's conduct under deontological analysis for two reasons: first, the duty of competence is a categorical professional obligation that cannot be delegated or excused by third-party inducement; second, Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer, is presumed to know the ethical obligations of the profession and cannot claim ignorance of the competence requirement as a defense. The vendor's culpability and Engineer A's culpability are independent and concurrent — the vendor violated a duty to the profession and the public, and Engineer A violated a duty to clients, the public, and the profession. Neither violation excuses the other.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.716616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: Engineer A's offer of facilities design services would have been ethical if, before making that offer, he had engaged qualified subconsultants with demonstrated facilities design expertise to perform and seal all work outside chemical engineering, retaining only coordination and chemical process responsibilities. This counterfactual is ethically significant because it demonstrates that the ethical fault in the actual case lies not in the desire to offer comprehensive project services but in the failure to structure that offering around genuine competence — either Engineer A's own or that of qualified specialists. Code Section II.2.c explicitly contemplates this prime professional model. The counterfactual also reveals that the CD-ROM tool is not inherently the problem: in a properly structured arrangement, the CD-ROM might serve as a legitimate preliminary scoping or cost-estimation aid, provided that qualified engineers independently reviewed and took professional responsibility for all design outputs. The ethical rehabilitation of Engineer A's conduct therefore required two steps that were not taken: first, honest recognition that facilities design falls outside his competence; and second, proactive engagement of qualified specialists before offering services, not as an afterthought following contract award.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.716690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: Had Engineer A conducted a rigorous self-assessment before ordering the CD-ROM, recognized the competence gap, and declined the solicitation, this act of restraint would have fully satisfied Engineer A's ethical obligations with respect to the solicitation itself. The ethical obligation is not to avoid receiving commercial solicitations — which are beyond an engineer's control — but to resist the inducement to practice outside areas of competence. Declining the solicitation would have demonstrated the intellectual honesty and professional integrity that the Code requires and that virtue ethics would identify as markers of professional character. This counterfactual also reveals that the harm potential in Engineer A's actual conduct was not inevitable: the solicitation created an opportunity for ethical failure, but Engineer A's decision to order the CD-ROM and begin offering services was a voluntary choice that could have been made differently. The broader harm potential to the public — which the Board's conclusion implicitly recognizes — was therefore not a product of the solicitation alone but of Engineer A's failure to exercise the competence self-assessment that the Code requires at every stage of practice expansion.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.716756
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
cited provision4: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: Disclosure to prospective clients that Engineer A's background is in chemical engineering and that facilities design services would be produced using a CD-ROM-based standard design library would not render the practice ethical, because the public safety obligation underlying the competence requirement is not satisfied by informed client consent alone. The competence requirement exists not merely to protect the immediate client but to protect third parties — building occupants, workers, neighbors, and the general public — who have no opportunity to consent to or evaluate the engineer's competence. A client's informed consent to receive services from an incompetent engineer does not protect these third parties, and the Code's public safety mandate cannot be waived by private agreement between engineer and client. Furthermore, disclosure of the CD-ROM methodology would not itself constitute disclosure of incompetence in a form that clients could meaningfully evaluate: most clients lack the technical knowledge to assess whether a CD-ROM standard design library is an adequate substitute for domain expertise, and the information asymmetry that justifies professional licensing in the first place means that client consent cannot serve as a reliable proxy for competence verification. Disclosure might mitigate the misrepresentation element of Engineer A's conduct but would not cure the underlying competence violation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.716852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: Had Engineer A been a licensed professional engineer with prior facilities design experience who adopted the CD-ROM as a productivity tool, the ethical analysis would change fundamentally: the conduct would be presumptively ethical, subject only to the general obligation to verify that the tool's outputs meet applicable standards and that the engineer exercises independent professional judgment in evaluating those outputs. This counterfactual precisely identifies the ethical fault in the actual case: the problem is not the CD-ROM tool itself but the competence gap it was used to paper over. The tool is ethically neutral — its ethical valence depends entirely on whether the engineer using it possesses the domain knowledge necessary to evaluate its outputs, identify its limitations, and exercise independent professional judgment about its applicability to specific project conditions. This analysis has significant implications for the profession's approach to emerging technologies: the ethical question about any design tool — whether a CD-ROM library, a parametric design program, or an artificial intelligence system — is not 'Is this tool reliable?' but 'Does the engineer using this tool possess the domain competence necessary to evaluate its reliability and exercise independent professional judgment about its outputs?' The tool is an extension of the engineer's competence, not a substitute for it.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.716928
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The most fundamental tension in this case — between an engineer's legitimate interest in expanding practice and the absolute obligation to practice only within areas of competence — was resolved decisively and without compromise in favor of competence. The Board's conclusion makes clear that commercial opportunity, however attractively framed, cannot function as a competence-conferring event. The CD-ROM solicitation explicitly invoked financial pressure ('Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job') as a justification for crossing competence boundaries, and the Board's implicit rejection of this framing establishes that the Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation is not a balancing principle but a categorical one: profit motives are simply not a legitimate variable in the competence calculus. This resolution teaches that when the Competence Principle and the Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override principle are in tension, the latter functions as a reinforcing constraint on the former rather than as a competing value — the engineer's financial interest in expanding services is not weighed against the competence requirement but is instead subordinated to it entirely.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The case reveals a critical interaction between the Technology Non-Substitution principle and the Competence Principle that clarifies the ethical status of engineering software tools generally: a tool is ethically permissible when it amplifies the judgment of a competent practitioner, but becomes ethically impermissible when it is deployed as a surrogate for the judgment that competence would otherwise supply. The CD-ROM's own marketing language — 'no matter your design experience' — inadvertently exposed this distinction by explicitly positioning the tool as a competence substitute rather than a competence amplifier. The Board's conclusion, read against this language, establishes that the ethical fault lies not in the tool itself but in the relationship between the tool and the practitioner's existing competence. This synthesis resolves the tension identified in Q201: the principle that engineers may adopt novel technologies does not conflict with the Technology Non-Substitution principle because the two principles operate at different levels — the former governs tool adoption by competent practitioners, while the latter governs the impermissible use of tools to paper over competence gaps. An engineer with genuine facilities design experience using the same CD-ROM as a productivity aid would face no ethical violation, as the counterfactual in Q404 confirms.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 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.
cited provision4: II.2.c.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The interaction between the Honesty in Professional Representations principle and Code Section II.2.c — which permits engineers to accept coordination responsibility for entire projects — reveals an important boundary that this case implicitly defines: offering to perform a service and offering to coordinate a project are ethically distinct acts, and the ethical analysis turns on which act Engineer A actually performed. When Engineer A began offering 'facilities design and construction services' without qualification, the representation was one of personal competence in design execution, not merely coordination capacity. Had Engineer A instead offered to serve as a coordinating prime professional while engaging qualified subconsultants for all facilities design work outside chemical engineering — as contemplated in BER Case 71-2 — the Honesty principle and Section II.2.c would have operated in harmony rather than tension. The case therefore teaches that the Honesty principle does not prohibit broad project responsibility claims per se, but it does prohibit competence representations that exceed the engineer's actual domain expertise, and the ethical line is crossed precisely when the service offering implies personal design competence that does not exist. This resolution also addresses the ambiguity raised in Q204: the coordination exception in II.2.c is not a loophole that permits incompetent engineers to offer full-service design by labeling themselves coordinators, but rather a structured mechanism that requires genuine specialist engagement for all work outside the prime professional's own competence.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_304
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
cited provision3: II.2.b.
cited provision4: III.2.b.
conclusion number: 304
conclusion text: The case establishes a principle hierarchy in which Public Welfare Paramountcy functions as the apex principle that resolves all subordinate tensions: when competence, honesty, technology use, and profit motivation principles come into conflict, each is resolved by reference to the question of whether the public is adequately protected. This hierarchy is not merely implicit — it is structurally embedded in the NSPE Code's ordering of obligations — but this case makes the hierarchy operationally visible by presenting a scenario in which every subordinate principle (profit motive, technology adoption, service expansion) pointed toward Engineer A proceeding, while the apex principle of public welfare pointed unambiguously toward restraint. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A's conduct was unethical reflects the apex principle's override function: no combination of subordinate considerations — financial need, tool availability, licensing status, or client consent — can collectively outweigh the public safety obligation when an engineer lacks the domain competence to evaluate whether their own work is safe. This also illuminates why informed client consent, as contemplated in Q403, is insufficient to legitimize out-of-competence practice: the public welfare obligation runs not only to the client but to third parties and the broader public who may be affected by deficient facilities design, and client consent cannot waive obligations owed to non-consenting parties.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Conclusion_305
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.2.a.
conclusion number: 305
conclusion text: The interaction between the Third-Party Inducement to Incompetent Practice Prohibition and the Competence Boundary Recognition obligation reveals an important but unresolved ethical asymmetry in this case: while the CD-ROM vendor's solicitation was demonstrably deceptive and designed to induce engineers to practice outside their competence, the Board's conclusion places the full ethical burden on Engineer A without addressing the vendor's independent culpability. This asymmetry is ethically significant because it implies that the engineer's obligation to resist deceptive commercial inducements is absolute and non-transferable — the vendor's misconduct does not diminish Engineer A's culpability even partially. From a deontological perspective, as raised in Q304, this is defensible because Engineer A's duty to practice within competence is categorical and self-executing, requiring no external validation. However, the case also teaches that the engineering profession's ethical framework, as currently structured, addresses only the conduct of licensed engineers and does not extend to the third-party commercial actors who profit from inducing incompetent practice. This structural gap — identified in Q101 — suggests that the principle of Third-Party Inducement Prohibition, while recognized in the analytical framework, lacks enforcement mechanisms within the NSPE Code, leaving the entire ethical burden on the individual engineer who receives the solicitation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Consulting Firm BER 78-5 Competence-Only Work Seeking Constraint
type: Education-ExperienceCompetenceThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 78-5 precedent cited to affirm that engineers must seek work only in areas of genuine competence and may not misrepresent qualifications to secure contracts.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Consulting firm (BER Case 78-5 reference)
constraintclass: Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: The consulting firm in BER Case 78-5 was constrained to seek work only in areas where it possessed educational background and experience, or to retain individuals with the necessary background and experience, and was prohibited from altering its stated qualifications post-interview to improve its competitive position.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5
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.
temporalscope: During the qualification and procurement process with the public utility
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.
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 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.153412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Consulting Firm BER 78-5 Qualification Alterer
type: Qualification-MisrepresentingCompetingEngineeringFirm
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'context': 'Public utility consulting services procurement', 'violation': 'Post-interview qualification alteration to improve competitive position', 'client': 'Public utility'}
caseinvolvement: A consulting engineering firm under consideration to perform services for a public utility that sought to alter its stated qualifications after its initial interview in order to improve its competitive position, found by the Board to have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas of genuine competence and to represent qualifications honestly.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:54.850832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:54.850832+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'analogous_to', 'target': 'Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'competes_for_contract_with', 'target': 'Public Utility Client'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Qualification-Misrepresenting Competing Engineering Firm
sourcetext: 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: 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 firm sought to alter its qualifications following its interview with the public utility in order to improve its position to secure the contract
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.142713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Consulting Firm BER 78-5 Seek Work Only in Competence Areas
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceVerificationBeforeAssignmentAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 78-5 involved a consulting firm under consideration to perform services for a public utility that sought to alter its qualifications following its interview in order to improve its position to secure the contract.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Consulting firm (BER Case 78-5)
obligationclass: Domain-Specific Competence Verification Before Assignment Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: The consulting firm was obligated to seek work only in areas where it possessed educational background and experience, or to retain individuals with the necessary background and experience, rather than altering its stated qualifications after an interview to improve its competitive position.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Before and during the qualification and procurement process
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.
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.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.151069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A offer facilities design and construction services to prospective clients after ordering the CD-ROM, or decline to offer those services absent demonstrated competence in facilities design?
focus: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a CD-ROM solicitation claiming that 'no matter your design experience' anyone can specify, design, and cost out construction projects. Engineer A must decide whether to offer facilities design and construction services to prospective clients based on this tool, or to decline pending genuine competence development.
option1: Decline to offer facilities design and construction services to prospective clients, recognizing that chemical engineering credentials do not confer competence in the civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical sub-disciplines required, and that the CD-ROM does not substitute for that education and experience.
option2: Begin offering facilities design and construction services to prospective clients, relying on the CD-ROM standard design library as the technical basis for the work and treating the general PE license as authorization to practice across engineering disciplines.
option3: Offer facilities design and construction services in a prime-professional coordination capacity, explicitly engaging qualified subconsultants with demonstrated facilities design expertise to perform, review, and seal all work outside chemical engineering before accepting any project.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717540
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A critically evaluate and reject the CD-ROM solicitation's claim that software access substitutes for domain-specific engineering experience, or accept that premise as a sufficient basis for offering facilities design services?
focus: Engineer A receives a commercial solicitation that explicitly frames professional competence as irrelevant to facilities design — stating that 'no matter your design experience' the CD-ROM enables any engineer to specify, design, and cost out construction projects. Engineer A must decide whether to critically evaluate and reject this premise or accept it as a legitimate basis for expanding services.
option1: Critically evaluate the solicitation's claim that the CD-ROM eliminates the need for domain experience, independently verify that no software tool can substitute for facilities design education and experience, and decline to order the CD-ROM or offer facilities design services.
option2: Accept the solicitation's framing that the CD-ROM provides a sufficient basis for offering facilities design services, order the product, and begin marketing those services to prospective clients in reliance on the vendor's representations.
option3: Order the CD-ROM to conduct a personal technical evaluation of its capabilities before deciding whether to offer facilities design services, treating the purchase as a preliminary assessment step rather than a commitment to expand services.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: If Engineer A wishes to offer facilities design and construction services, should Engineer A first engage qualified subconsultants with demonstrated facilities design expertise to perform all out-of-competence work, or proceed to offer those services relying solely on the CD-ROM design library?
focus: Engineer A, having identified a potential market opportunity in facilities design and construction, must decide whether to structure any service offering around genuine subconsultant engagement — retaining qualified specialists with demonstrated facilities design expertise to perform and seal all work outside chemical engineering — or to proceed using only the CD-ROM as the technical basis for design work.
option1: Before offering facilities design and construction services, identify and engage qualified subconsultants with demonstrated education and experience in civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering, verify their qualifications, establish arrangements for them to perform and seal all out-of-competence work, and retain only coordination and chemical process responsibilities.
option2: Offer facilities design and construction services relying on the CD-ROM standard design library as the primary technical basis for design work, without engaging qualified subconsultants, on the premise that the tool provides sufficient technical support for the work.
option3: Offer facilities design and construction services to prospective clients and plan to identify and engage qualified subconsultants after contract award, treating subconsultant engagement as a project execution step rather than a prerequisite to the service offering.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717694
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A treat the general PE license as authorizing practice in facilities design and construction across all required sub-disciplines, or recognize that the license authorizes practice only within demonstrated areas of competence and decline to offer services outside chemical engineering?
focus: Engineer A must determine whether the general professional engineering license — obtained in chemical engineering — authorizes offering facilities design and construction services across civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical sub-disciplines, or whether the license authorizes practice only within the discipline in which competence has been demonstrated.
option1: Recognize that the general PE license authorizes practice only within the discipline in which competence has been demonstrated — chemical engineering — and decline to offer facilities design and construction services across civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical sub-disciplines absent demonstrated competence in each.
option2: Treat the general professional engineering license as authorizing practice across all engineering disciplines, including facilities design and construction, on the basis that the license was issued without disciplinary restriction and that the CD-ROM provides the technical support necessary for competent performance.
option3: Offer facilities design and construction services while disclosing to prospective clients that Engineer A's PE license was obtained in chemical engineering, presenting the CD-ROM as the technical basis for non-chemical engineering components, and allowing clients to decide whether to engage Engineer A on that basis.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.719429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer A treat the CD-ROM design library as a legitimate productivity tool that supplements engineering judgment, or recognize it as an impermissible competence surrogate that cannot substitute for the domain-specific education and experience required for facilities design?
focus: Engineer A must determine whether the CD-ROM design library constitutes a legitimate engineering tool that supplements existing competence or an impermissible competence surrogate that papers over the absence of facilities design education and experience. This determination governs whether Engineer A may ethically rely on the tool as the primary technical basis for offering facilities design services.
option1: Recognize that the CD-ROM standard design library constitutes an impermissible competence surrogate in the hands of an engineer without facilities design education and experience, because Engineer A cannot independently evaluate whether the tool's outputs are correct, applicable, or safe, and therefore decline to rely on it as the basis for offering facilities design services.
option2: Treat the CD-ROM design library as equivalent to other standard engineering software tools — such as structural analysis programs or CAD applications — that engineers routinely use without requiring discipline-specific credentials, and rely on it as the primary technical basis for facilities design work.
option3: Use the CD-ROM as a preliminary scoping and cost-estimation tool only, while requiring that all design outputs be independently reviewed and sealed by qualified facilities design engineers before any work product is delivered to clients, treating the tool as a starting point rather than a final design basis.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.719517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer A decline to expand into facilities design and construction services out of professional honor and public welfare obligations, or proceed with the expansion in response to the financial pressure and commercial opportunity framed by the CD-ROM solicitation?
focus: Engineer A must decide whether to preserve the honor and reputation of the engineering profession by declining to offer facilities design services without the requisite competence, or whether the commercial opportunity and financial pressure invoked by the CD-ROM solicitation justify expanding services into an unfamiliar domain. This decision implicates Engineer A's professional character obligations and the broader public welfare mission of professional engineering licensure.
option1: Decline to offer facilities design and construction services, recognizing that the financial pressure invoked by the solicitation cannot override the categorical obligation to practice only within demonstrated areas of competence, and that accepting out-of-competence work damages the profession's honor and the public trust that professional licensure is designed to protect.
option2: Proceed with offering facilities design and construction services, accepting the solicitation's premise that financial necessity justifies expanding into unfamiliar domains when a software tool is available to provide technical support, and treating the general PE license as sufficient professional authorization for the expanded service offering.
option3: Treat the commercial opportunity as a legitimate motivation to pursue genuine competence development — through continuing education, mentorship, hiring qualified personnel, or establishing subconsultant relationships — before offering facilities design services, ensuring that competence acquisition precedes rather than follows the service offering.
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.719594
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Direct Mail Solicitation Received
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Direct Mail Solicitation Received → Ordering CD-ROM Product
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A CD-ROM Diploma Mill Self-Certification Analogy Non-Recognition
type: DiplomaMillSelf-CertificationAnalogyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Diploma Mill Self-Certification Analogy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the diploma mill self-certification analogy recognition capability, treating the CD-ROM design library as a legitimate competence-acquisition mechanism rather than recognizing it as a perfunctory self-certification process analogous to diploma mill certification.
casecontext: Engineer A received a direct-mail CD-ROM solicitation claiming it would enable virtually anyone to specify, design, and cost out facilities projects, and considered using it as a basis for expanding into facilities design services.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's ordering and intended use of the CD-ROM as a basis for self-certifying competence in facilities design, without recognizing that this constituted a perfunctory process lacking comprehensive study, examination, or practice.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: In a sense, the direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills' whereby individuals 'self certify' their competency based upon a perfunctory review process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice.
textreferences: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner.
textreferences: In a sense, the direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills' whereby individuals 'self certify' their competency based upon a perfunctory review process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.153891
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A CD-ROM Diploma Mill Self-Certification Non-Equivalence
type: DiplomaMillSelf-CertificationCompetenceNon-EquivalenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A received a direct-mail CD-ROM solicitation claiming that domain experience was unnecessary and that the product enabled any purchaser to specify, design, and cost out facilities projects; Engineer A's reliance on this product as a competence basis was found contrary to basic ethical principles.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Diploma Mill Self-Certification Competence Non-Equivalence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from treating the acquisition and use of the commercial CD-ROM design library as equivalent to substantive engineering education, examination, and supervised practice for purposes of establishing competence in facilities design and construction services.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Sections II.2.a, II.2.b; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 94-8
sourcetext: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of the CD-ROM solicitation and throughout any period of reliance on the CD-ROM as a competence basis
textreferences: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner.
textreferences: In a sense, the direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills' whereby individuals 'self certify' their competency based upon a perfunctory review process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice.
textreferences: The Board considers such activities completely contrary to the basic ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.152170
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer
type: Solicitation-InducedOut-of-CompetenceDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Chemical Engineering', 'out_of_competence_domain': 'Facilities design and construction (civil, structural, mechanical, electrical)', 'inducement_mechanism': 'Direct-mail CD-ROM product'}
caseinvolvement: A chemical engineer who, induced by a direct-mail CD-ROM product promising that virtually anyone could specify, design, and cost out facilities, began offering facilities design and construction services in civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering domains entirely outside his established competence, effectively self-certifying his qualifications without substantive education or experience in those areas.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:54.850832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:54.850832+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'analogous_to', 'target': 'Engineer B Case 94-8 Out-of-Competence Structural Designer'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_subject', 'target': 'Engineer A Case 94-8 Competency Challenger'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Solicitation-Induced Out-of-Competence Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction
textreferences: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency
textreferences: Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.142044
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A CD-ROM Self-Certification of Facilities Design Competence
type: Self-CertifiedCompetenceviaCommercialProductState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From acquisition of the CD-ROM through Engineer A's provision of facilities design services
affectedparties: Clients
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public health and safety
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:58.407362+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:58.407362+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services
stateclass: Self-Certified Competence via Commercial Product State
subject: Engineer A's reliance on a CD-ROM as the basis for offering facilities design and construction services
terminatedby: Not resolved in the case; Board condemns the practice
textreferences: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services
textreferences: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications
textreferences: not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills'
triggeringevent: Engineer A ordered and used a direct-mail CD-ROM marketed to enable specifying, designing, and costing out facilities projects, treating this as sufficient qualification
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.140406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Case 94-8 Competency Challenger
type: Competency-ChallengingCo-ProjectEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'project_role': 'Co-engineer on design/build project', 'action_taken': 'Reported competency concerns to contractor'}
caseinvolvement: A professional engineer working on the same design/build industrial facility project who identified that Engineer B lacked the competence to design structural footings, reported those concerns to the contractor, and was found by the Board to have an ethical responsibility to do so.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:54.850832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:54.850832+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'challenges_competency_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Case 94-8 Out-of-Competence Structural Designer'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Construction Contractor (Case 94-8)'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.142338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Case 94-8 Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Constraint
type: Education-ExperienceCompetenceThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 94-8 precedent cited in the discussion to establish that competence boundaries apply to all engineers regardless of general licensure, and that peer competence challenges are ethically required.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A (Case 94-8 reference)
constraintclass: Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A in BER Case 94-8 had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency to design structural footings and to report those concerns to the contractor, establishing that the education-experience competence threshold triggers peer challenge and reporting obligations when a colleague appears to lack the requisite background.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
temporalscope: During the construction of the industrial facility when Engineer A observed Engineer B's apparent incompetence
textreferences: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
textreferences: The Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility and that Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.153086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Case 94-8 Peer Competency Challenge and Contractor Report
type: Out-of-CompetencePeerCompetencyChallengeandEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A worked with a construction contractor on a design/build industrial facility project. The contractor separately retained Engineer B (chemical engineering background) to design structural footings. Engineer A identified that Engineer B lacked apparent training in foundation design.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Case 94-8, professional engineer on design/build project)
obligationclass: Out-of-Competence Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to question Engineer B's competency to design structural footings and to report those concerns to the contractor, which Engineer A fulfilled by reporting reservations about Engineer B's qualifications.
sourcetext: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor.
temporalscope: Upon identifying Engineer B's apparent lack of competence in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
textreferences: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.150787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Case 94-8 Peer Competency Objective Basis Assessment Structural Footings
type: PeerCompetencyObjectiveBasisAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Competency Objective Basis Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in Case 94-8 demonstrated the peer competency objective basis assessment capability by objectively assessing Engineer B's competence to design structural footings based on available evidence of education and experience, correctly identifying that Engineer B's chemical engineering background without apparent subsequent foundation design training was insufficient for the task.
casecontext: Engineer A worked alongside Engineer B on a design/build industrial facility project and identified that Engineer B, a chemical engineer, lacked the competence to design structural footings, reporting those concerns to the contractor.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's investigation of Engineer B's background, determination that Engineer B lacked apparent training in foundation design, and reporting of competency concerns to the contractor.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Case 94-8)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design, and Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor.
textreferences: Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design, and Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor.
textreferences: The Board decided that... Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.154837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Chemical Engineer CD-ROM Facilities Design Competence Gap
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetencewithGeneralLicensureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's decision to offer facilities design services through the period of CD-ROM-based practice
affectedparties: Clients receiving facilities design services
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public relying on engineered facilities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:58.407362+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:58.407362+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction
stateclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence with General Licensure State
subject: Engineer A (chemical engineer) offering facilities design and construction services
terminatedby: Not resolved in the case; Board finds the state ethically impermissible
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction
textreferences: all engineers are implored to exercise careful professional judgment and discretion and practice solely within his or her area(s) of competency
triggeringevent: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no substantive background in facilities design and construction, accepted work in civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering domains
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.140244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Facilities Design
type: CompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementPlanningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Capability
capabilitystatement: If Engineer A were to accept facilities design and construction work, Engineer A was required to possess the capability to identify the competence gap, engage qualified subconsultants or specialists with demonstrated facilities design experience, and structure appropriate supervisory and quality assurance arrangements — rather than relying on a CD-ROM design library as the sole basis for performing the work.
casecontext: The conditional obligation to engage subconsultants if accepting out-of-competence work was not fulfilled; Engineer A proceeded without either declining the work or assembling a qualified team.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Not demonstrated — Engineer A did not engage qualified subconsultants or specialists, instead relying solely on the CD-ROM as a basis for offering facilities design services.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.148576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation to Prospective Clients
type: CompetenceMisrepresentationtoClientState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the commencement of offering facilities design and construction services to prospective clients
affectedparties: Clients engaging Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:48.892079+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:48.892079+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
stateclass: Competence Misrepresentation to Client State
subject: Engineer A's implicit representation of competence in facilities design and construction when offering such services without the requisite experience
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
triggeringevent: Engineer A begins to offer facilities design and construction services to clients without disclosing the absence of relevant experience or the reliance on a CD-ROM tool
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.141108
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Facilities Design
type: ConsultingPracticeCompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, lacking facilities design and construction experience, had the option of engaging qualified specialists to perform or supervise such work rather than relying on a commercial software tool as a substitute for genuine competence.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Obligation
obligationstatement: If Engineer A were to accept facilities design and construction work, Engineer A was obligated to engage qualified subconsultants, establish joint ventures, or hire qualified personnel with facilities design and construction expertise to fill the competence gap, rather than performing the out-of-competence work directly using only a CD-ROM design library.
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
temporalscope: Before performing any facilities design and construction work without the requisite personal competence
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.145955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Deceptive Commercial Solicitation Resistance CD-ROM
type: DeceptiveCommercialSolicitationResistanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The solicitation explicitly and falsely claimed that domain experience is irrelevant ('no matter your design experience'); Engineer A ordered the CD-ROM and began offering services, demonstrating failure to resist the deceptive commercial framing
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Deceptive Commercial Solicitation Resistance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from accepting, acting upon, or allowing their professional judgment to be displaced by the CD-ROM solicitation's false representation that domain-specific experience is unnecessary for engineering design; Engineer A was required to independently verify their own competence rather than rely on the vendor's commercially motivated claims.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 94-8
sourcetext: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
temporalscope: From receipt of the solicitation through Engineer A's decision to order the CD-ROM and offer facilities design services
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Never designed a highway before? No problem.
textreferences: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.146978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Deceptive Solicitation Competence Claim Recognition
type: DeceptiveSolicitationCompetenceClaimRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Deceptive Solicitation Competence Claim Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to possess the capability to recognize that the CD-ROM solicitation's claim that domain experience is unnecessary for engineering design was materially false and deceptive, and to refrain from acting on that claim as a basis for expanding into facilities design and construction services.
casecontext: Engineer A received a direct-mail solicitation claiming that a CD-ROM design library enables engineers to design in any domain regardless of experience, and ordered the product without critically evaluating the deceptive competence-substitution claim.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Not demonstrated — Engineer A failed to exercise this capability, ordering the CD-ROM and beginning to offer facilities design services despite having no relevant experience, indicating absence or non-exercise of this recognition capability.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: never designed a highway before? No problem.
textreferences: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.147441
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Deceptive Solicitation Resistance and Competence Self-Verification
type: DeceptiveSolicitationResistanceandCompetenceSelf-VerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design or construction experience, received a direct-mail solicitation marketing a CD-ROM as enabling any engineer to design any project regardless of experience, ordered the product, and began offering facilities design and construction services without any independent competence verification.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Deceptive Solicitation Resistance and Competence Self-Verification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, upon receiving the CD-ROM solicitation explicitly claiming that domain experience is unnecessary for engineering design, to critically evaluate and reject those claims, independently verify whether the CD-ROM genuinely substitutes for facilities design and construction competence, and refrain from offering such services absent independent establishment of the requisite competence.
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail
temporalscope: Upon receipt of the solicitation and before ordering the CD-ROM or offering any new services
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail
textreferences: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.144621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Non-Recognition Facilities Design
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the domain-specific competence boundary recognition capability, failing to correctly classify facilities design and construction as outside the competence boundary established by their chemical engineering education and experience.
casecontext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, received a CD-ROM solicitation and failed to recognize that facilities design and construction (civil, structural, mechanical, electrical) fell outside their established competence boundary.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's consideration of offering facilities design services despite having no substantive background in that domain, indicating a failure to recognize the boundary between their established chemical engineering competence and the unrelated facilities design domain.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: all engineers are implored to exercise careful professional judgment and discretion and practice solely within his or her area(s) of competency.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
textreferences: all engineers are implored to exercise careful professional judgment and discretion and practice solely within his or her area(s) of competency.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.154523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Facilities Design
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that facilities design and construction constitutes a domain distinct from chemical engineering, and that their established competence in chemical engineering did not extend to facilities design, highway design, or other construction domains referenced in the solicitation.
casecontext: The solicitation explicitly referenced diverse domains (highways, facilities) as equally accessible via the CD-ROM regardless of prior experience, and Engineer A accepted this framing without recognizing the competence boundary violation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Not demonstrated — Engineer A failed to recognize the competence boundary between chemical engineering and facilities design, treating the CD-ROM as bridging a gap that required actual domain-specific education, training, and experience.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
textreferences: never designed a highway before? No problem. Just point to the 'Highways' window and click.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.147875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Domain-Specific Competence Verification Before Facilities Design Acceptance
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceVerificationBeforeAssignmentAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A holds a chemical engineering background with no facilities design or construction experience, yet began offering such services after receiving a deceptive commercial solicitation, without any verification of domain-specific competence.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Domain-Specific Competence Verification Before Assignment Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to verify, before accepting or offering facilities design and construction services, that their competence — established by both education AND relevant experience in facilities design and construction — was sufficient to perform such work to professional standards, recognizing that chemical engineering credentials do not substitute for demonstrated competence in facilities design and construction.
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
temporalscope: Before offering facilities design and construction services to any client
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.144766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Domain-Specific Incompetence Seal Prohibition Facilities Design
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetenceSealProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A (chemical engineer) began offering facilities design services after ordering a CD-ROM; sealing such documents would constitute a violation of the domain-specific incompetence seal prohibition
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence Seal Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was absolutely prohibited from affixing their professional seal or signature to any facilities design and construction plans or documents, because Engineer A lacked competence in that domain — general PE licensure as a chemical engineer did not confer authority to seal work in an unrelated engineering sub-discipline.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b; BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
temporalscope: Throughout any facilities design and construction work Engineer A might undertake following receipt of the CD-ROM solicitation
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.146452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Economic Pressure Non-Subordination CD-ROM Facilities Design
type: EconomicPressureResistanceinContractAcceptanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Economic Pressure Resistance in Contract Acceptance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the economic pressure resistance capability, allowing the profit opportunity presented by the CD-ROM solicitation to drive consideration of expanding into facilities design services without verifying genuine competence.
casecontext: Engineer A received a direct-mail CD-ROM solicitation promising business expansion opportunities in facilities design and considered acting on it despite lacking the requisite competence.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's consideration of using the CD-ROM to expand into facilities design services in response to a commercially motivated solicitation, subordinating competence verification to revenue opportunity.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
textreferences: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
textreferences: The Board considers such activities completely contrary to the basic ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.154979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Economic Pressure Non-Subordination of Competence CD-ROM Solicitation
type: EconomicPressureNon-SubordinationofCompetenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The solicitation explicitly invoked economic pressure ('Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job') and profit motive ('increase your firm's profits') as justifications for accepting unfamiliar work. Engineer A yielded to this framing without competence verification.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Economic Pressure Non-Subordination of Competence Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from accepting or offering engineering services in facilities design and construction solely due to the commercial opportunity and profit-maximization framing of the CD-ROM solicitation, recognizing that economic self-interest does not justify undertaking work for which the engineer lacks the requisite technical qualifications.
sourcetext: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar
temporalscope: Upon receipt of the solicitation and before offering any new services
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar
textreferences: increase your firm's profits
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.145371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Economic Pressure Resistance CD-ROM Profit Solicitation
type: EconomicPressureResistanceinContractAcceptanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Economic Pressure Resistance in Contract Acceptance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the profit-opportunity framing of the CD-ROM solicitation was creating economic pressure to expand into facilities design services, and to resist that pressure by declining to offer services in a domain where they lacked demonstrated competence, rather than subordinating professional competence standards to the financial opportunity presented.
casecontext: The solicitation explicitly invoked financial pressure ('Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job') and profit motivation ('increase your firm's profits') as reasons to expand into unfamiliar domains using the CD-ROM.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Not demonstrated — Engineer A succumbed to the profit-opportunity framing ('increase your firm's profits', 'cannot afford to pass up a single job'), ordering the CD-ROM and expanding service offerings without competence verification.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
textreferences: increase your firm's profits
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.148224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Education-Experience Competence Threshold Facilities Design
type: Education-ExperienceCompetenceThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience; the solicitation falsely represented that experience is irrelevant; Engineer A ordered the CD-ROM and began offering services outside their competence
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from accepting or offering facilities design and construction services because Engineer A lacked the domain-specific practical experience required for competence in that field — general chemical engineering licensure and the acquisition of a CD-ROM library did not satisfy the education-plus-experience threshold required by NSPE Code II.2.a.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 94-8
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's consideration and acceptance of facilities design work
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
textreferences: no matter your design experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.146274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Facilities Design Multi-Discipline Competence Demonstration Gap
type: Multi-DisciplineFacilitiesDesignEducation-and-ExperienceDemonstrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Discipline Facilities Design Education-and-Experience Demonstration Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked the multi-discipline facilities design education-and-experience demonstration capability, having only a chemical engineering background with no substantive training or experience in civil, structural, mechanical, or electrical engineering sub-domains required for facilities design and construction.
casecontext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, received a CD-ROM solicitation and considered offering facilities design and construction services despite having no substantive background in that multi-disciplinary domain.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's inability to demonstrate appropriate engineering education and experience across the civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical sub-domains of facilities design before considering acceptance of facilities design services via CD-ROM.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
textreferences: An individual seeking to obtain an acceptable level of competency in the basic elements of facilities design and construction (e.g., civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering) should seek and be able to demonstrate appropriate engineering and related education and experience.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.153728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Financial Pressure Practice Expansion Prohibition CD-ROM Solicitation
type: FinancialPressurePracticeContinuationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The CD-ROM solicitation explicitly framed the product as a profit-maximization tool ('increase your firm's profits'); Engineer A ordered the CD-ROM and began offering services, suggesting financial motivation drove the decision
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Financial Pressure Practice Continuation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from expanding their firm's services into facilities design and construction on the basis of the profit opportunity framed in the commercial solicitation; financial incentive — including the promise of increased firm profits — did not constitute a professional justification for practicing beyond Engineer A's competence.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.6, II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5
sourcetext: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by
temporalscope: From receipt of the solicitation through any decision to offer facilities design services
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by
textreferences: increase your firm's profits
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.146606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A General PE Licensure Universal Practice Non-Authorization
type: GeneralPELicensureUniversalPracticeNon-AuthorizationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, received a commercial CD-ROM solicitation and considered expanding into facilities design and construction services despite lacking substantive background in that domain.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A (chemical engineer, PE)
constraintclass: General PE Licensure Universal Practice Non-Authorization Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's PE license, obtained in chemical engineering, did not authorize Engineer A to offer or perform facilities design and construction services across civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering domains in which Engineer A lacked substantive education and experience.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 94-8
sourcetext: this position should not be understood to suggest that all engineers are free to practice without restriction in any and all areas within the practice of engineering
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A received the CD-ROM solicitation and considered offering facilities design services
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
textreferences: all engineers are implored to exercise careful professional judgment and discretion and practice solely within his or her area(s) of competency
textreferences: this position should not be understood to suggest that all engineers are free to practice without restriction in any and all areas within the practice of engineering
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.152009
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Honest Competence Representation Facilities Design Services
type: HonestCompetenceRepresentationinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: By offering facilities design and construction services without relevant experience, Engineer A implicitly represented to prospective clients that they were competent to perform such work, which was false and misleading.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Honest Competence Representation in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, when offering facilities design and construction services to prospective clients, to represent their qualifications, experience, and competence honestly and accurately — including refraining from implying competence in facilities design and construction that they did not possess — so that clients could make informed decisions about whether to engage Engineer A for such work.
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
temporalscope: When offering or advertising facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.145507
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Discipline Facilities Design Competence Demonstration
type: Multi-DisciplineFacilitiesDesignEducation-and-ExperienceDemonstrationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no apparent substantive background or experience in facilities design and construction, sought to offer multi-discipline facilities design services (encompassing civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering) based solely on a commercial CD-ROM product.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (chemical engineer)
obligationclass: Multi-Discipline Facilities Design Education-and-Experience Demonstration Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to demonstrate appropriate engineering education and experience across the civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical sub-disciplines required for facilities design and construction before offering such services, or to retain qualified individuals possessing the necessary background in each sub-discipline.
sourcetext: An individual seeking to obtain an acceptable level of competency in the basic elements of facilities design and construction (e.g., civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering) should seek and be able to demonstrate appropriate engineering and related education and experience.
temporalscope: Before accepting or offering facilities design and construction services
textreferences: An individual seeking to obtain an acceptable level of competency in the basic elements of facilities design and construction (e.g., civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering) should seek and be able to demonstrate appropriate engineering and related education and experience.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
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.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.150491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Multi-Discipline Facilities Design Substantive Competence Prerequisite
type: Multi-DisciplineFacilitiesDesignSubstantiveCompetencePrerequisiteConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer, lacked substantive background in facilities design and construction; the Board identified civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering as the relevant sub-disciplines requiring demonstrated competence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Multi-Discipline Facilities Design Substantive Competence Prerequisite Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to demonstrate substantive engineering education and experience across civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering sub-disciplines before offering or accepting facilities design and construction engagements, and could not satisfy this requirement through general chemical engineering licensure alone.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 94-8
sourcetext: An individual seeking to obtain an acceptable level of competency in the basic elements of facilities design and construction (e.g., civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering) should seek and be able to demonstrate appropriate engineering and related education and experience.
temporalscope: Before accepting or offering facilities design and construction services
textreferences: An individual seeking to obtain an acceptable level of competency in the basic elements of facilities design and construction (e.g., civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering) should seek and be able to demonstrate appropriate engineering and related education and experience.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.152315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Association Fraudulent CD-ROM Solicitation Enterprise
type: Non-AssociationwithFraudulentEnterpriseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The CD-ROM solicitation made materially false representations about the nature of engineering competence; by ordering the product and offering services based on its claims, Engineer A associated their professional name with a dishonest commercial enterprise
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.78
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from associating their professional name and services with the CD-ROM vendor's enterprise, which was engaged in a fraudulent or dishonest scheme by falsely representing that engineering design requires no domain experience and that a commercial software library can substitute for professional competence.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.d
sourcetext: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A ordered the CD-ROM and began offering services premised on the vendor's false representations
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.147290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Outside Area of Competence - Facilities Design and Construction
type: OutsideAreaofCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A begins offering facilities design and construction services, persisting indefinitely as no competence development is described
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Prospective clients
affectedparties: Public relying on engineered facilities
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:48.892079+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:48.892079+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
stateclass: Outside Area of Competence
subject: Engineer A's professional competence relative to facilities design and construction services
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
triggeringevent: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services despite having no facilities design and construction experience
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.140585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge and Reporting Obligation (Case 94-8 Reference)
type: PeerCompetenceChallengeReportingObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of Engineer B's competence gap through reporting to the contractor
affectedparties: Construction contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:58.407362+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:58.407362+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
stateclass: Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation State
subject: Engineer A's obligation upon discovering Engineer B's apparent incompetence in structural footing design
terminatedby: Engineer A reported concerns to the contractor
textreferences: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor
textreferences: it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings
triggeringevent: Engineer A identified that Engineer B, a chemical engineer, lacked apparent training in foundation design yet was retained to design structural footings
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.143358
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Perfunctory Self-Certification CD-ROM Diploma Mill
type: PerfunctorySelf-CertificationCompetenceProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A ordered a commercial CD-ROM and used it as the basis for offering facilities design and construction services, without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications required to perform those services competently.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (chemical engineer)
obligationclass: Perfunctory Self-Certification Competence Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from self-certifying competence in facilities design and construction through the perfunctory act of ordering and using a commercial CD-ROM product, which constituted a diploma-mill-equivalent credentialing mechanism rather than substantive education, experience, and qualification.
sourcetext: the direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills' whereby individuals 'self certify' their competency based upon a perfunctory review process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice.
temporalscope: Upon ordering the CD-ROM and before offering or performing facilities design services
textreferences: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner.
textreferences: The Board considers such activities completely contrary to the basic ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics.
textreferences: the direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills' whereby individuals 'self certify' their competency based upon a perfunctory review process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.150310
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Facilities Design
type: Pre-AcceptanceCompetenceSelf-AssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A received a solicitation framing facilities design as commercially lucrative and technically accessible via software, and accepted the framing without conducting any honest self-assessment of actual competence in the domain.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct an honest and rigorous self-assessment of their technical competence in facilities design and construction before offering or accepting such work, and to decline to offer those services given the absence of relevant experience — regardless of the commercial opportunity presented by the CD-ROM solicitation.
sourcetext: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar
temporalscope: Before advertising or offering facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.144932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Facilities Design CD-ROM
type: Pre-AcceptanceCompetenceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to conduct an honest and rigorous pre-acceptance competence self-assessment before considering expansion into facilities design services, failing to identify the gap between their chemical engineering background and the multi-disciplinary competence required for facilities design and construction.
casecontext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design background, considered accepting facilities design work based on a CD-ROM solicitation without conducting a genuine competence self-assessment.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's failure to recognize that their chemical engineering background did not constitute substantive competence in the civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical sub-domains required for facilities design.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
textreferences: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.154354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Honor Non-Degradation Facilities Design Expansion
type: ProfessionalHonorNon-DegradationThroughIncompetentBiddingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A began offering facilities design and construction services without competence in that domain, relying on a CD-ROM marketed as eliminating the need for experience; this conduct degrades professional honor
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Professional Honor Non-Degradation Through Incompetent Bidding Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from offering or bidding on facilities design and construction services in which Engineer A lacked competence, because doing so would degrade the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the engineering profession — regardless of the commercial attractiveness of the opportunity presented by the CD-ROM solicitation.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.6; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5
sourcetext: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A began offering facilities design services following receipt of the solicitation
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: no matter your design experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.146802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Honor Preservation Facilities Design Expansion Constraint
type: ProfessionalHonorNon-DegradationThroughIncompetentBiddingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board characterized CD-ROM-based competence claims as showing disregard for the fundamental role of professional engineers and as contrary to basic ethical principles, linking the competence violation to professional honor degradation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Professional Honor Non-Degradation Through Incompetent Bidding Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from offering facilities design and construction services without genuine competence, as such conduct would degrade the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the engineering profession and show disregard for the fundamental role engineers play in protecting public health and safety.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code I.6; NSPE Code II.2.a
sourcetext: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
temporalscope: At the time of considering expansion into facilities design services
textreferences: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
textreferences: The Board considers such activities completely contrary to the basic ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.153579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Honor and Reputation Preservation Facilities Design Expansion
type: ProfessionalHonorandReputationPreservationinCompetenceDecisionsObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's decision to offer facilities design and construction services based solely on a commercial CD-ROM solicitation, without any relevant experience, undermines public trust in the engineering profession and damages its reputation for competence and integrity.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Professional Honor and Reputation Preservation in Competence Decisions Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct themselves in a manner that enhances the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the engineering profession when deciding whether to offer facilities design and construction services, including refraining from offering such services without the requisite competence, recognizing that accepting out-of-competence work damages the profession's honor and public trust.
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
temporalscope: Before offering facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.145671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Profit-Motivated CD-ROM Service Expansion Competence Prerequisite
type: Profit-MotivatedServiceExpansionCompetencePrerequisiteObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A received a direct-mail solicitation marketing a CD-ROM as enabling profit-maximizing expansion into facilities design and construction services, and accepted the commercial opportunity without first establishing genuine domain competence.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (chemical engineer)
obligationclass: Profit-Motivated Service Expansion Competence Prerequisite Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to establish genuine competence in facilities design and construction through substantive education, training, or hiring of qualified personnel before expanding service offerings into that domain, rather than expanding based solely on the commercial opportunity presented by the CD-ROM solicitation.
sourcetext: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
temporalscope: Before advertising or offering facilities design and construction services
textreferences: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner.
textreferences: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.151675
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Profit-Motivated Competence Boundary Violation
type: Profit-MotivatedCompetenceBoundaryViolationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's response to the solicitation through commencement of facilities design services
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A's firm
affectedparties: Prospective clients
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:48.892079+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:48.892079+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar
stateclass: Profit-Motivated Competence Boundary Violation State
subject: Engineer A's decision to expand into unfamiliar service domains driven by financial opportunity framing in the solicitation
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar
textreferences: Simply sign and return this letter today
textreferences: increase your firm's profits
triggeringevent: Engineer A receives and acts upon a solicitation explicitly framing financial gain ('cannot afford to pass up a single job', 'increase your firm's profits') as justification for taking unfamiliar work
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.140947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Profit-Motivated Scope Expansion into Facilities Design
type: Profit-MotivatedCompetenceBoundaryViolationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's decision to market facilities design services through the case review period
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Prospective clients
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:58.407362+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:58.407362+00:00
importance: high
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
stateclass: Profit-Motivated Competence Boundary Violation State
subject: Engineer A's financially motivated decision to offer facilities design services outside chemical engineering competence
terminatedby: Not resolved in the case; Board finds conduct unethical
textreferences: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety
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
triggeringevent: Engineer A sought to expand practice into facilities design and construction for business development purposes, acquiring a CD-ROM as the sole qualification basis
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.143032
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Profit-Motivated Service Expansion Competence Gate
type: Profit-MotivatedServiceExpansionCompetenceGateCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Profit-Motivated Service Expansion Competence Gate Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to apply a competence prerequisite gate before expanding their firm's service offerings into facilities design and construction, recognizing that the profit motivation driving the expansion did not itself satisfy the competence requirement, and that verified domain-specific education, training, and experience must precede any marketing or acceptance of services in the new domain.
casecontext: Engineer A's decision to offer facilities design services was directly triggered by a profit-motivated solicitation, without any intervening competence verification step before beginning to market the new services.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Not demonstrated — Engineer A allowed profit motivation, triggered by the CD-ROM solicitation, to drive service expansion into facilities design without applying any competence prerequisite gate.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: increase your firm's profits
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by
textreferences: increase your firm's profits
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.148369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Profit-Motivated Service Expansion Competence Non-Subordination Discussion
type: DeceptiveCommercialSolicitationResistanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The CD-ROM solicitation explicitly claimed that domain experience was unnecessary, directly contradicting the NSPE Code's competence requirements; Engineer A was obligated to resist this commercially motivated framing.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Deceptive Commercial Solicitation Resistance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from accepting the CD-ROM solicitation's framing that domain experience was unnecessary for facilities design, and was required to independently verify genuine competence rather than rely on the vendor's representation that the product enabled any purchaser to perform engineering design.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 94-8
sourcetext: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of the CD-ROM solicitation
textreferences: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: The issue of whether an engineer possesses the appropriate level of competence to perform specified services is one of most basic professional and ethical issues faced by practitioners.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.152790
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Profit-Motivated Service Expansion Competence Non-Subordination Facilities Design
type: Profit-MotivatedServiceExpansionCompetenceNon-SubordinationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The solicitation framed the CD-ROM as a profit-maximization tool and argued engineers 'cannot afford to pass up a single job'; Engineer A ordered the CD-ROM and began offering services, indicating profit motivation drove the competence boundary violation
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Profit-Motivated Service Expansion Competence Non-Subordination Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from expanding their firm's service offerings into facilities design and construction primarily in response to the profit-opportunity framing of the CD-ROM solicitation, without having independently verified competence in that domain through education, training, and experience; the commercial attractiveness of the opportunity was ethically irrelevant to the competence determination.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, I.6; BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, 94-8
sourcetext: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
temporalscope: From receipt of the solicitation through Engineer A's decision to offer facilities design services
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
textreferences: increase your firm's profits
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.147140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Profit-Motivated Service Expansion Competence Prerequisite Facilities Design
type: Profit-MotivatedServiceExpansionCompetencePrerequisiteObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The solicitation explicitly framed the CD-ROM as a profit-maximization tool enabling engineers to 'increase your firm's profits' by accepting any job. Engineer A responded by ordering the product and immediately offering new services without any competence-building activities.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Profit-Motivated Service Expansion Competence Prerequisite Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, before expanding their firm's service offerings into facilities design and construction in response to a profit-motivated commercial solicitation, to first establish genuine competence in that domain through education, training, mentorship, or hiring of qualified personnel, rather than relying solely on a commercial software tool.
sourcetext: increase your firm's profits
temporalscope: Before advertising or offering facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by
textreferences: increase your firm's profits
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.145222
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount CD-ROM Competence Disregard
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board characterized CD-ROM reliance as showing 'a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety,' linking competence boundary violations directly to the public safety paramount obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's reliance on a CD-ROM as the basis for offering facilities design services constituted a disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting public health and safety, violating the paramount obligation to hold public safety above commercial opportunity.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section I; NSPE Code Section II.2.a
sourcetext: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
temporalscope: At the time of considering and offering facilities design services based on CD-ROM competence
textreferences: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.152646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Facilities Design Competence
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the public welfare paramountcy recognition capability, failing to recognize that offering out-of-competence facilities design services would subordinate public health and safety to personal business interests.
casecontext: Engineer A considered expanding into facilities design services using a CD-ROM, failing to recognize that doing so without genuine competence would violate the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's failure to recognize that the CD-ROM-based competence claim would expose the public to safety risks from incompetent facilities design, contrary to the paramount obligation to protect public health and safety.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
textreferences: Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by refraining from offering facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Safety Obligation Out-of-Competence Facilities Design Practice
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Facilities design and construction work performed by an engineer without relevant experience creates direct public safety risks, as design errors in such projects can result in structural failures, hazardous conditions, or other harm to building occupants and the public.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by refraining from offering facilities design and construction services without the requisite competence, recognizing that incompetent engineering design of facilities poses direct risks to the safety of those who will occupy, use, or be affected by those facilities.
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
temporalscope: Before and during any offering or performance of facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.145811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Software Tool Competence Substitution Non-Reliance CD-ROM
type: SoftwareToolCompetenceSubstitutionNon-RelianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A accepted a CD-ROM vendor's claims that the product enabled virtually anyone to specify, design, and cost out facilities, and relied on the tool as the basis for offering facilities design services without independent verification of whether it substituted for domain expertise.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (chemical engineer)
obligationclass: Software Tool Competence Substitution Non-Reliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from treating the commercial CD-ROM design library as a substitute for the domain-specific education, training, and experience required to practice competently in facilities design and construction, and to independently verify whether the tool genuinely supported rather than replaced the requisite competence.
sourcetext: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of the CD-ROM solicitation and before offering facilities design services
textreferences: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.151838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Software Tool Competence Substitution Non-Reliance Facilities Design
type: SoftwareToolCompetenceSubstitutionNon-RelianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The CD-ROM vendor claimed the product enabled any engineer to design any project regardless of experience. Engineer A accepted this claim at face value and began offering services without independent verification of the tool's technical adequacy or of their own underlying competence.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:29.813109+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Software Tool Competence Substitution Non-Reliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from treating the CD-ROM design library as a substitute for the domain-specific education, training, and experience required to practice competently in facilities design and construction, and to independently verify whether the tool genuinely supported rather than replaced the requisite competence before relying on it for client services.
sourcetext: thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
temporalscope: Before ordering the CD-ROM and before offering any services based on it
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.145077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Software Tool Substituted for Domain Competence
type: SoftwareToolSubstitutedforDomainCompetenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's acquisition of the CD-ROM and commencement of service offerings, persisting as long as services are offered on this basis
affectedparties: Clients engaging Engineer A for facilities design
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public safety stakeholders
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:48.892079+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:48.892079+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
stateclass: Software Tool Substituted for Domain Competence State
subject: Engineer A's reliance on a CD-ROM software tool as the basis for offering facilities design and construction services
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: never designed a highway before? No problem. Just point to the 'Highways' window and click
textreferences: thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
triggeringevent: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM marketed as enabling any engineer to design any construction project regardless of experience, then begins offering services based on this tool
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.140778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Software Tool Substituted for Facilities Design Judgment
type: SoftwareToolSubstitutedforDomainCompetenceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Duration of Engineer A's CD-ROM-based facilities design practice
affectedparties: Clients
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:58.407362+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:58.407362+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment
stateclass: Software Tool Substituted for Domain Competence State
subject: Engineer A's use of CD-ROM software as a functional substitute for engineering judgment in facilities design
terminatedby: Not resolved in the case
textreferences: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment
textreferences: technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment
triggeringevent: Engineer A deployed a commercial CD-ROM to perform facilities design work in lieu of developing genuine domain competence
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.142875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Solicitation-Induced Out-of-Competence Design Engineer
type: Solicitation-InducedOut-of-CompetenceDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Chemical Engineer (licensed)', 'specialty': 'Chemical engineering', 'domain_gap': 'No facilities design and construction experience', 'inducement': 'CD-ROM solicitation promising software-enabled design competence'}
caseinvolvement: A chemical engineer with no facilities design or construction experience who, after receiving a deceptive CD-ROM solicitation, orders the product and begins offering facilities design and construction services outside their area of competence, violating the obligation to practice only within established areas of expertise.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:39.215985+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:39.215985+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'induced_by', 'target': 'CD-ROM Vendor Deceptive Engineering Tool Vendor'}
relationships: {'type': 'provider_to', 'target': 'Prospective facilities design and construction clients'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Solicitation-Induced Out-of-Competence Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.139936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Technology-as-Tool Boundary Judgment CD-ROM
type: Technology-as-ToolBoundaryJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technology-as-Tool Boundary Judgment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that a CD-ROM design library constitutes a tool that supplements professional engineering judgment — not a substitute for domain-specific education, training, and experience — and that relying on the CD-ROM as a basis for offering facilities design services crossed from appropriate tool use into inappropriate substitution for professional competence.
casecontext: The CD-ROM solicitation explicitly marketed the product as enabling design in any domain regardless of experience, and Engineer A accepted this framing, failing to apply the tool-versus-competence-substitute distinction.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Not demonstrated — Engineer A treated the CD-ROM as a competence substitute, ordering it and beginning to offer facilities design services on the basis of the tool alone, without the underlying domain expertise the tool was falsely claimed to replace.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:01.011522+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
textreferences: this full-featured interactive library of standard design can help you work faster than ever
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.148072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Technology-as-Tool Boundary Non-Recognition CD-ROM
type: Technology-as-ToolBoundaryJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technology-as-Tool Boundary Judgment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to exercise the technology-as-tool boundary judgment capability, treating the CD-ROM design library as a replacement for professional engineering judgment and experience rather than as a supplementary tool that presupposes underlying domain competence.
casecontext: Engineer A received a CD-ROM marketed as enabling virtually anyone to design facilities, and failed to recognize that such a tool cannot substitute for the domain-specific education, training, and experience required for professional engineering practice.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's consideration of using the CD-ROM as the primary basis for offering facilities design services, crossing the boundary from appropriate tool use into inappropriate substitution for professional competence.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment.
textreferences: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment.
textreferences: it is the Board's position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.154193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Technology Non-Substitution CD-ROM Facilities Design
type: TechnologyNon-SubstitutionforEngineeringJudgmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A (chemical engineer) received a CD-ROM solicitation claiming that domain experience is unnecessary and that any construction project can be designed by 'pointing and clicking'; Engineer A ordered the CD-ROM and began offering facilities design services despite having no experience in that domain
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Technology Non-Substitution for Engineering Judgment Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from using the CD-ROM interactive design library as a substitute for independent engineering judgment and domain-specific competence in facilities design and construction; the tool could only lawfully supplement — not replace — genuine professional expertise that Engineer A did not possess.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:18:56.160130+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Cases 94-8, 71-2, 78-5
sourcetext: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A received the solicitation and throughout any subsequent offering of facilities design services
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
textreferences: this full-featured interactive library of standard design can help you work faster than ever
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.144450
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A Technology Non-Substitution CD-ROM Facilities Design Discussion
type: TechnologyNon-SubstitutionforEngineeringJudgmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board explicitly addressed the role of technology in engineering practice, affirming that computers, CD-ROMs, and technical information must supplement rather than replace engineering judgment, and that professional engineering cannot be reduced to reliance on such tools.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Technology Non-Substitution for Engineering Judgment Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from using the CD-ROM design library as a replacement or substitute for independent engineering judgment and domain-specific professional experience in facilities design and construction; the CD-ROM could only serve as a supplement to, not a replacement for, genuine engineering expertise.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; Board's closing statement on technology's role
sourcetext: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment.
temporalscope: Throughout any use of the CD-ROM product in connection with facilities design services
textreferences: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment.
textreferences: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
textreferences: it is the Board's position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.152476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer A ordering the CD-ROM before Engineer A offering facilities design and construction services
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer B Case 94-8 Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Non-Recognition Structural Footings
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B in Case 94-8 failed to exercise the domain-specific competence boundary recognition capability, failing to correctly classify structural footing design as outside the competence boundary established by their chemical engineering degree and background.
casecontext: Engineer B, a professional engineer with a chemical engineering background, was separately retained by a construction contractor to design structural footings as part of an industrial facility, despite lacking apparent competence in foundation design.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's acceptance of structural footing design work despite having a chemical engineering degree and no apparent subsequent training in foundation design, as determined by the BER to be unethical.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B (Case 94-8)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering.
textreferences: Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design.
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering.
textreferences: The Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.154695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer B Case 94-8 Domain-Specific Incompetence Structural Footing Seal Prohibition
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetenceSealProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: In BER Case 94-8, Engineer B (chemical engineering background) was separately retained to design structural footings; the Board found it unethical for Engineer B to perform this work given the absence of demonstrated competence in foundation design.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B (chemical engineering background, Case 94-8)
constraintclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence Seal Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B, whose degree and background was in chemical engineering with no apparent subsequent training in foundation design, was prohibited from performing the design of structural footings as part of the industrial facility, notwithstanding holding a general PE license.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.b; BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B was retained by the construction contractor to design structural footings
textreferences: Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design, and Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings.
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering.
textreferences: The Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.152941
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer B Case 94-8 Out-of-Competence Structural Designer
type: Out-of-CompetenceEngineeringContractor
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Chemical Engineering', 'out_of_competence_domain': 'Structural footing design', 'retaining_party': 'Construction contractor'}
caseinvolvement: A professional engineer with a chemical engineering degree and no apparent subsequent training in foundation design, separately retained by a construction contractor to design structural footings for an industrial facility, performing work entirely outside his established area of competence.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:54.850832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:54.850832+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competency_challenged_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Case 94-8 Competency Challenger'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Construction Contractor (Case 94-8)'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor
sourcetext: Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
textreferences: Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering
textreferences: Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
textreferences: it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.142191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer B Case 94-8 Structural Footing Out-of-Competence Practice
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceVerificationBeforeAssignmentAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B, a professional engineer with a chemical engineering degree and no apparent subsequent training in foundation design, was separately retained by a construction contractor to design structural footings as part of an industrial facility.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (chemical engineering background, Case 94-8)
obligationclass: Domain-Specific Competence Verification Before Assignment Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to verify that their chemical engineering background and any subsequent training was sufficient to perform structural footing design before accepting that assignment, and to decline the work if they lacked the requisite competence in foundation design.
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering.
temporalscope: Before accepting the structural footing design assignment
textreferences: Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design, and Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings.
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering.
textreferences: The Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.150640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineer B Chemical Engineer Structural Footing Design Incompetence (Case 94-8 Reference)
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetencewithGeneralLicensureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Duration of Engineer B's retention for structural footing design on the industrial facility project
affectedparties: Construction contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Facility users
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:58.407362+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:58.407362+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering
stateclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence with General Licensure State
subject: Engineer B (chemical engineering background) retained to design structural footings
terminatedby: Engineer A reported concerns to the contractor (outcome not specified in this text)
textreferences: Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
textreferences: Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings
textreferences: Engineer B's degree and background was in chemical engineering
triggeringevent: Construction contractor retained Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no apparent training in foundation design, to design structural footings
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.143198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Engineering Self-Policing Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Case 94-8 Competency Challenge
type: EngineeringSelf-PolicingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Case 94-8 Competency Challenger
appliedto: Engineer B Case 94-8 Out-of-Competence Structural Designer
balancingwith: Professional Reciprocity and Collegial Solidarity Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER Case 94-8, Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor when he identified that Engineer B — a chemical engineer — lacked the competence to design structural footings.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The self-policing obligation here requires active peer challenge of observed incompetence, not merely personal abstention from incompetent practice — the profession's integrity depends on engineers reporting concerns about peers.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Engineering Self-Policing Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
tensionresolution: The self-policing obligation prevailed over any collegial reluctance to report; Engineer A's reporting to the contractor was affirmed as ethically required.
textreferences: Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training in foundation design, and Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor.
textreferences: The Board decided that it would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility and that Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.149428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Facilities-Design-CD-ROM-Product
type: CommercialEngineeringSoftwareCompetenceSubstitute
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: Unnamed commercial vendor (direct mail product)
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Direct-Mail CD-ROM Facilities Design and Construction Tool
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:29.349049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:29.349049+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Commercial Engineering Software Competence Substitute
sourcetext: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications
textreferences: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety
usedby: Engineer A (chemical engineer) as a purported competency substitute for facilities design and construction services
usedincontext: The CD-ROM is the central artifact under ethical scrutiny — it purports to enable any purchaser to 'specify, design and cost out' a facilities project, and Engineer A relied on it as a substitute for substantive education and experience in facilities design; the Board rejects it as an adequate basis for professional competency
version: Unspecified commercial product
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.141739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Facilities Design CD-ROM Interactive Library
type: CommercialEngineeringSoftwareCompetenceSubstitute
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Unnamed commercial vendor
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: CD-ROM Interactive Library of Standard Design (unnamed commercial product)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:28.643820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:28.643820+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Commercial Engineering Software Competence Substitute
sourcetext: thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
textreferences: this full-featured interactive library of standard design can help you work faster than ever
usedby: Engineer A, who orders and relies upon it to enter unfamiliar engineering domains
usedincontext: The commercial CD-ROM is the proximate trigger for Engineer A's decision to offer services outside their competence; it is marketed as eliminating the need for domain experience, directly raising ethical questions about whether such tools can substitute for professional competence in engineering practice
version: Unspecified
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.139785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Engineer A Service Offering
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's marketing and offering of facilities design services to clients
balancingwith: Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: By offering facilities design and construction services without relevant experience, Engineer A implicitly represents to prospective clients that they possess the competence to perform those services, which is a false and misleading representation about their qualifications and capabilities
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations requires that engineers not hold themselves out as competent in domains where they lack genuine expertise; offering services in unfamiliar domains constitutes an implicit false representation of qualification
invokedby: Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
tensionresolution: Honesty obligations are not subject to commercial override; Engineer A cannot truthfully represent competence in facilities design based solely on a CD-ROM tool
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.143650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

II.2.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.713935
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

II.2.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.713964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

II.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.713992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

II.2.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714020
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

III.2.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

NSPE-Code-Section-II.2.a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section II.2.a
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:29.349049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:29.349049+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: the issue of whether an engineer possesses the appropriate level of competence to perform specified services is one of most basic professional and ethical issues faced by practitioners (See Code Section II.2.a.)
textreferences: the issue of whether an engineer possesses the appropriate level of competence to perform specified services is one of most basic professional and ethical issues faced by practitioners (See Code Section II.2.a.)
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: Cited as the foundational code provision requiring engineers to practice only within their areas of competence; the Board anchors its entire competency analysis to this section
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.139135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:28.643820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:28.643820+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligation to practice only within areas of competence and to represent qualifications honestly; Fundamental Canon requiring engineers to perform services only in areas of competence is directly implicated
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.139297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Offering Facilities Design Services
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155578
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Offering Facilities Design Services → Unqualified Service Area Established
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Ordering CD-ROM Product
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Ordering CD-ROM Product → CD-ROM Product Delivered
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Prime Professional BER 71-2 Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement
type: CompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementPlanningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Capability
capabilitystatement: The prime professional in BER Case 71-2 was expected to demonstrate the competence gap subconsultant engagement planning capability by retaining or recommending the retention of experts and specialists when performing substantial services on a government project in areas outside the prime professional's own competence.
casecontext: BER Case 71-2 involved brokerage of engineering services and professional competence, where the Board recognized the prime professional's obligation to retain specialists when performing substantial government project services.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The BER's recognition in Case 71-2 of the propriety and value of the prime professional retaining specialists, establishing the normative expectation that prime professionals will engage qualified subconsultants to fill competence gaps.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:41.744937+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Prime Professional (BER 71-2)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In BER Case 71-2... 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' and noted that 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: In BER Case 71-2... 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' and noted that 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.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Prime Professional BER 71-2 Specialist Retainer
type: Specialist-RetainingPrimeConsultingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'context': 'Government project brokerage of engineering services', 'obligation': 'Retain or recommend specialists in areas of insufficient personal competence'}
caseinvolvement: The prime professional referenced in BER Case 71-2 who, while performing substantial services on a government project, bore the obligation to retain or recommend the retention of qualified experts and specialists in areas outside the prime's own competence, illustrating the proper fulfillment of the prime consultant's competence-management duty.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:54.850832+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:54.850832+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Specialists and Experts'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Government Client'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Specialist-Retaining Prime Consulting Engineer
sourcetext: 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: 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 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.142522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Prime Professional BER 71-2 Specialist Retention Competence Constraint
type: InterdisciplinaryThresholdCompetenceReferralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 71-2 precedent cited to establish that prime professionals must retain specialists when performing substantial services in domains requiring expertise beyond their own competence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Prime professional (BER Case 71-2 reference)
constraintclass: Interdisciplinary Threshold Competence Referral Constraint
constraintstatement: A prime professional performing substantial services on a government project was constrained to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in domains where the prime professional lacked sufficient competence, establishing that competence gaps trigger specialist engagement obligations rather than permitting the prime professional to proceed without qualified support.
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:25:34.272733+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.2.a; BER Case 71-2
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' and noted that 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.
temporalscope: During performance of substantial services on the government project
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' and noted that 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.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.153257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Prime Professional BER 71-2 Specialist Retention Consulting Practice
type: ConsultingPracticeCompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 71-2 involved brokerage of engineering services by two firms competing for government work, raising the question of professional competence and the obligation of a prime professional to retain specialists.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:23:25.746201+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Prime professional (BER Case 71-2)
obligationclass: Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Obligation
obligationstatement: The prime professional performing substantial services on a government project was obligated to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in technical domains beyond the prime professional's own competence, in the interests of the project.
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'
temporalscope: When performing substantial services on a project requiring expertise beyond the prime professional's competence
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: 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 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.150928
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Prior BER Precedents Triggered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Professional Competence Standard — Scope of Practice
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE and professional engineering community consensus
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Competence Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:28.643820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:28.643820+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
textreferences: Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar
textreferences: no matter your design experience
usedby: Applied by the BER to assess whether Engineer A's conduct is ethically permissible
usedincontext: Governs the ethical obligation that engineers practice only within their demonstrated areas of competence; Engineer A's lack of facilities design and construction experience directly triggers this standard when they begin offering such services based solely on a commercial CD-ROM
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.139452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Implicated by Engineer A Out-of-Competence Practice
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Facilities design and construction services offered by Engineer A
balancingwith: Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's acceptance of facilities design and construction work without relevant experience creates direct risk to the public who will rely on those designs, as incompetent engineering in construction contexts can result in structural failures, safety hazards, and harm to building occupants and users
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount requires that engineers not place the public at risk through incompetent practice; the public's reliance on professional licensure as a guarantee of competence makes out-of-domain practice a direct public welfare violation
invokedby: Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
tensionresolution: Public welfare is paramount and cannot be subordinated to commercial profit motives; Engineer A's decision to offer incompetent services is an unambiguous violation
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.143507
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Competence-Technology Context
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: CD-ROM Vendor Deceptive Engineering Tool Vendor
appliedto: Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer
balancingwith: Competence Principle
balancingwith: Technology Non-Substitution for Domain Expertise Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board grounded its rejection of CD-ROM-based competence claims in the fundamental public welfare obligation: allowing engineers to self-certify competence through technological shortcuts would undermine the public health and safety protection that professional engineering exists to provide.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount operates here not as a disclosure or reporting obligation but as the foundational justification for why competence standards cannot be relaxed: the public relies on engineers' genuine expertise for protection from harm in facilities design.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
tensionresolution: Public welfare was not in tension with any competing principle; it reinforced the competence obligation rather than conflicting with it.
textreferences: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
textreferences: The Board considers such activities completely contrary to the basic ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.149262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Qualification Representation Standard — Competence Misrepresentation
type: QualificationRepresentationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE and professional engineering community consensus
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Qualification Representation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:28.643820+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:28.643820+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification Representation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: Engineer A orders the CD-ROM and begins to offer facilities design and construction services
textreferences: increase your firm's profits
usedby: Applied by the BER to assess Engineer A's representations to clients
usedincontext: Governs the prohibition on engineers misrepresenting or overstating their qualifications and capabilities when seeking professional engagements; Engineer A offering facilities design services without relevant experience implicates honest representation of competence to prospective clients
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.139595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718074
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.717909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to offer facilities design and construction services under the facts presented?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.713904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does the CD-ROM vendor bear any independent ethical or legal responsibility for actively soliciting engineers to practice outside their areas of competence, and should the NSPE address the ethics of third parties who market tools that facilitate incompetent practice?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714235
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Would Engineer A's conduct become ethical if, before offering facilities design services, he engaged qualified subconsultants or specialists to perform and review the actual design work, with himself serving only as a coordinating prime professional?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: At what point in the sequence of events — ordering the CD-ROM, marketing the services, accepting a contract, or sealing drawings — does Engineer A's conduct first cross the ethical line, and does the ethical violation occur before any actual design work is performed?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does a general professional engineering license implicitly represent to the public that the licensee is competent across all engineering disciplines, and if so, does the licensing system itself create a structural condition that makes cases like Engineer A's more likely?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714748
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle that engineers may use novel tools and technologies to expand their capabilities conflict with the principle that technology cannot substitute for domain-specific engineering judgment and competence, and how should an engineer determine when a software tool crosses from legitimate aid to impermissible competence surrogate?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle that engineers have an obligation to self-police and report apparent incompetence in peers conflict with the principle that competence assessments must rest on objective grounds, given that Engineer A — who is himself practicing outside competence — may lack the domain knowledge necessary to objectively evaluate whether Engineer B's structural footing design is actually deficient?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714860
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle that commercial profit motives must never override competence obligations conflict with the principle that engineers have a legitimate professional interest in expanding their practice and firm viability, and how should the ethical framework distinguish between permissible entrepreneurial growth and impermissible profit-driven competence boundary violation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714912
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of honesty in professional representations — which condemns Engineer A's implicit claim of competence when offering facilities design services — conflict with the principle that engineers may accept coordination responsibility for entire projects under Code Section II.2.c, potentially creating ambiguity about whether offering to manage a project (rather than personally perform all design) constitutes a misrepresentation of competence?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.714963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty to practice only within areas of demonstrated competence, or did the financial framing of the solicitation impermissibly override that duty regardless of the consequences that might have followed?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the potential harms to public safety and client welfare resulting from Engineer A offering facilities design services without requisite experience outweigh any economic benefit Engineer A or clients might have derived from access to lower-cost design services enabled by the CD-ROM tool?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and intellectual honesty expected of a competent engineer when accepting the CD-ROM solicitation's implicit premise that software tools can substitute for domain-specific education and experience, and does this acceptance reflect a character deficiency that virtue ethics would identify as a failure of professional honor?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the CD-ROM vendor bear an independent ethical duty not to induce engineers to practice outside their competence, and if so, does Engineer A's culpability diminish when a third-party commercial actor deliberately frames incompetent practice as professionally acceptable and financially necessary?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would Engineer A's offer of facilities design services have been ethical if, instead of relying solely on the CD-ROM, Engineer A had engaged qualified subconsultants with demonstrated facilities design expertise to perform and seal all work outside chemical engineering, retaining only coordination and chemical process responsibilities?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had conducted a rigorous self-assessment before ordering the CD-ROM, recognized the competence gap, and declined the solicitation — would this act of restraint have satisfied Engineer A's ethical obligations, and would it have altered the broader harm potential to the public?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer A had disclosed to prospective clients that their background was in chemical engineering and that the facilities design services would be produced using a CD-ROM-based standard design library rather than domain-specific experience, would informed client consent have altered the ethical analysis, or does the public safety obligation render such disclosure insufficient to legitimize the practice?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: Had Engineer A been a licensed professional engineer with prior facilities design experience who adopted the CD-ROM as a productivity tool rather than a competence substitute, would the ethical analysis change, and what does this counterfactual reveal about the precise ethical fault — the tool itself or the competence gap it was used to paper over?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.715377
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718586
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718670
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718280
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718308
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718337
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:43:45.718419
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Specialist Retention Obligation Invoked in BER 71-2 Prime Professional Context
type: InterdisciplinaryCompetenceThresholdforSpecializedReferral
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Prime Professional BER 71-2 Specialist Retainer
balancingwith: Client Interest Primacy Over Engineer Personal Advantage in Faithful Agent Role
balancingwith: Competence Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER Case 71-2, the Board recognized that a prime professional performing substantial services on a government project bears an obligation to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists when the work exceeds the prime's own competence — affirming the propriety and value of specialist engagement in the public interest.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The specialist referral obligation here is grounded in the prime professional's recognition that their own competence has a boundary, and that the project's and public's interests require engagement of those with the necessary expertise.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold for Specialized Referral
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'
tensionresolution: No tension; retaining specialists was affirmed as both ethically proper and in the project's interest.
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' and noted that 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.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.149596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Technology Non-Substitution Invoked Against Engineer A CD-ROM Reliance
type: TechnologyNon-SubstitutionforDomainExpertisePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: CD-ROM Vendor Deceptive Engineering Tool Vendor
appliedto: Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer
balancingwith: Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation
balancingwith: Competence Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's reliance on a commercial CD-ROM product to perform facilities design and construction services — a domain in which he had no substantive background — was held to be an impermissible substitution of technology for genuine engineering competence, not a legitimate augmentation of existing expertise.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle operates to reject the vendor's implicit claim that the CD-ROM product could enable competent practice across domains, and to reject Engineer A's implicit reliance on that claim as a basis for accepting the facilities design engagement.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Technology Non-Substitution for Domain Expertise Principle
sourcetext: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
tensionresolution: No balancing was required; the Board found no legitimate competing principle that could justify reliance on a technological product as a substitute for domain expertise.
textreferences: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested professional experience and engineering judgment.
textreferences: the Board's decision should not be understood as a wholesale rejection of the use of computers, CD-ROMs and other technological advances. Rather, it is the Board's position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.146121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Third-Party Inducement to Incompetent Practice Prohibition Invoked Against CD-ROM Vendor
type: Third-PartyInducementtoIncompetentPracticeProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: CD-ROM Vendor Deceptive Engineering Tool Vendor
appliedto: Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer
balancingwith: Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation
balancingwith: Technology Non-Substitution for Domain Expertise Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The CD-ROM vendor's direct-mail solicitation — explicitly marketing the product as enabling 'virtually anyone' to specify, design, and cost out facilities — constituted a commercial inducement to licensed engineers to accept work outside their competence by falsely representing that the software could substitute for genuine domain expertise.
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The vendor's solicitation created a market incentive for incompetent practice by implying that the product conferred competence; this is incompatible with the public protection function of professional licensure.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Third-Party Inducement to Incompetent Practice Prohibition
sourcetext: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
tensionresolution: The inducement prohibition was affirmed; the vendor's commercial framing did not legitimate Engineer A's reliance on the product as a competence basis.
textreferences: A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
textreferences: Relying on a 'how to' CD-ROM appears to show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and minimizes the high level of knowledge and expertise necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.149911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Third-Party Inducement to Incompetent Practice Prohibition Violated by CD-ROM Vendor
type: Third-PartyInducementtoIncompetentPracticeProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: CD-ROM vendor's direct-mail solicitation to Engineer A and other licensed engineers
balancingwith: Commercial freedom and market innovation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The CD-ROM vendor explicitly solicits licensed engineers to accept work in unfamiliar domains by falsely representing that a software library can substitute for domain expertise, using profit-maximization framing to induce engineers to expand into areas where they lack genuine competence
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:52.216679+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The vendor's solicitation systematically undermines the public protection function of professional licensure by creating market incentives for incompetent practice; the explicit claim that domain experience is irrelevant ('no matter your design experience') is a direct misrepresentation of what software tools can provide
invokedby: CD-ROM Vendor Deceptive Engineering Tool Vendor
principleclass: Third-Party Inducement to Incompetent Practice Prohibition
sourcetext: Now - - thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience.
tensionresolution: Commercial freedom does not extend to systematically inducing licensed professionals to endanger the public through incompetent practice; the vendor's conduct is ethically impermissible regardless of commercial legitimacy
textreferences: Never designed a highway before? No problem. Just point to the 'Highways' window and click.
textreferences: Now - - thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience.
textreferences: Simply sign and return this letter today and you'll be among the first engineers to see how this full-featured interactive library of standard design can help you work faster than ever and increase your firm's profits.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.144142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Universal Competence Scope Limitation Invoked Against Engineer A Chemical-to-Facilities Practice
type: CompetencePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A CD-ROM Facilities Design Engineer
balancingwith: Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation
balancingwith: Third-Party Inducement to Incompetent Practice Prohibition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no apparent background in facilities design and construction, was held to be practicing outside his area of competency when he accepted a facilities design engagement, notwithstanding his status as a licensed professional engineer.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 121
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 121
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:21:34.855077+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Competence Principle here operates at the sub-discipline level: PE licensure in chemical engineering does not authorize facilities design practice, and the engineer's professional autonomy must be balanced against recognition of his actual technical limitations.
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Competence Principle
sourcetext: all engineers are implored to exercise careful professional judgment and discretion and practice solely within his or her area(s) of competency.
tensionresolution: The competence limitation prevailed; commercial opportunity and vendor inducement did not justify accepting work outside actual competence.
textreferences: Instead, all engineers are implored to exercise careful professional judgment and discretion and practice solely within his or her area(s) of competency.
textreferences: It is clear that Engineer A, a chemical engineer, has no apparent substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and construction.
textreferences: NSPE has been supportive of the concept that a qualified individual engineer, regardless of his or her particular area of technical discipline, should be licensed as a 'professional engineer'. However, this position should not be understood to suggest that all engineers are free to practice without restriction in any and all areas within the practice of engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 121 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.149076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Unqualified Service Area Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

Unqualified Service Area Established → Prior BER Precedents Triggered
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

contractor retaining Engineer B during construction of the industrial facility (Case 94-8)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.156055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

firm's interview with public utility (BER Case 78-5) before firm seeking to alter its qualifications
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.156101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction

receipt of direct mail solicitation before Engineer A ordering the CD-ROM
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:29:42.155929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 121 Extraction