ProEthica Case 12 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.178693
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Absorbing Construction Burden Internally
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
foreseen unintended effects: Diverted County staff from other responsibilities
foreseen unintended effects: Effectively shielded Engineer B from the full consequences of incompetent design
foreseen unintended effects: Set a precedent that inadequate design work could be absorbed without formal accountability
fulfills obligation text: Commitment to completing public infrastructure for the community
fulfills obligation text: Practical duty to minimize disruption to construction contractor
fulfills obligation text: Stewardship of public funds by keeping project within budget
guided by principle text: Accountability for professional service quality
guided by principle text: Fiscal responsibility and budget management
guided by principle text: Project completion for public benefit
has agent: County A Engineering Staff
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Complete the roadway project within budget and on schedule despite design deficiencies
requires capability text: Construction inspection and quality assurance
requires capability text: Field engineering judgment for roadway construction
requires capability text: Quantity adjustment and change order management
temporal marker: Construction phase, throughout the duration of active construction
temporal sequence: 15
violates obligation text: Arguably, obligation to hold Engineer B accountable for deficient professional services
violates obligation text: Responsibility to document and formally address professional incompetence that endangered public infrastructure
within competence: true
comment: County staff made an ongoing deliberate choice during construction to absorb the excessive workload created by Engineer B's design deficiencies: resolving field revisions, correcting miscalculated quantities, and managing construction issues, rather than halting the project, seeking compensation from Engineer B, or escalating to formal dispute resolution. This decision kept the project within budget but at significant cost to County staff resources.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

All Local Firms Responded
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Competence_Evaluation_Constraint
activates constraint: Procurement_Due_Diligence_Constraint
causes state change: County now holds a complete but potentially unqualified applicant pool; Engineer B is now formally in contention despite lacking relevant experience
concept category: Event
creates obligation: County_Must_Evaluate_Qualifications_Rigorously
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Honestly_Represent_Competence
emergency status: low
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Following advertisement issuance; during procurement response period
temporal sequence: 5
urgency level: low
comment: Every firm eligible under the locally-restricted advertisement submitted a response, meaning the County received the full universe of locally available consulting options, including Engineer B's firm, which lacked roadway design experience.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Awarding Contract Based on Assurances
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: County Commission
foreseen unintended effects: Potential construction problems and cost overruns if design was deficient
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of engaging an incompetent designer for public infrastructure
fulfills obligation text: Procedural compliance with local-preference procurement process
fulfills obligation text: Responsiveness to local economic interests
guided by principle text: Due diligence in public procurement
guided by principle text: Public safety and welfare
guided by principle text: Responsible use of public funds
has agent: County A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Engage a local firm to complete roadway design in time for the construction season
requires capability text: Assessment of engineering qualifications for rural roadway design
requires capability text: Procurement evaluation and due diligence
requires capability text: Reference and portfolio review of prospective consultants
temporal marker: Award phase, following Engineer B's lobbying and assurances
temporal sequence: 8
violates obligation text: Obligation to exercise due diligence in selecting competent engineering services for public infrastructure
violates obligation text: Responsibility to independently verify qualifications rather than rely solely on self-reported assurances
violates obligation text: Stewardship of public funds and public safety
within competence: true
comment: County A's Commission made the deliberate decision to award Engineer B a roadway design contract, relying on Engineer B's lobbying and assurances of competence rather than independently verifying qualifications or experience. This decision accepted at face value claims that were not substantiated by demonstrated rural roadway design experience.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

BER_Analogical_Precedents_Competence
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.75
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Cases on Engineer Competence and Qualification Misrepresentation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:46:49.376835+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:46:49.376835+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
usedby: Ethical reviewers conducting analogical analysis of this case
usedincontext: Prior BER cases addressing situations where engineers accepted work outside their demonstrated competence or misrepresented qualifications to clients, providing analogical reasoning patterns applicable to Engineer B's conduct
version: Various prior decisions
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.179703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

BER Case 02-5 Emerging Standard Non-Familiarity
type: CompetenceStandardEvolutionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: At time of design through structural failure event
affectedparties: Building occupants
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Structural engineer
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: the engineer was not familiar with the recently proposed design parameters
stateclass: Competence Standard Evolution State
subject: Structural engineer's relationship to recently proposed severe weather design parameters
terminatedby: Not specified; parameters presumably later adopted as standards
textreferences: it was not unethical for the engineer to fail to follow the most recent design parameters for structural design in severe weather areas
textreferences: the engineer was not familiar with the recently proposed design parameters
textreferences: those recently proposed design parameters had not yet become standards
triggeringevent: Publication of new design parameters in technical literature prior to their adoption as formal standards
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.179048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

BER Case 02-5 before present case analysis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: In BER Case 02-5, the Board studied a situation... In the present case, the question is whether Engineer B is competent.
from entity text: BER Case 02-5
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: present case analysis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: present case analysis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

BER Case 94-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 94-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:31.126909+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:31.126909+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 94-8 provided an extreme example of incompetence. In that case, a professional engineer with a degree and background in chemical engineering was asked to provide a foundation design for an industrial facility. The Board determined that it would be unethical for the engineer to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.
textreferences: BER Case 94-8 provided an extreme example of incompetence. In that case, a professional engineer with a degree and background in chemical engineering was asked to provide a foundation design for an industrial facility. The Board determined that it would be unethical for the engineer to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review to illustrate the spectrum of incompetence in professional practice
usedincontext: Referenced as an extreme example of incompetence where a chemical engineer performing structural footing design acted unethically, reinforcing the principle that competence must be specific to the technical field involved
version: 1994
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.182967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

BER Case 94-8 Chemical Engineer Foundation Design Incompetence
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetencewithGeneralLicensureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From request to perform foundation design through Board determination
affectedparties: Chemical engineer
affectedparties: Construction workers and facility users
affectedparties: Industrial facility client
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: a professional engineer with a degree and background in chemical engineering was asked to provide a foundation design for an industrial facility
stateclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence with General Licensure State
subject: Chemical engineer's competence relative to structural foundation design
terminatedby: Board determination that performing the design would be unethical
textreferences: BER Case 94-8 provided an extreme example of incompetence
textreferences: a professional engineer with a degree and background in chemical engineering was asked to provide a foundation design for an industrial facility
textreferences: it would be unethical for the engineer to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility
triggeringevent: Chemical engineer asked to provide foundation design for industrial facility outside their domain of competence
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.183307
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

BER Case 94-8 before BER Case 98-8
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Case numbers 94-8 and 98-8 imply sequential BER publication years 1994 and 1998 respectively.
from entity text: BER Case 94-8
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 98-8
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 98-8
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

BER Case 98-8 Arms Storage Domain Incompetence
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetencewithGeneralLicensureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From acceptance of Army certification assignment through ethical determination
affectedparties: Army client
affectedparties: Civil engineer
affectedparties: Facility users
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: a professional engineer in civil engineering was asked to certify certain arms storage rooms and racks for the Army
stateclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence with General Licensure State
subject: Civil engineer's competence relative to arms storage room and rack certification
terminatedby: Board determination that certification would be unethical
textreferences: This engineer had no significant training or knowledge in that area, although the engineer was considered a qualified engineer
textreferences: a professional engineer in civil engineering was asked to certify certain arms storage rooms and racks for the Army
textreferences: it would not be ethical for the engineer to certify the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks
triggeringevent: Civil engineer asked to certify arms storage rooms and racks despite lacking training or knowledge in that area
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.183131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

BER Case 98-8 before BER Case 02-5
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Case numbers 98-8 and 02-5 imply sequential BER publication years 1998 and 2002 respectively.
from entity text: BER Case 98-8
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: BER Case 02-5
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: BER Case 02-5
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Business Downturn Affecting Engineer B
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Competence_Obligation_Constraint
activates constraint: Honest_Representation_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer B's decision-making context now includes financial distress, creating a known ethical risk factor where personal interest may conflict with professional obligation to decline work outside competence
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Disclose_Limitations_If_Pursuing_Work
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Not_Seek_Work_Beyond_Competence
emergency status: low
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Concurrent with advertisement period; pre-existing condition at time of response
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: low
comment: Engineer B's water/wastewater consulting firm experienced a business downturn, creating financial pressure that motivated pursuit of work outside the firm's area of demonstrated competence.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Case 12 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 8
event count: 8
total elements: 16
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

CausalLink_Absorbing Construction Burden
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714995
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

CausalLink_Awarding Contract Based on Ass
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714887
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

CausalLink_Completing and Signing Roadway
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

CausalLink_Excluding Engineer B from Cons
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

CausalLink_Lobbying Commission and Assert
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

CausalLink_Local-Only Advertisement Decis
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

CausalLink_Post-Hoc Admission of Incompet
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

CausalLink_Responding to Advertisement De
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Completing and Signing Roadway Design
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer, Principal/Owner
foreseen unintended effects: Design deficiencies due to lack of roadway expertise would manifest during construction
foreseen unintended effects: Miscalculated quantities and need for field revisions were foreseeable risks given known competence gap
foreseen unintended effects: Public infrastructure and safety could be compromised
fulfills obligation text: Contractual obligation to deliver design documents to County A
guided by principle text: Competence as prerequisite to sealing engineering documents
guided by principle text: Honesty about professional limitations
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount
guided by principle text: Public trust in the PE seal as certification of competence
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Deliver completed design documents to County A to fulfill contract obligations and receive compensation
requires capability text: Accurate earthwork and quantity calculations
requires capability text: Construction document preparation for roadway projects
requires capability text: Knowledge of drainage, grading, and roadway cross-section design
requires capability text: Rural roadway geometric design per applicable standards (AASHTO, state DOT)
temporal marker: Design phase, after contract award and before construction bidding
temporal sequence: 10
violates obligation text: NSPE Code Section I. Fundamental Canon to hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount
violates obligation text: NSPE Code Section II.2. Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence
violates obligation text: NSPE Code Section II.2.a, If not qualified by education AND experience, must engage or advise client to engage qualified associates
violates obligation text: NSPE Code Section II.2.b. Engineers shall not affix signature or seal to plans not conforming to accepted engineering standards or outside their competence
violates obligation text: Professional licensure obligation. PE seal certifies competence and accuracy
within competence: false
comment: Engineer B completed the rural roadway design and affixed their professional engineer's signature and seal to the plans, certifying competence and accuracy of work that was outside their area of expertise. This act constitutes the most direct violation of the NSPE Code competence provisions, as it formally certified work Engineer B lacked the experience to perform adequately.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Completing and Signing Roadway Design → Immediate Construction Problems Emerged
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer B completed the rural roadway design and affixed their professional engineer's signature and seal, certifying documents that reflected their underlying inexperience, which directly produced the construction problems that emerged immediately upon commencement
cause: Completing and Signing Roadway Design
counterfactual: A competent designer or rigorous independent design review would have produced documents requiring fewer field revisions; Engineer B's involvement in construction services might have partially mitigated problems through early identification
effect: Immediate Construction Problems Emerged
necessary factors: Absence of qualified peer review of the design
necessary factors: Engineer B's decision to seal and certify the documents
necessary factors: Engineer B's lack of rural roadway design competence
necessary factors: Exclusion of Engineer B from construction-period services
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer B (primary); County A (secondary for excluding Engineer B from construction services)
sufficient factors: Incompetent design + professional seal certifying adequacy + no construction-phase oversight by designer = immediate field problems requiring numerous revisions
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer B to accept the rural roadway design contract under these circumstances.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.712517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: I 2
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.1.b.
cited provision3: I.2.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer B's acceptance of the rural roadway contract was unethical, Engineer B committed a compounding and independent ethical violation by affixing a professional seal to the completed roadway design documents. The professional seal carries a categorical representation that the signing engineer possesses the requisite education, experience, and judgment to stand responsible for the work. Because Engineer B's own admission during the construction meeting confirmed that the design deficiencies were 'outside the firm's understanding of proper design,' the act of sealing those documents constituted a false certification of competence. This is not merely a derivative consequence of the original acceptance decision — it is a discrete breach of the engineer's obligation under Canon II.2.b, which prohibits affixing signatures to plans dealing with subject matter in which the engineer lacks competence. The Board's conclusion focused on the acceptance decision, but the sealing act extended and formalized the misrepresentation into the permanent project record, creating downstream reliance by County A, contractors, and the public on documents that Engineer B knew — or should have known — were produced without adequate domain expertise.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.712604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer B acted unethically in accepting the contract does not fully account for the independent ethical significance of Engineer B's lobbying of the County Commission. Responding to a public advertisement — even when unqualified — might be characterized as a passive competitive act subject to correction by the client's due diligence. Lobbying, however, is an affirmative act of political persuasion that substitutes personal advocacy and relationship capital for merit-based evaluation. When Engineer B lobbied the County Commission while simultaneously providing false assurances of competence, Engineer B weaponized political access to circumvent the very merit-screening function that competitive procurement is designed to perform. This conduct implicates the principle of Procurement Integrity and the obligation under Canon I.6 to conduct oneself honorably and in a manner that enhances the reputation of the profession. The lobbying did not merely accompany the ethical violation — it was an independent mechanism by which Engineer B undermined the integrity of the selection process, and it warrants separate analytical treatment as an ethical breach distinct from the competence question the Board addressed.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.712695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: I 2
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: I.2.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion appropriately centers on Engineer B's ethical failure, but a complete analysis must also recognize that County A bears a degree of institutional responsibility that, while not rising to an independent ethical violation by the County, meaningfully contributed to the harm that materialized. County A's local-only advertisement policy structurally constrained the competitive pool to firms whose competence profiles may not have matched the technical requirements of rural roadway design. More critically, County A accepted Engineer B's assurances of adequate performance without independently verifying the firm's qualifications in highway engineering — a verification that would have been straightforward given that Engineer B's established domain expertise was in water and wastewater engineering, a materially different discipline. Furthermore, County A's decision to exclude Engineer B from construction period services removed the one mechanism that might have enabled earlier detection and correction of design deficiencies before they cascaded into excessive field revisions and quantity miscalculations. These institutional choices do not transfer ethical culpability away from Engineer B, whose misrepresentations were the proximate cause of the harm, but they illustrate that robust procurement systems — including qualification verification and integrated construction-period oversight — function as essential safeguards against the type of competence-gap harm that occurred here. The ethical framework governing engineers cannot substitute for sound institutional procurement practice on the client side.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.712775
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 2
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
answers question3: 302
cited provision1: I.2.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B's eventual admission during the construction meeting that the problems were 'outside the firm's understanding of proper design' does not retroactively satisfy the categorical duty of honest competence representation that was violated at the time of bidding and contract acceptance. The duty to represent one's qualifications honestly is triggered at the moment of professional engagement, not remediated by post-hoc acknowledgment after harm has materialized. Engineer B's admission, while reflecting a degree of professional accountability, cannot be treated as meaningful mitigation of the original breach because it arrived only after County staff had already absorbed excessive burden, field revisions had already been necessitated, and public safety had already been placed at risk by deficient design documents that bore Engineer B's professional seal. A consequentialist analysis reaches the same conclusion: the aggregate harm — including miscalculated quantities, field revision costs, County staff burden, and public safety exposure — substantially outweighed the benefit of preserving Engineer B's firm and preventing staff layoffs, particularly because those layoffs were a private economic harm to Engineer B's firm rather than a public benefit. The financial pressure Engineer B faced, while understandable as a human circumstance, cannot function as an ethical justification under either framework, because accepting the subordination of public welfare to private economic interest is precisely what the NSPE Code's competence and honesty provisions are designed to prevent.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.712895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 2
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: I.2.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: A critical nuance the Board did not address is whether Engineer B could have remediated the ethical violation after contract award — but before design work began — by engaging a qualified rural roadway design subconsultant or seeking mentorship from an experienced highway engineer. Had Engineer B taken such steps transparently and disclosed the arrangement to County A, the competence gap might have been bridged in a manner consistent with professional standards. However, this remediation pathway would not have erased the independent ethical breach of the initial misrepresentation during bidding, because Engineer B provided assurances of adequate performance before any such remediation was arranged or even contemplated. The misrepresentation was complete at the moment it was made. Moreover, the case facts indicate no such remediation was pursued — Engineer B proceeded to complete and seal the design without engaging qualified highway engineering expertise, which is why the construction problems emerged immediately and why Engineer B admitted during the construction meeting that the issues were outside the firm's understanding. This counterfactual analysis clarifies that the ethical violation was not merely structural — it was compounded at every subsequent decision point where Engineer B had an opportunity to correct course and did not.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.712972
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Engineer B's lobbying of the County Commission constitutes an independent ethical violation separate from and in addition to the competence violation. By actively campaigning for the contract award through political channels rather than relying solely on merit-based evaluation of qualifications, Engineer B substituted political influence for professional qualification as the basis for selection. This conduct implicates the principle of Procurement Integrity and violates the obligation that engineers not use political pressure as a substitute for demonstrated competence. The lobbying was particularly problematic because it was paired with false assurances of competence — the political pressure was deployed precisely to overcome any skepticism the County Commission might have had about Engineer B's qualifications in rural roadway design. The two acts together — misrepresentation of competence and political lobbying — compounded each other into a more serious ethical breach than either would constitute alone. Even if Engineer B had been fully competent in rural roadway design, lobbying a commission to secure a contract award would raise serious questions under the principle of Fairness in Professional Competition, because it introduces non-merit factors into a procurement process that should be governed by technical qualification.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.713047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.2.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Engineer B bore an affirmative obligation to disclose design deficiencies to County A at the earliest moment those deficiencies became apparent during construction, rather than waiting until a formal meeting convened by the County to address the emerging problems. The delayed admission compounds the original ethical violation in a materially significant way. Once construction problems began emerging immediately, Engineer B possessed — or should have possessed — the professional self-awareness to recognize that the field revisions and miscalculated quantities were symptoms of the firm's own competence deficit. Waiting for the County to organize a meeting before acknowledging this transferred the burden of problem identification entirely onto County staff, who were already absorbing excessive time and effort to resolve issues that Engineer B's design had created. The principle of Professional Accountability required proactive disclosure, not reactive admission under institutional pressure. The delayed acknowledgment also denied County A the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to bring in qualified highway engineering expertise during construction to mitigate ongoing harm. The admission, while ethically required and better than continued silence, arrived too late to prevent the accumulation of harm and therefore carries insufficient mitigating weight against the original violation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.713121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.2.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: County A bears a degree of shared institutional responsibility for the outcome, though this responsibility does not diminish Engineer B's primary ethical culpability. County A's local-only advertisement policy structurally constrained the competitive pool to firms that may not have included any with demonstrated rural roadway design competence, and the County accepted Engineer B's assurances of adequate performance without independently verifying the firm's qualifications in that specific domain. A prudent procurement process would have required applicants to demonstrate relevant experience through project references, resumes of key personnel, or similar qualification evidence before contract award. By relying solely on Engineer B's self-reported assurances, County A created the institutional conditions under which an incompetent firm could successfully obtain a contract through misrepresentation. However, this shared institutional responsibility is categorically different from Engineer B's ethical violation: County A's failure was one of procurement process design, while Engineer B's failure was one of deliberate misrepresentation and knowing acceptance of work outside competence. The ethical framework governing licensed professional engineers places the primary duty of honest competence representation on the engineer, not on the client to independently audit that representation. County A's procedural shortcomings therefore constitute an institutional lesson about procurement design rather than an ethical violation equivalent to Engineer B's.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.713219
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 1 b
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: II.1.b.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: Engineer B's act of affixing a professional seal to the completed rural roadway design documents constitutes a separate and distinct ethical violation beyond the initial violation of accepting work outside competence. Code provision II.2.b. explicitly prohibits engineers from affixing their signatures to plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, and Code provision II.1.b. requires that engineers approve only those engineering documents that conform to applicable standards. By sealing documents in a domain — rural roadway design — where the firm's own subsequent admission confirmed a lack of understanding of proper design principles, Engineer B made a formal professional representation to the public, to the County, and to any reviewing authority that the documents met professional standards. This representation was false. The professional seal carries legal and ethical weight precisely because it signals to non-engineers that a qualified professional has exercised responsible charge over the work. Using that seal to certify work that Engineer B knew or should have known was deficient transforms the seal from a mark of professional accountability into an instrument of misrepresentation. This sealing violation is analytically independent of the contract acceptance violation: even if one were to argue that accepting the contract was marginally defensible on the theory that Engineer B genuinely believed competence could be developed, the act of sealing completed documents after the design work revealed the firm's deficiencies admits of no similar defense.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.713340
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 2
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.2.
cited provision2: II.2.
cited provision3: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B failed their categorical duty of honest competence representation to County A. The duty to represent one's qualifications honestly is not contingent on outcomes — it is not discharged by the fact that the project ultimately remained within budget through the extraordinary efforts of County staff. Engineer B's assurances of adequate performance in rural roadway design were representations about a matter of fact — the firm's competence — that Engineer B had reason to know were false or at minimum unverified. A deontological analysis does not permit Engineer B to argue that the assurances were given in good faith simply because the firm hoped to develop competence through the project itself. The duty of honest representation requires that the engineer assess their actual competence before making representations, not after contract award. Furthermore, the categorical duty to protect public welfare — implicated by affixing a professional seal to deficient roadway design documents — is not satisfied by the absence of catastrophic physical harm. The duty exists independently of whether harm materializes, because the professional seal is a public-facing representation that triggers reliance by contractors, inspectors, and the public who cannot independently evaluate the adequacy of engineering design.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.713429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: I 2
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.2.
cited provision2: II.2.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, the aggregate harm produced by Engineer B's acceptance of the rural roadway contract clearly and substantially outweighed the benefit of preserving the firm's financial position and preventing staff layoffs. The harms were concrete and documented: a significant number of field revisions required during construction, miscalculated quantities of work, excessive time and effort imposed on County staff, growing institutional frustration with the quality of work, and an ongoing public safety risk from a deficient roadway design. The benefit — preservation of Engineer B's firm and staff employment — was real but private and concentrated, accruing only to Engineer B's organization. Against this, the harms were diffuse and public, falling on County A's staff, on the taxpayers funding the project, and on the public who would use the roadway. A consequentialist calculus must also account for systemic harms: if engineers routinely accept work outside their competence to preserve their firms, the reliability of the professional engineering system as a whole is degraded, imposing diffuse but significant costs on public trust in engineering credentials. The fact that the project remained within budget does not neutralize the consequentialist analysis, because budget preservation was achieved only through the uncompensated absorption of extraordinary effort by County staff — a cost that was real even if it did not appear as a budget overrun.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.713501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B failed to demonstrate the core professional virtues of integrity and honesty at the moment of bidding and throughout the project lifecycle. A virtuous engineer, confronting a business downturn and the prospect of staff layoffs, would have recognized the temptation to overstate competence and would have resisted it — not merely because the Code prohibits misrepresentation, but because honesty about one's limitations is constitutive of what it means to be a professional engineer. The virtue of practical wisdom — phronesis — would have directed Engineer B to recognize that accepting work outside competence, even with good intentions toward staff, would ultimately harm the client, the public, and the firm's own long-term reputation more severely than declining the work. Engineer B's lobbying of the County Commission further reflects a deficit of the virtue of professional honor: rather than allowing qualifications to speak for themselves, Engineer B deployed political influence to compensate for a qualification deficit. The eventual admission of incompetence during the construction meeting, while reflecting a belated exercise of honesty, does not retroactively establish the virtuous character that the initial misrepresentation and lobbying revealed to be absent. Virtue ethics evaluates character as expressed through a pattern of conduct, and the pattern here — misrepresentation, political lobbying, deficient design, delayed admission — reflects a consistent prioritization of self-interest over professional integrity.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.713575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: I 2
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: I.2.
cited provision2: II.2.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: The construction problems and the excessive burden imposed on County staff would very likely have been substantially avoided had Engineer B declined the rural roadway contract and referred County A to a firm with demonstrated highway design competence. The case facts establish that all local engineering firms responded to the advertisement and that there was sufficient design work for each firm to receive one or more projects. This means the competitive pool included other firms whose qualifications in rural roadway design were not assessed in the record but who, unlike Engineer B, were not known to lack that competence. A referral by Engineer B to a more qualified firm, or Engineer B's non-participation, would have allowed County A to allocate the rural roadway project to a firm better positioned to perform it competently. The immediate emergence of construction problems — field revisions, miscalculated quantities, excessive County staff burden — are precisely the categories of harm that competent rural roadway design would have prevented or substantially reduced. The counterfactual therefore strongly supports the conclusion that Engineer B's acceptance of the contract was not merely a technical ethical violation but a causally significant contributor to concrete, avoidable harm.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.713647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 5 a
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.5.a.
cited provision2: II.2.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: Had Engineer B disclosed the firm's lack of rural roadway design experience to County A before contract award rather than providing assurances of adequate performance, County A would have had a meaningful opportunity to make an informed procurement decision. Given that all local firms responded to the advertisement and that sufficient work existed for each firm, County A could have allocated the rural roadway project to a different local firm with relevant highway design experience, or could have required Engineer B to demonstrate a plan for obtaining qualified highway engineering expertise — whether through subconsultant engagement, mentorship, or collaboration — as a condition of award. The disclosure would have converted a situation of uninformed reliance on false assurances into one of informed client choice. This counterfactual underscores that the ethical harm of Engineer B's misrepresentation was not merely abstract: it specifically deprived County A of decision-making information that was material to the procurement outcome. Code provision II.5.a. prohibits engineers from permitting misrepresentation of their qualifications precisely because clients are not positioned to independently verify technical competence claims and must rely on the engineer's honest self-assessment.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.713720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 2
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.2.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
cited provision3: I.2.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: Even if Engineer B had engaged a qualified rural roadway design subconsultant or sought mentorship from an experienced highway engineer before beginning design work, the initial misrepresentation to County A during the bidding process would remain an independent and unremediated ethical breach. The ethical violation of falsely representing competence to obtain a contract is complete at the moment the misrepresentation is made — it is not cured by subsequent remediation of the underlying competence deficit. However, the engagement of a qualified subconsultant or mentor would have substantially mitigated the practical harm: the design deficiencies, field revisions, and miscalculated quantities that burdened County staff would likely have been avoided or reduced if competent highway engineering expertise had been applied to the design work. This creates an important analytical distinction: post-award competence remediation through subconsultant engagement addresses the harm dimension of the violation but does not address the honesty and misrepresentation dimension. Engineer B would still have obtained the contract through false assurances and political lobbying rather than through demonstrated merit, and the County would still have been denied the opportunity to make an informed procurement decision. The ethical framework therefore requires both honest pre-award representation and competent post-award performance — remediation of one dimension does not substitute for the other.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.713824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: I 2
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: I.2.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: II.2.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: The tension between Client Loyalty and Public Welfare Paramount in this case reveals a deeper irony: Engineer B's motivation to preserve the client relationship and avoid staff layoffs — the very self-interest that drove the decision to accept the contract — ultimately produced the most severe possible violation of client loyalty by delivering deficient work that burdened County staff, frustrated the County, and damaged the professional relationship. This dynamic illustrates that the principles of Client Loyalty and Public Welfare Paramount are not genuinely in tension here — they converge on the same conclusion. A truly client-loyal engineer would have declined work they could not perform competently, because accepting such work and delivering deficient results is the most profound betrayal of client trust available to a professional. The apparent tension dissolves upon analysis: Engineer B's self-interest was dressed in the language of client service and staff welfare, but the actual effect was to subordinate both client welfare and public safety to the firm's short-term financial survival. The Code's structure — placing public welfare paramount above client loyalty — reflects the recognition that when engineers genuinely face a conflict between the two, public welfare must prevail. But this case does not even present a genuine conflict: competent performance would have served both the client and the public simultaneously.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.713905
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: The principle tension between Honesty in Professional Representations and Professional Reputation and Honor resolves against Engineer B in a self-defeating manner: the misrepresentation of competence that Engineer B deployed to win the contract and preserve the firm's reputation produced precisely the reputational harm that the lobbying and false assurances were presumably designed to avoid. By winning a contract through misrepresentation and then delivering deficient work, Engineer B transformed a temporary business downturn — which carries no inherent reputational stigma — into a documented record of incompetent performance, client frustration, and ethical violation. A firm that honestly declines work outside its competence and refers clients to more qualified engineers builds a reputation for integrity and professional self-awareness. A firm that accepts such work through misrepresentation and delivers deficient results builds a reputation for dishonesty and incompetence. The long-term reputational calculus therefore strongly favored honest disclosure and declination, and Engineer B's choice to prioritize short-term contract acquisition over honest representation was not only ethically wrong but strategically self-defeating. This analysis reinforces the Board's conclusion by demonstrating that the ethical path and the self-interested path converged — Engineer B's violation was not even necessary to achieve the firm's legitimate interest in preserving its professional standing.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.713978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: I 2
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 211
cited provision1: I.2.
cited provision2: II.2.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The most fundamental principle tension in this case — between Client Loyalty and Public Welfare Paramount — was not genuinely resolved by Engineer B but was instead collapsed into a single failure: the decision to accept the contract. Engineer B's stated motivation for pursuing the rural roadway contract was firm survival and staff retention, which superficially resembles client loyalty but is more accurately characterized as self-interest. Paradoxically, the act of accepting work outside competence to preserve the client relationship ultimately destroyed that relationship, as County A grew increasingly frustrated with the deficient design. This case teaches that Client Loyalty and Public Welfare Paramount are not genuinely in tension when the client's actual interest — receiving competent engineering services — aligns with the public's interest in safe infrastructure. The apparent tension dissolves upon closer examination: a truly client-loyal engineer would have declined the contract or disclosed the competence gap, because only a competent design serves the client's real interest. Engineer B's framing of the dilemma as loyalty versus welfare was therefore a false construction that obscured the underlying self-interest driving the decision.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The principle of Honesty in Professional Representations and the principle of Professional Reputation and Honor are revealed by this case to be mutually reinforcing rather than genuinely in tension, yet Engineer B treated them as if they were separable. Engineer B's lobbying of the County Commission and false assurances of competence were presumably motivated by a desire to protect the firm's reputation and financial standing — the very goods that Professional Reputation and Honor are meant to preserve. However, the case demonstrates that misrepresenting competence to win a contract is self-defeating from a reputational standpoint: the subsequent construction failures, County frustration, and eventual admission of incompetence caused precisely the reputational harm that the misrepresentation was intended to prevent. This case teaches that Honesty in Professional Representations is not merely a deontological constraint imposed on engineers from outside but is constitutive of the professional reputation that engineers seek to protect. An engineer cannot simultaneously violate the former while preserving the latter. The Board's conclusion of unethical conduct is therefore reinforced by the recognition that Engineer B's self-interested strategy was not only ethically wrong but instrumentally irrational.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714144
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: II 2
cites provision: II 5 a
cites provision: I 2
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: I.2.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: II.2.
cited provision4: II.5.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The partial satisfaction of Professional Accountability through Engineer B's eventual admission of incompetence during the construction meeting carries insufficient ethical weight to mitigate the prior violations of Public Welfare Paramount and Competence Assurance, and this case establishes a clear principle-prioritization hierarchy: prospective obligations to avoid harm outrank retrospective obligations to acknowledge it. Professional Accountability, when exercised only after harm has materialized, functions as a post-hoc confession rather than a genuine ethical safeguard. The admission did not prevent the field revisions, the miscalculated quantities, the excessive burden on County staff, or the public safety risk created by the deficient design. This case teaches that the ethical weight of accountability disclosures is inversely proportional to the delay between the moment the engineer knew or should have known of the deficiency and the moment of disclosure. Because Engineer B knew before contract acceptance that the firm lacked rural roadway design competence, the obligation to disclose arose at the bidding stage — not during a construction meeting after problems had already emerged. The Fairness in Professional Competition principle, implicated by County A's local-only advertisement policy, further compounds this analysis: a procurement structure that restricts the competitive pool does not transfer ethical responsibility from Engineer B to County A, because the obligation to self-assess and honestly represent competence is non-delegable and attaches to the individual engineer regardless of how the procurement is structured.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Contract Awarded to Engineer B
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_of_Record_Competence_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Liability_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Safety_Design_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer B transitions from candidate to engineer of record; legal and professional obligations to deliver competent roadway design are now binding; County has transferred design responsibility to an incompetent party
concept category: Event
creates obligation: County_Must_Supervise_Deliverables
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Disclose_Limitations_Before_Design_Begins
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Perform_Competently_Or_Associate_With_Qualified_Expert
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Following lobbying and assurances; conclusion of procurement process
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: medium
comment: County A formally awarded Engineer B a single roadway design project contract, making Engineer B the engineer of record despite the firm's lack of rural roadway design experience.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197089
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

County A Local Advertisement Policy Competitive Procurement Constraint
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: County A published its advertisement for rural roadway design consulting services only locally, resulting in all local firms responding and receiving work regardless of domain-specific competence in rural roadway design.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: County A
constraintclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
constraintstatement: County A's policy of advertising consulting engineering services only locally constrained the agency from accessing the full pool of qualified engineering firms, potentially resulting in contract awards to firms lacking domain-specific competence when no locally qualified firm existed for the required specialty.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics and public procurement fairness principles; competitive qualification-based selection standards
sourcetext: It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases.
temporalscope: Procurement phase for rural roadway design consulting services
textreferences: All local engineering firms responded to the advertisement.
textreferences: It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases.
textreferences: Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally.
textreferences: There was enough design work available that each of the local firms could receive one or more design projects.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.188068
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

County A Local Procurement Policy Competitive Fairness Assessment
type: LocalProcurementPolicyCompetitiveFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Local Procurement Policy Competitive Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: County A was obligated to assess whether its local-only advertisement policy for consulting engineering services provided fair and open competitive opportunity to all qualified firms and complied with QBS procurement law requirements, rather than restricting competition to local firms regardless of their domain-specific competence.
casecontext: County A's local preference procurement policy restricted competition in a manner that contributed to the award of a rural roadway design contract to an incompetent firm, raising questions about the policy's compliance with QBS procurement law and professional ethics.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: County A's policy of advertising consulting engineering services only locally, which resulted in the award of a rural roadway design contract to a local water and wastewater engineering firm lacking domain-specific competence in rural roadway design.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: County A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: County A was obligated to evaluate whether its policy of advertising consulting engineering services only locally — thereby restricting competition to local firms — provided fair and open competitive opportunity to all qualified firms.
textreferences: County A was obligated to evaluate whether its policy of advertising consulting engineering services only locally — thereby restricting competition to local firms — provided fair and open competitive opportunity to all qualified firms.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

County A Local Procurement Policy Competitive Fairness Assessment Deficit
type: LocalProcurementPolicyCompetitiveFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Local Procurement Policy Competitive Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: County A failed to exercise the capability to evaluate whether its local-only advertisement policy for consulting engineering services provided fair and open competitive opportunity and served the public interest in obtaining the most competent available engineering services.
casecontext: County A's procurement policy decision to advertise consulting engineering services only locally
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Absence demonstrated by County A's continuation of a local-only advertisement policy that resulted in award of a rural roadway design contract to a firm without rural roadway design competence, when broader advertisement might have identified more qualified firms.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: County A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases.
textreferences: All local engineering firms responded to the advertisement.
textreferences: It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases.
textreferences: Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally.
textreferences: There was enough design work available that each of the local firms could receive one or more design projects.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.190896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

County A Resource Constrained - Insufficient Engineering Staff
type: ResourceConstrained
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the period preceding the advertisement through the construction season
affectedparties: County A
affectedparties: County engineering staff
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: County A was expecting a significant amount of rural roadway construction in the upcoming construction season.
stateclass: Resource Constrained
subject: County A's internal engineering staffing capacity relative to expected rural roadway construction workload
terminatedby: Engagement of consulting firms to supplement County engineering capacity
textreferences: County A did not have enough engineering staff to handle the design effort required for the expected workload.
textreferences: County A was expecting a significant amount of rural roadway construction in the upcoming construction season.
textreferences: Therefore, the County decided to advertise for consulting services to accomplish the needed design.
triggeringevent: Significant rural roadway construction workload anticipated for the upcoming construction season exceeding County's internal engineering staff capacity
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.182028
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

County A Staff Construction Period Services Execution Rural Roadway
type: RuralRoadwayDesignTechnicalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Rural Roadway Design Technical Competence
capabilitystatement: County A staff engineers demonstrated sufficient technical capability to manage construction period services for the rural roadway project, resolving field revisions and quantity discrepancies sufficiently to keep the project within budget despite the design deficiencies.
casecontext: County A staff's performance of construction administration and field engineering services in lieu of the design engineer
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Demonstrated by County A staff's successful management of construction period services, resolving significant field revisions and quantity discrepancies while keeping the project within budget.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: County A Staff Engineers
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services.
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services.
textreferences: Through the efforts of the County staff, the project was able to remain within its budget.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.191037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

County A Staff County Construction Period Services Staff Engineer
type: CountyConstructionPeriodServicesStaffEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'County government staff engineers', 'service_type': 'Construction period administration and field revision management', 'outcome': 'Project maintained within budget despite design deficiencies'}
caseinvolvement: County engineering staff who performed construction administration and field engineering services in lieu of the design engineer during construction, managing numerous field revisions and resolving quantity miscalculation issues caused by Engineer B's deficient design, ultimately keeping the project within budget.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:10.493305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:10.493305+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'County A'}
relationships: {'type': 'remediated_work_of', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: County Construction Period Services Staff Engineer
sourcetext: the County decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary
textreferences: Through the efforts of the County staff, the project was able to remain within its budget
textreferences: resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve
textreferences: the County decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.180477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

County advertisement for consulting services before all local firms responding
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The County decided to advertise for consulting services... Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally. All local engineering firms responded to the advertisement.
from entity text: County advertisement for consulting services
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: all local firms responding
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: all local firms responding
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

County bidding the project before construction phase
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction.
from entity text: County bidding the project
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: construction phase
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: construction phase
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197638
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

County staff resolving construction issues during construction phase
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Through the efforts of the County staff, the project was able to remain within its budget.
from entity text: County staff resolving construction issues
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: construction phase
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: construction phase
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer B have accepted the rural roadway design contract by asserting competence and lobbying the County Commission, given the firm's lack of demonstrated experience in rural highway design and the economic pressure to retain staff?
focus: Engineer B's decision to respond to County A's advertisement, lobby the County Commission, and provide affirmative assurances of competence in rural roadway design — a domain outside the firm's established water and wastewater expertise — in order to secure the contract during a business downturn.
option1: Decline to respond to the advertisement, disclose the firm's lack of rural roadway design experience to County A, and refer the County to a firm with demonstrated highway design competence
option2: Respond to the advertisement, lobby the County Commission, and provide affirmative assurances of adequate performance in rural roadway design to secure the contract
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714339
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Was Engineer B obligated to refrain from sealing the completed roadway design documents and to proactively disclose design deficiencies to County A at the earliest moment those deficiencies became apparent during construction, rather than waiting for a County-convened meeting to acknowledge the firm's competence limitations?
focus: Engineer B's decision to complete the rural roadway design, affix a professional seal to the design documents, and proceed without disclosing design deficiencies to County A — followed by a delayed admission of incompetence only after construction problems emerged and County A convened a formal meeting.
option1: Refrain from sealing the design documents, proactively disclose competence limitations and design deficiencies to County A at the earliest opportunity, and recommend engagement of qualified highway engineering expertise to remediate the design before construction proceeds
option2: Affix the professional seal to the completed design documents, allow construction to proceed without disclosing known competence limitations, and admit design deficiencies only after County A convenes a formal construction meeting
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Did County A bear a degree of shared institutional responsibility for the outcome by restricting its advertisement to local firms, accepting Engineer B's competence assurances without independent verification, and excluding the design engineer from construction period services — and should County A have implemented qualification verification and broader advertisement practices to safeguard procurement integrity?
focus: County A's institutional decisions — advertising engineering services only locally, accepting Engineer B's assurances of competence without independent qualification verification, and excluding Engineer B from construction period services — and whether those decisions constitute shared institutional responsibility for the harm that materialized.
option1: Require applicants to demonstrate relevant domain-specific experience through project references and personnel qualifications before award, advertise beyond local firms when local competence in the required domain cannot be confirmed, and include the design engineer in construction period services to enable early detection and correction of design deficiencies
option2: Award the contract based solely on engineer-provided assurances of competence without independent qualification verification, restrict advertisement to local firms regardless of domain-specific competence availability, and exclude the design engineer from construction period services
role label: County A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714482
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer B accept the rural roadway design contract by lobbying the County Commission and asserting competence, given that the firm's established expertise is in water and wastewater engineering and not rural roadway design?
focus: Engineer B's decision to respond to the rural roadway advertisement, lobby the County Commission, and assert competence in a domain outside the firm's established expertise in water and wastewater engineering, under economic pressure from a business downturn
option1: Lobby the County Commission, assert competence in rural roadway design, and accept the contract
option2: Decline to accept the rural roadway contract and refer County A to a firm with demonstrated highway design competence
option3: Respond to the advertisement while disclosing the firm's competence limitations and proposing engagement of a qualified rural roadway subconsultant as a condition of award
role label: Engineer B Rural Roadway Design Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer B affix a professional seal to the completed rural roadway design documents and, once construction problems emerge, proactively disclose the design deficiencies to County A at the earliest moment rather than waiting for a formal County-initiated meeting?
focus: Engineer B's completion and sealing of the rural roadway design documents, and the subsequent obligation to proactively disclose design deficiencies to County A once construction problems emerged, rather than waiting for a County-convened meeting
option1: Affix the professional seal to the completed roadway design documents and wait for County A to convene a formal meeting before acknowledging design deficiencies
option2: Refuse to affix the professional seal to design documents produced outside the firm's domain competence and immediately disclose the competence limitation to County A
option3: Affix the professional seal but proactively disclose emerging construction deficiencies to County A at the earliest moment problems become apparent, without waiting for a County-initiated meeting
role label: Engineer B Rural Roadway Design Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714631
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer B lobby the County Commission and assert adequate competence in rural roadway design when the firm's established expertise is limited to water and wastewater engineering and the firm faces economic pressure?
focus: Engineer B's decision to lobby the County Commission and assert competence in rural roadway design despite lacking domain expertise, in response to a public advertisement during a business downturn
option1: Lobby the County Commission and assert adequate competence in rural roadway design to secure the contract
option2: Decline to pursue the rural roadway contract and refer County A to a firm with demonstrated highway design competence
option3: Respond to the advertisement while honestly disclosing the firm's lack of rural roadway experience and proposing a qualified subconsultant arrangement as a condition of award
role label: Engineer B Rural Roadway Design Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.714745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: Should Engineer B affix a professional seal to completed rural roadway design documents and withhold disclosure of design deficiencies until a County-convened construction meeting, given that the firm lacked domain competence and construction problems were immediately apparent?
focus: Engineer B's act of completing and affixing a professional seal to rural roadway design documents in a domain where the firm lacked requisite competence, and the subsequent delayed admission of design deficiencies only after construction problems emerged
option1: Affix the professional seal to the completed roadway design documents and withhold disclosure of emerging construction problems until a County-convened meeting
option2: Refuse to affix the professional seal to the roadway design documents and immediately notify County A of the firm's competence limitations before finalizing the design
option3: Affix the professional seal but proactively disclose design deficiencies to County A at the earliest moment construction problems become apparent, and recommend engagement of qualified highway engineering expertise
role label: Engineer B Rural Roadway Design Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.716383
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Design Phase Completed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Professional_Seal_Integrity_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Safety_Design_Constraint
activates constraint: Sealed_Document_Competence_Constraint
causes state change: Flawed design documents now exist as the official basis for construction; errors are locked into the contract documents; downstream construction problems are now structurally inevitable
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Construction_Must_Follow_Sealed_Documents
creates obligation: County_Must_Review_Design_Before_Bidding
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Remains_Available_For_Design_Clarifications
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Following contract award; prior to County bidding the project
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer B completed and signed the rural roadway design, producing a set of construction documents that would later prove to contain significant errors in field conditions, quantities, and design details attributable to the firm's lack of roadway expertise.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Competence Standard BER 02-5 Distinguishing Constraint
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER distinguished Engineer B's situation from BER Case 02-5, where the engineer was competent in the field but unfamiliar with recently proposed parameters not yet adopted as standards. Engineer B's deficit was not unfamiliarity with emerging standards but rather fundamental lack of competence in the domain, making the constraint absolute rather than subject to the emerging-standards exception.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Competence Constraint
constraintstatement: Unlike the engineer in BER Case 02-5 — who was competent in severe weather structural engineering but merely unfamiliar with recently proposed (not yet standardized) design parameters — Engineer B was constrained by a more fundamental competence deficit: the absence of demonstrated competence in the specific technical domain of rural roadway design itself, not merely unfamiliarity with emerging standards within a domain of established competence.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:02.123366+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:02.123366+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics II.2.a; II.2.b; BER Case 02-5 (distinguished); BER Case 98-8 (analogous)
sourcetext: In BER Case 02-5, the Board studied a situation in which a structural engineer, competent in severe weather structural engineering, designed a building that had a structural failure from a severe weather condition.
temporalscope: Throughout the project from bid through construction
textreferences: In BER Case 02-5, the Board studied a situation in which a structural engineer, competent in severe weather structural engineering, designed a building that had a structural failure from a severe weather condition.
textreferences: In Case 02-5, the engineer was considered competent in all other respects, it was just that the engineer was not familiar with the recently proposed design parameters.
textreferences: In the present case, the question is whether Engineer B is competent.
textreferences: The Board concluded that it was not unethical for the engineer to fail to follow the most recent design parameters for structural design in severe weather areas published in the most recent technical literature, because those recently proposed design parameters had not yet become standards.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.194825
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Construction Period Services Advisory Deficit County A
type: ConstructionPeriodServicesScopeAdvisoryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Construction Period Services Scope Advisory Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to exercise the capability to advise County A about the risks of proceeding with construction without the design engineer's involvement in construction period services, particularly given the firm's known competence limitations in rural roadway design.
casecontext: Engineer B's failure to advise County A about construction period services risks before construction commenced
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Absence demonstrated by County A's decision to use its own staff for construction period services without apparent advisory input from Engineer B about the risks of this arrangement, and the subsequent construction problems that resulted.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services.
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
textreferences: The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.190575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Design Deficiency Causal Attribution Admission Construction Meeting
type: DesignDeficiencyCausalAttributionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Design Deficiency Causal Attribution Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated partial capability to attribute design deficiencies to the firm's own competence limitations, admitting during a construction meeting that problems were outside the firm's understanding of proper design — though this attribution came late, after construction problems had already materialized.
casecontext: Engineer B's admission during a meeting with County A as construction problems occurred
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Demonstrated (belatedly) by Engineer B's admission during a construction meeting that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design and could have been avoided if understood.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.190118
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Design Deficiency Causal Attribution Rural Roadway Construction
type: DesignDeficiencyCausalAttributionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Design Deficiency Causal Attribution Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B was obligated to identify and accurately attribute the root causes of the rural roadway design deficiencies — including acknowledging that deficiencies arose from the firm's lack of domain competence — and to communicate this causal attribution honestly to County A during and after construction.
casecontext: Engineer B's design deficiencies during County A's rural roadway construction required honest causal attribution to the firm's competence limitations, consistent with professional accountability obligations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Design deficiencies including miscalculated quantities and construction problems that required field revisions, attributable to Engineer B's lack of rural roadway design competence.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
textreferences: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
textreferences: it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196426
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Design Deficiency Early Disclosure Deficit County A
type: DesignDeficiencyCausalAttributionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Design Deficiency Causal Attribution Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to exercise the capability to disclose design deficiencies early — before or at the onset of construction — instead waiting until problems had already materialized during construction before acknowledging competence limitations.
casecontext: Engineer B's failure to disclose design deficiencies to County A before construction commenced
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Absence of early disclosure demonstrated by the fact that problems began occurring immediately during construction before Engineer B acknowledged the deficiencies, rather than proactively disclosing known competence limitations before construction commenced.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
textreferences: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.190402
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Rural Roadway
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to correctly recognize and apply the boundary between the firm's established water and wastewater engineering competence and the distinct technical domain of rural roadway design, incorrectly treating general civil engineering qualification as sufficient for rural roadway design work.
casecontext: Engineer B's failure to recognize the competence boundary between water/wastewater engineering and rural roadway design led to acceptance of an out-of-competence contract and production of a deficient design.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Accepting a rural roadway design contract and performing the design despite the firm's lack of domain-specific competence, resulting in design deficiencies that would have been avoided if the design met standards.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
textreferences: Education provides scientific and technical knowledge which are a necessary foundation for professional competence, but it is also the experiences of working within the technical fields that build competence.
textreferences: II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
textreferences: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
textreferences: it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.195295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Domain Expertise Water Wastewater Engineering
type: DomainExpertise
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Domain Expertise
capabilitystatement: Engineer B possessed domain expertise as an experienced water and wastewater engineer, but this expertise did not extend to rural roadway design, creating a competence gap when accepting the County A contract.
casecontext: Engineer B's established professional domain as a water and wastewater engineer, contrasted with the rural roadway design domain of the County A contract
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Established by case description identifying Engineer B as an experienced water and wastewater engineer, with the competence gap demonstrated by subsequent design deficiencies in the rural roadway domain.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work
textreferences: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.191191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Economic Pressure Resistance Deficit Rural Roadway Contract
type: EconomicPressureResistanceinContractAcceptanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Economic Pressure Resistance in Contract Acceptance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to exercise the capability to resist economic pressure when accepting the rural roadway design contract, allowing the firm's revenue downturn and staff retention concerns to override professional competence standards.
casecontext: Engineer B's decision to accept County A's rural roadway design contract despite competence limitations, driven by economic self-interest
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Absence demonstrated by Engineer B's acceptance of an out-of-competence contract explicitly motivated by the firm's revenue downturn and risk of staff layoffs.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
textreferences: Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.189381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Economic Pressure Resistance Rural Roadway Contract Acceptance
type: EconomicPressureResistanceinContractAcceptanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Economic Pressure Resistance in Contract Acceptance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to resist economic pressure — including revenue and staff retention considerations — when accepting the rural roadway design contract outside the firm's competence domain, subordinating professional competence standards to financial self-interest.
casecontext: Engineer B's acceptance of the out-of-competence rural roadway design contract reflects failure to resist economic pressure, consistent with the pattern identified in the Economic Pressure Non-Subordination of Competence Obligation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Accepting the rural roadway design contract despite lacking domain competence, in a context where the firm's revenue needs and desire to retain staff created pressure to accept available work regardless of competence fit.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
textreferences: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
textreferences: I.6 indicates that engineers shall conduct themselves in a way so to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.195799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Ethical Perception Deficit Competence Boundary Recognition
type: EthicalPerception
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethical Perception
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to exercise the capability to recognize the ethically salient features of the situation — specifically, that accepting a contract outside the firm's competence domain, motivated by economic self-interest, and supported by political lobbying rather than technical qualification, raised significant professional ethics concerns.
casecontext: Engineer B's failure to recognize the ethical dimensions of accepting an out-of-competence contract under economic pressure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Absence demonstrated by Engineer B's acceptance of the contract, provision of false assurances, and political lobbying, without apparent recognition of the ethical dimensions of these actions until construction problems forced acknowledgment.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.191401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Honest Competence Representation Deficit County A Procurement
type: AIDisclosureandTransparencyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: AI Disclosure and Transparency Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to honestly represent the firm's competence limitations to County A during the procurement process, providing false assurances of adequacy rather than accurately disclosing the firm's lack of rural roadway design experience.
casecontext: Engineer B's representations to County A during the consulting services procurement process
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.72
demonstratedthrough: Absence demonstrated by Engineer B's provision of assurances of adequate performance to County A despite having no rural roadway design experience, and subsequent admission of competence limitations only after construction problems emerged.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.189988
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Political Lobbying Non-Substitution County Commission Contract
type: PoliticalInfluenceNon-SubstitutionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Political Influence Non-Substitution Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to maintain the boundary between legitimate technical qualification-based competition and improper political lobbying, directly lobbying the County Commission in favor of receiving the rural roadway design contract rather than competing solely on demonstrated technical competence.
casecontext: Engineer B's direct lobbying of the County Commission to obtain the rural roadway design contract constituted substitution of political influence for technical qualification, in violation of professional ethics obligations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Directly lobbying the County Commission to receive the rural roadway design contract award, substituting political influence for technical qualification in the procurement process.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
textreferences: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
textreferences: I.6 indicates that engineers shall conduct themselves in a way so to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Political Lobbying Non-Substitution Deficit County Commission
type: PoliticalInfluenceNon-SubstitutionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Political Influence Non-Substitution Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to exercise the capability to refrain from substituting political lobbying for technical qualification, instead lobbying the County Commission directly in favor of receiving the contract award.
casecontext: Engineer B's conduct during the County A rural roadway design procurement process
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Absence demonstrated by Engineer B's direct lobbying of the County Commission in favor of receiving the contract award, rather than competing solely on the basis of technical qualifications.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
textreferences: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.189523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Award Competence Remediation Constraint Rural Roadway
type: Post-AwardCompetenceRemediationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B accepted the contract, completed the design without associating with competent rural roadway design professionals or disclosing the competence gap, and submitted a deficient design that caused immediate and significant construction problems.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Post-Award Competence Remediation Constraint
constraintstatement: After accepting the rural roadway design contract, Engineer B was constrained from proceeding through design completion without either associating with a competent rural roadway design engineer, obtaining adequate technical guidance, or disclosing the competence gap to County A — the firm's failure to remediate the competence gap before completing the design directly caused the construction deficiencies.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Cases 98-8 and 94-8 establishing that engineers must not perform work outside their competence without remediation
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
temporalscope: Post-award design phase through design completion
textreferences: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
textreferences: Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.188248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Post-Award Competence Remediation Rural Roadway Design
type: Post-AwardCompetenceRemediationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B accepted the rural roadway design contract and proceeded through design completion and sealing without obtaining qualified assistance or disclosing the competence gap to County A, resulting in design deficiencies that required field revisions during construction.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Post-Award Competence Remediation Constraint
constraintstatement: After accepting the rural roadway design contract, Engineer B was constrained to immediately obtain qualified assistance, associate with competent professionals in rural highway design, or disclose the competence gap to County A before proceeding with design work — and was prohibited from proceeding through design completion and sealing without either acquiring the requisite competence or disclosing the limitation.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:02.123366+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:02.123366+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics II.2.a; II.2.b; BER Case 98-8
sourcetext: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
temporalscope: From contract award through design completion and plan sealing
textreferences: In BER Case 98-8, a professional engineer in civil engineering was asked to certify certain arms storage rooms and racks for the Army. This engineer had no significant training or knowledge in that area, although the engineer was considered a qualified engineer. The Board concluded that, because the engineer lacked competence in the specific area, it would not be ethical for the engineer to certify the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks.
textreferences: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
textreferences: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.194678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Deficit Rural Roadway
type: Pre-AcceptanceCompetenceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to conduct an honest self-assessment of the firm's competence in rural roadway design before accepting County A's contract, instead providing assurances of adequacy despite having no experience in the domain.
casecontext: Engineer B's pre-contract acceptance decision regarding County A's rural roadway design solicitation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Absence demonstrated by Engineer B's acceptance of the rural roadway design contract despite being an experienced water and wastewater engineer with no rural roadway design experience, and subsequent admission during construction that problems were outside the firm's understanding.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.189224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Rural Roadway Contract
type: Pre-AcceptanceCompetenceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to conduct an honest and rigorous self-assessment of the firm's competence in rural roadway design before accepting County A's contract, failing to identify the gap between the firm's water and wastewater expertise and the rural roadway design requirements.
casecontext: Engineer B's failure to conduct adequate pre-acceptance competence self-assessment resulted in acceptance of an out-of-competence contract and production of a deficient rural roadway design for County A.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Accepting the rural roadway design contract despite being a water and wastewater engineering firm without identified significant roadway design skills, and subsequently producing a design with significant deficiencies including miscalculated quantities.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
textreferences: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
textreferences: II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
textreferences: it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.195658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Precedent-Based Competence Ethical Reasoning Rural Roadway
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to apply the capability to use BER precedent cases — particularly BER 98-8 and BER 94-8 — to correctly assess whether accepting and performing rural roadway design work outside the firm's competence domain constituted an ethical violation.
casecontext: Had Engineer B applied BER precedent reasoning, the firm would have recognized that accepting a rural roadway design contract without domain-specific competence was analogous to the ethical violations found in BER Cases 98-8 and 94-8.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure to recognize the analogy between the firm's situation and BER Case 98-8 (engineer certifying arms storage without domain competence) and BER Case 94-8 (chemical engineer performing foundation design), which would have indicated that accepting the rural roadway design contract was ethically impermissible.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: In BER Case 98-8, a professional engineer in civil engineering was asked to certify certain arms storage rooms and racks for the Army... The Board concluded that, because the engineer lacked competence in the specific area, it would not be ethical for the engineer to certify the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks. That case is analogous to the present case.
textreferences: BER Case 94-8 provided an extreme example of incompetence. In that case, a professional engineer with a degree and background in chemical engineering was asked to provide a foundation design for an industrial facility. The Board determined that it would be unethical for the engineer to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.
textreferences: In BER Case 98-8, a professional engineer in civil engineering was asked to certify certain arms storage rooms and racks for the Army... The Board concluded that, because the engineer lacked competence in the specific area, it would not be ethical for the engineer to certify the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks. That case is analogous to the present case.
textreferences: In both instances, while competent in some areas, the engineer in question may not have been competent in the specific areas of practice in question, in which case, the engineer acted unethically.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.195455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Professional Honor Non-Degradation Bidding Rural Roadway
type: ProfessionalHonorNon-DegradationThroughIncompetentBiddingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's decision to bid on and accept a rural highway design contract despite lacking competence in that domain was found by the BER to violate the I.6 standard requiring engineers to conduct themselves so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Professional Honor Non-Degradation Through Incompetent Bidding Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained by NSPE Code I.6 from bidding on and accepting the rural roadway design contract, because doing so — given the firm's lack of competence in that domain — constituted conduct that degraded rather than enhanced the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the engineering profession.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:02.123366+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:02.123366+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics I.6
sourcetext: Finally, I.6 indicates that engineers shall conduct themselves in a way so to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
temporalscope: At the time of bid submission and contract acceptance
textreferences: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
textreferences: Finally, I.6 indicates that engineers shall conduct themselves in a way so to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.194515
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Professional Seal Affixation Competence Verification Rural Roadway
type: ProfessionalSealAffixationCompetenceVerificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Seal Affixation Competence Verification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked the capability to correctly verify domain-specific competence before affixing their professional seal to the rural roadway design plans, sealing documents in a technical domain — rural roadway design — outside the firm's established water and wastewater engineering competence.
casecontext: Engineer B, a water and wastewater engineer, accepted and sealed rural roadway design plans for County A despite lacking domain-specific competence, in violation of NSPE Code II.2.b.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Affixing professional signature and seal to rural roadway design plans despite lacking competence in rural roadway design, resulting in design deficiencies including miscalculated quantities and significant field revisions during construction.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The Code of Ethics specifically states Engineers shall not affix their signature to any plans dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
textreferences: II.2.b. indicates further that Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
textreferences: The Code of Ethics specifically states Engineers shall not affix their signature to any plans dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
textreferences: it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.195151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Project Non-Success Advisory Deficit Rural Roadway
type: ProjectNon-SuccessAdvisoryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Project Non-Success Advisory Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to exercise the capability to advise County A that the project was likely to encounter significant problems due to the firm's competence limitations, either before accepting the contract, during design, or before construction commenced.
casecontext: Engineer B's failure to advise County A of project risk before construction problems emerged
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Absence demonstrated by Engineer B's failure to proactively advise County A of the risk of project problems arising from competence limitations, with acknowledgment of those limitations coming only after construction problems had already materialized.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
textreferences: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.190721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Public Safety Paramount Constraint Deficient Roadway Design
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's acceptance and completion of a rural roadway design project outside the firm's competence domain created foreseeable public safety risks through deficient design, which materialized as significant construction problems requiring extensive field revisions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained by the paramount public safety obligation from accepting and completing a rural roadway design project outside the firm's competence domain, as the foreseeable consequence of incompetent design — deficient roadway construction affecting public users — constituted an unmitigated risk to public welfare.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 — engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
temporalscope: Pre-acceptance through design completion and construction
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated
textreferences: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.188707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Quantity Estimation Accuracy Deficit Rural Roadway
type: QuantityEstimationAccuracyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Quantity Estimation Accuracy Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked the technical capability to accurately estimate construction quantities for the rural roadway design project, resulting in miscalculated quantities that caused excessive time and effort for the County to resolve during construction.
casecontext: Engineer B's preparation of construction bid documents for County A's rural roadway project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Absence demonstrated by miscalculated estimated quantities of work that required significant County staff effort to resolve during construction.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.189851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Quantity Estimation Accuracy Rural Roadway Design
type: QuantityEstimationAccuracyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Quantity Estimation Accuracy Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked sufficient quantity estimation accuracy capability for rural roadway design, producing miscalculated quantity estimates that contributed to construction budget overruns and required significant field revisions.
casecontext: Engineer B's deficient quantity estimation in the rural roadway design was a direct consequence of the firm's lack of domain-specific competence in rural roadway design.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Miscalculated quantities in the rural roadway design that were identified during construction and required field revisions, contributing to project cost overruns.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
textreferences: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
textreferences: it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Rural Roadway Design Technical Competence Deficiency
type: RuralRoadwayDesignTechnicalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Rural Roadway Design Technical Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked the technical competence required to design rural roadway infrastructure in accordance with applicable geometric design standards, quantity estimation methods, and drainage requirements, as evidenced by significant design deficiencies including miscalculated quantities and the need for substantial field revisions during construction.
casecontext: Engineer B, a water and wastewater engineering firm, lacked the domain-specific technical competence to perform rural roadway design for County A, resulting in a deficient design that caused construction problems.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Production of a rural roadway design with significant deficiencies including miscalculated quantities and design problems that required substantial field revisions during construction and resulted in budget overruns.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:23.101719+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
textreferences: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
textreferences: it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.195956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Rural Roadway Design Technical Competence Deficit
type: RuralRoadwayDesignTechnicalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Rural Roadway Design Technical Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked the technical competence required to design rural roadway infrastructure, including geometric design, quantity estimation, and construction administration, resulting in significant design deficiencies during construction.
casecontext: Engineer B's performance of rural roadway design services for County A
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Absence demonstrated by significant field revisions, miscalculated quantities, and Engineer B's own admission that problems were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:10.092736+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.189688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Scope of Practice Constraint Rural Highway Domain
type: ScopeofPractice
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B held licensure as a water and wastewater engineer and lacked the domain-specific competence required for rural roadway design, placing the firm outside its legitimate scope of practice when it accepted and performed the County A roadway design contract.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Scope of Practice
constraintstatement: Engineer B's professional scope of practice — defined by demonstrated competence in water and wastewater engineering — constrained the firm from practicing in the rural roadway design domain without supplemental qualification, association with competent professionals, or client disclosure.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a and II.2.b; BER Cases 98-8 and 94-8
sourcetext: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work
temporalscope: Throughout the procurement, design, and construction phases
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.187085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B lobbying County Commission before contract award to Engineer B
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor. Engineer B received an award from the County for a single roadway design project.
from entity text: Engineer B lobbying County Commission
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: contract award to Engineer B
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: contract award to Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B's admission of incompetence during construction phase
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
from entity text: Engineer B's admission of incompetence
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: construction phase
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: construction phase
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B's assurances of competence before contract award to Engineer B
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately... Engineer B received an award from the County for a single roadway design project.
from entity text: Engineer B's assurances of competence
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: contract award to Engineer B
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: contract award to Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B's business downturn overlaps County advertisement for consulting services
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: overlaps
evidence: Engineer B was experiencing a downturn in committed work... While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
from entity text: Engineer B's business downturn
owl time property: time:intervalOverlaps
to entity text: County advertisement for consulting services
comment: Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
interval overlaps: County advertisement for consulting services
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Excluding Engineer B from Construction Services
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: County Commission / County Engineering Staff
foreseen unintended effects: County staff would bear full burden of resolving design errors without recourse to the designing engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Loss of continuity between design intent and construction oversight
fulfills obligation text: Fiscal responsibility in managing public project costs
fulfills obligation text: Use of available in-house technical resources
guided by principle text: Continuity of engineering responsibility through construction
guided by principle text: Cost-effective use of public funds
guided by principle text: Public infrastructure quality assurance
has agent: County A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Reduce consulting costs by using in-house staff for construction administration and inspection
requires capability text: Construction administration and inspection for rural roadway projects
requires capability text: Coordination between design intent and field conditions
requires capability text: Field revision authority and quantity adjustment
temporal marker: Pre-construction phase, after design completion and before construction contract award
temporal sequence: 12
violates obligation text: Arguably, obligation to ensure adequate engineering oversight continuity between design and construction phases
violates obligation text: Responsibility to structure project delivery to protect public investment and infrastructure quality
within competence: true
comment: County A made the deliberate decision to use its own staff for construction-period engineering services rather than retaining Engineer B or another consultant, effectively removing the designing engineer from the construction oversight role. This decision, while administratively and financially motivated, contributed to the burden placed on County staff when design deficiencies emerged.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Excluding Engineer B from Construction Services → Absorbing Construction Burden Internally
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: County A made the deliberate decision to use its own staff for construction-period engineering services, directly transferring the burden of managing design deficiencies to an already capacity-constrained internal team
cause: Excluding Engineer B from Construction Services
counterfactual: Had County A retained Engineer B or another qualified engineer for construction-period services, field revisions would have been managed by the responsible designer, reducing burden on County staff
effect: Absorbing Construction Burden Internally
necessary factors: County A's deliberate exclusion of Engineer B from construction oversight
necessary factors: Design deficiencies requiring active field management
necessary factors: No alternative external construction-phase engineering resource retained
necessary factors: Pre-existing Staff Capacity Shortfall Confirmed
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: County A Administration
sufficient factors: Exclusion of designer + overburdened staff + deficient design requiring frequent field revisions = internal staff absorbing excessive and unmanageable workload
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

I.2.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711127
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

I.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

II.1.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711226
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

II.2.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

II.5.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Immediate Construction Problems Emerged
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Construction_Safety_Constraint
activates constraint: Engineer_of_Record_Responsibility_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Funds_Protection_Constraint
causes state change: Construction project enters crisis mode; County staff resources diverted to design problem resolution; project timeline and budget placed at risk; Engineer B's incompetence becomes operationally manifest
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Assess_Whether_Design_Is_Fundamentally_Deficient
creates obligation: County_Staff_Must_Resolve_Field_Issues
creates obligation: Document_All_Field_Revisions_For_Record
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Should_Be_Recalled_As_Engineer_of_Record
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Immediately upon construction start; early construction phase
temporal sequence: 14
urgency level: high
comment: Problems appeared immediately upon construction commencement, including numerous field revisions required, miscalculated quantities, and excessive burden placed on County staff to resolve design deficiencies in real time.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197210
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Lobbying Commission and Asserting Competence
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Principal/Owner, water/wastewater consulting firm
foreseen unintended effects: County would rely on false or overstated assurances in making award decision
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer B would be professionally and legally exposed if design failed
foreseen unintended effects: Public infrastructure could be compromised by incompetent design
guided by principle text: Honesty and integrity in representations to clients
guided by principle text: Public trust in professional licensure
guided by principle text: Transparency about limitations
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Persuade County Commission to award the contract to Engineer B's firm
requires capability text: Accurate self-assessment of competence relative to project scope
requires capability text: Honest representation of qualifications and limitations
requires capability text: Rural roadway design expertise to substantiate assurances given
temporal marker: Pre-award phase, after responding to advertisement and before contract award
temporal sequence: 7
violates obligation text: Duty of honesty to prospective client (County A)
violates obligation text: NSPE Code Section I. Paramount obligation to public safety undermined by misleading a public client
violates obligation text: NSPE Code Section II.2. Competence obligation violated by affirmatively claiming competence one does not possess
violates obligation text: NSPE Code Section II.5.a, Engineers shall not falsify or misrepresent qualifications
violates obligation text: NSPE Code Section III.2. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports and statements
violates obligation text: None, lobbying and asserting unwarranted competence does not fulfill professional obligations
within competence: false
comment: Engineer B actively lobbied the County Commission and provided explicit assurances of competence to secure the roadway design contract, despite knowing they lacked experience in rural roadway design. This constitutes a deliberate misrepresentation or at minimum an overstatement of qualifications to a public client.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Lobbying Commission and Asserting Competence → Awarding Contract Based on Assurances
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer B actively lobbied the County Commission and provided explicit assurances of competence, which directly induced the Commission to award the contract in reliance on those representations
cause: Lobbying Commission and Asserting Competence
counterfactual: Without Engineer B's active lobbying and false assurances, the Commission would have lacked the basis to award the contract; independent verification would have revealed the competence gap
effect: Awarding Contract Based on Assurances
necessary factors: Absence of independent competency verification by County A
necessary factors: Commission's reasonable reliance on professional assurances
necessary factors: Engineer B's affirmative misrepresentation of competence
necessary factors: Limited local alternatives due to geographic restriction
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer B (primary); County A Commission (secondary)
sufficient factors: Active lobbying + explicit competence assurances + Commission's reliance + no independent verification = contract award to unqualified engineer
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Local-Only Advertisement Decision
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: County Commission / Procurement Authority
foreseen unintended effects: Potential selection of a firm lacking specific competence in rural roadway design
foreseen unintended effects: Reduced pool of qualified respondents
fulfills obligation text: Procedural compliance with locally-restricted procurement policy
fulfills obligation text: Responsiveness to local community economic interests
guided by principle text: Local economic preference
guided by principle text: Public welfare and safety
guided by principle text: Responsible stewardship of public funds
has agent: County A
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Support local economy and retain local firms for publicly funded infrastructure work
requires capability text: Assessment of engineering competence requirements for advertised scope
requires capability text: Evaluation of local firm capabilities
requires capability text: Procurement and contracting authority
temporal marker: Pre-construction season, before advertisement was issued
temporal sequence: 3
violates obligation text: Obligation to protect public safety and welfare by ensuring qualified professionals are engaged
violates obligation text: Obligation to secure competent engineering services for public infrastructure (NSPE Code Section III.2, public client duty)
within competence: true
comment: County A chose to restrict its advertisement for consulting engineering services exclusively to local firms, intentionally limiting the competitive pool of qualified candidates. This decision prioritized local economic support over the broadest possible access to competent engineering talent.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Local-Only Advertisement Decision → All Local Firms Responded
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: County A chose to restrict its advertisement for consulting engineering services exclusively to local firms, which directly constrained the pool of eligible respondents to only those firms within the locality
cause: Local-Only Advertisement Decision
counterfactual: Without the local-only restriction, a broader pool of qualified firms would have responded, likely including firms with rural roadway design experience, reducing reliance on Engineer B
effect: All Local Firms Responded
necessary factors: Finite number of local engineering firms
necessary factors: Geographic restriction embedded in advertisement
necessary factors: No external firms eligible to compete
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: County A Administration
sufficient factors: Restriction to local firms + limited local market = exhaustive response from all eligible firms
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197243
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Canon I.6
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Fundamental Canon I.6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:31.126909+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:31.126909+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: I.6 indicates that engineers shall conduct themselves in a way so to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
textreferences: I.6 indicates that engineers shall conduct themselves in a way so to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer B's professional conduct
usedincontext: Cited to establish that engineers shall conduct themselves so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession, which Engineer B violated by bidding and accepting work beyond the firm's competence
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.182487
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Canon II.2.a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Rule of Practice II.2.a
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:31.126909+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:31.126909+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
textreferences: II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer B's competence
usedincontext: Cited to establish that engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.182218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Canon II.2.b
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Rule of Practice II.2.b
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:31.126909+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:31.126909+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: II.2.b. indicates further that Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
textreferences: II.2.b. indicates further that Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer B's signing of rural highway design documents
usedincontext: Cited to establish that engineers shall not affix their signatures to plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.182356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Primary
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:46:49.376835+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:46:49.376835+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
usedby: Engineer B; County A; ethical reviewers analyzing the case
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer B's obligations regarding competence, honest representation of qualifications, and responsibility to the public and client (County A). Relevant canons include practicing only in areas of competence and acting with honesty and integrity.
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.179198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Post-Hoc Admission of Incompetence
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Licensed Professional Engineer, Principal/Owner
foreseen unintended effects: Admission confirmed what County staff already knew and constituted evidence of prior incompetence
foreseen unintended effects: Could expose Engineer B to professional discipline or civil liability
foreseen unintended effects: Did not undo the harm already caused by the deficient design
fulfills obligation text: Basic professional honesty when directly confronted with evidence of design failure
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code Section II.3. Engineers shall be objective and truthful; admission was honest
fulfills obligation text: Transparency with client after the fact
guided by principle text: Honesty and transparency with clients
guided by principle text: Integrity, though exercised belatedly
guided by principle text: Professional accountability
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Acknowledge the source of construction problems honestly when directly confronted or in a professional meeting context
requires capability text: Honest self-assessment and professional accountability
requires capability text: Willingness to acknowledge professional limitations
temporal marker: During construction, at a meeting held after problems had already emerged and been largely resolved by County staff
temporal sequence: 16
violates obligation text: The admission itself fulfilled a minimal honesty obligation, but it came too late to fulfill the prior obligations under NSPE Code II.2 and II.2.b
violates obligation text: The timing of honesty, after harm was done, does not cure the earlier violations of competence and misrepresentation obligations
within competence: true
comment: During a construction-phase meeting, Engineer B made the deliberate choice to openly admit that the design problems stemmed from gaps in the firm's understanding of proper roadway design, acknowledging incompetence after the fact. While this admission was honest, it came only after the deficient design had already caused significant harm to the project and County staff.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Post-Hoc Admission of Incompetence → Immediate Construction Problems Emerged (confirmed causal link)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: During a construction-phase meeting, Engineer B made the deliberate choice to openly admit that the design was outside their competence, retroactively confirming that the construction problems were a direct and foreseeable consequence of the original competence misrepresentation
cause: Post-Hoc Admission of Incompetence
counterfactual: Had Engineer B disclosed incompetence before contract award or before sealing the design, County A could have sought qualified assistance, preventing the construction problems entirely
effect: Immediate Construction Problems Emerged (confirmed causal link)
necessary factors: Construction commencement based on deficient documents
necessary factors: Design deficiencies embedded in sealed construction documents
necessary factors: Engineer B's original lack of competence in rural roadway design
necessary factors: Engineer B's prior misrepresentation of competence to secure the contract
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Original incompetence + misrepresentation + sealed deficient design + construction commencement = construction problems that the admission confirms were inevitable
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Professional_Competence_Standard_Instance
type: ProfessionalCompetenceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE and state engineering licensure frameworks
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Competence and Scope-of-Practice Standard for Engineering Practice
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:46:49.376835+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:46:49.376835+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Competence Standard
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design. If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
usedby: Engineer B when accepting the roadway design project
usedincontext: Governs Engineer B's obligation to practice only within demonstrated areas of competence (water/wastewater engineering) and to disclose lack of experience in rural roadway design before accepting the County's project
version: Ongoing professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.179337
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Professional Competence Violated By Engineer B Rural Roadway Design
type: ProfessionalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County A as client and the traveling public
appliedto: Rural roadway design project
balancingwith: Firm financial survival
balancingwith: Local employment preservation
concept category: Capability
concreteexpression: Engineer B lacked the professional competence required to perform rural roadway design, as evidenced by the significant design deficiencies, miscalculated quantities, and the engineer's own admission that the problems were outside the firm's understanding of proper design
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional competence requires engineers to possess and apply the technical knowledge, skills, and judgment necessary to perform the specific type of engineering work they undertake; accepting work in an unfamiliar domain without adequate preparation or collaboration violates this principle
invokedby: Engineer B Rural Roadway Design Engineer
principleclass: Professional Competence
sourcetext: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
tensionresolution: Professional competence obligation was violated — Engineer B lacked the domain-specific competence required for rural roadway design and failed to remedy this deficiency before or during project execution
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.185361
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Project Successfully Bid
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Construction_Contract_Performance_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Funds_Stewardship_Constraint
causes state change: Public funds committed; construction contract executed; errors in design documents now have direct financial and schedule consequences; opportunity to correct design before construction effectively closed
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Contractor_Must_Build_Per_Documents
creates obligation: County_Must_Administer_Contract
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Remains_Engineer_of_Record
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Following design completion; prior to construction commencement
temporal sequence: 13
urgency level: medium
comment: County A completed the bidding process and awarded a construction contract based on Engineer B's sealed design documents, committing public funds to a project built on a flawed foundation.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197174
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Qualification_Representation_Standard_Instance
type: QualificationRepresentationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics and state engineering licensure boards
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Standard for Honest Representation of Engineering Qualifications in Procurement
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:46:49.376835+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:46:49.376835+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification Representation Standard
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
textreferences: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
usedby: Engineer B during solicitation and lobbying of County Commission
usedincontext: Governs Engineer B's conduct in asserting competence to the County and lobbying the County Commission, establishing the professional norm against misrepresenting qualifications to secure a contract
version: Ongoing professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.179532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Qualitative_Risk_Assessment_Competence_Gaps
type: QualitativeRiskAssessment
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: Professional engineering practice norms
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Risk Assessment Framework for Evaluating Competence Gaps in Engineering Project Acceptance
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:46:49.376835+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:46:49.376835+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Qualitative Risk Assessment
sourcetext: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design. If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
usedby: Engineer B (should have applied prior to accepting project); County A in evaluating qualifications
usedincontext: Provides a structured methodology for assessing the likelihood and magnitude of harm when an engineer accepts a project outside their area of expertise, applicable to evaluating Engineer B's decision to accept rural roadway design work
version: Professional methodology
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.179845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715054
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715378
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715411
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer B to accept the rural roadway design contract under these circumstances?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711410
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Engineer B's act of lobbying the County Commission — separate from responding to the advertisement — constitute an improper substitution of political influence for merit-based selection, and does that lobbying itself represent an independent ethical violation beyond the competence question?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Once construction problems began emerging, did Engineer B have an affirmative obligation to immediately disclose the design deficiencies to County A rather than waiting until a formal meeting, and does the delayed admission compound the original ethical violation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does County A bear any shared ethical or institutional responsibility for awarding the contract to Engineer B given that the County accepted assurances of competence without independently verifying Engineer B's qualifications in rural roadway design?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Was it ethically permissible for Engineer B to seal and sign the completed roadway design documents given the firm's acknowledged lack of competence in rural roadway design, and does affixing a professional seal under those circumstances constitute a separate and distinct ethical violation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Professional Accountability — partially satisfied by Engineer B's eventual admission of incompetence during the construction meeting — meaningfully mitigate the prior violation of Public Welfare Paramount, or does a post-hoc acknowledgment of failure carry insufficient ethical weight when harm has already materialized?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711734
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: How should the principle of Fairness in Professional Competition — implicated by County A's local-only advertisement policy — be weighed against the principle of Competence Assurance, when a procurement structure that intentionally limits the competitive pool increases the probability that an incompetent firm will receive an award?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of Client Loyalty — violated by Engineer B's deficient design delivery — come into direct tension with the principle of Public Welfare Paramount, in the sense that Engineer B's motivation to preserve the client relationship and avoid layoffs actually drove the decision that ultimately harmed both the client and the public?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Honesty in Professional Representations — violated by Engineer B's false assurances of competence during bidding — conflict with the principle of Professional Reputation and Honor, in that the very act of misrepresenting competence to win a contract causes the long-term reputational and honorific harm that Engineer B's self-interested lobbying was presumably intended to avoid?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B fulfill their duty of honest competence representation to County A by giving assurances of adequate performance in rural roadway design, a domain outside their established expertise in water and wastewater engineering?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.711979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the aggregate harm produced by Engineer B's acceptance of the rural roadway contract — including field revisions, miscalculated quantities, excessive County staff burden, and public safety risk — outweigh the benefit of preserving Engineer B's firm and preventing staff layoffs?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.712034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer B demonstrate professional integrity and honesty when they lobbied the County Commission and provided assurances of competence in rural roadway design, knowing their firm's expertise was limited to water and wastewater engineering?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.712086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B violate their categorical duty to protect public welfare by affixing their professional seal to rural roadway design documents in a domain where they lacked the requisite education and experience, regardless of whether the project ultimately remained within budget?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.712139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would the construction problems and County staff burden have been avoided or substantially reduced if Engineer B had declined the rural roadway contract and instead referred County A to a firm with demonstrated highway design competence?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.712194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Engineer B had disclosed their lack of rural roadway design experience to County A before contract award rather than providing assurances of adequate performance, would County A have had the opportunity to engage a more qualified firm or arrange for Engineer B to collaborate with a competent highway engineer?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.712261
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer B had engaged a qualified rural roadway design subconsultant or sought mentorship from an experienced highway engineer before beginning design work, would the ethical violation of accepting work outside their competence have been sufficiently remediated, or would the initial misrepresentation to County A still constitute an independent ethical breach?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.712343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If County A had included Engineer B in construction period services rather than relying solely on County staff, would Engineer B's earlier admission of incompetence during construction have triggered a professional obligation to withdraw from the project or to immediately bring in qualified highway engineering expertise?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.712417
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715603
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.716007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.716036
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.716066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.716097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.716127
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.716154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.716184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.716236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.716276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.716306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:17:29.715916
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Responding to Advertisement Despite Inexperience
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Principal/Owner, water/wastewater consulting firm
foreseen unintended effects: Potential harm to public infrastructure and safety
foreseen unintended effects: Reputational risk if incompetence is revealed
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of producing substandard roadway design
guided by principle text: Competence as prerequisite to practice
guided by principle text: Honesty and transparency with prospective clients
guided by principle text: Public safety paramount
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Secure new revenue to offset business downturn and retain staff
raises obligation text: NSPE Code Section II.2. Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence
raises obligation text: NSPE Code Section II.2.b. Engineers shall not affix signature to plans outside their competence
raises obligation text: None identified, response to advertisement does not itself fulfill a professional obligation
requires capability text: Construction document preparation for highway/road projects
requires capability text: Earthwork and quantity calculation for roadway construction
requires capability text: Knowledge of applicable roadway design standards (e.g., AASHTO)
requires capability text: Rural roadway geometric design
temporal marker: Advertisement phase, after County A issued the locally-restricted solicitation
temporal sequence: 6
violates obligation text: NSPE Code Section I. Fundamental Canon to hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount
within competence: false
comment: Engineer B made a deliberate decision to respond to County A's advertisement for rural roadway design consulting services despite having no experience in that specific discipline. This volitional choice initiated Engineer B's pursuit of work outside their established area of competence.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Responding to Advertisement Despite Inexperience → Contract Awarded to Engineer B
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer B made a deliberate decision to respond to County A's advertisement for rural roadway design despite lacking relevant experience, initiating the sequence that led to the contract award
cause: Responding to Advertisement Despite Inexperience
counterfactual: Had Engineer B declined to respond, or had a more qualified local firm been available, the contract would not have been awarded to an inexperienced party
effect: Contract Awarded to Engineer B
necessary factors: Absence of other more qualified local competitors
necessary factors: Business Downturn Affecting Engineer B creating financial motivation
necessary factors: Engineer B's decision to submit a response
necessary factors: Engineer B's willingness to represent competence in an unfamiliar domain
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Financial pressure on Engineer B + geographic restriction limiting competition + Engineer B's active lobbying = contract award to unqualified engineer
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Rural Construction Demand Surge
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Procurement_Necessity_Constraint
activates constraint: PublicInfrastructure_Adequacy_Constraint
causes state change: County transitions from self-sufficient engineering posture to dependency on external consulting; procurement process becomes necessary
concept category: Event
creates obligation: County_Must_Seek_Qualified_Consultants
creates obligation: County_Must_Vet_Competence_Adequately
emergency status: medium
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Pre-advertisement period; before procurement process began
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: medium
comment: County A experienced an anticipated surge in rural roadway construction demand that exceeded its internal engineering capacity, creating a structural gap between available expertise and project needs.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Staff Capacity Shortfall Confirmed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Competent_Engineering_Required_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Works_Quality_Constraint
causes state change: County formally enters external procurement mode; responsibility for consultant competence vetting becomes active obligation
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Advertise_For_Qualified_Consultants
creates obligation: Evaluate_Competence_Not_Just_Availability
emergency status: low
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Immediately prior to advertisement issuance
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: low
comment: County A's internal engineering staff capacity was formally recognized as insufficient to handle the anticipated roadway construction workload, making external consulting engagement a practical necessity rather than a preference.
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.196982
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

construction phase start meets problems and issues emerging
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: meets
evidence: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
from entity text: construction phase start
owl time property: time:intervalMeets
to entity text: problems and issues emerging
comment: Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
interval meets: problems and issues emerging
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197668
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.228413+00:00
value: The local-only advertisement policy prioritized local economic preference over competitive fairness and ultimately over competence, contributing to the award of a contract to an incompetent firm

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.230341+00:00
value: Fairness in competition and qualification-based selection should prevail over local preference policies that compromise technical quality and public welfare

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.229238+00:00
value: Engineer B's lack of experience and competence in rural roadway design constrained the firm from ethically accepting, performing, or certifying rural roadway design work without either associating with a competent engineer or disclosing the limitation to County A.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.229321+00:00
value: Engineer B was constrained from accepting the rural roadway design contract because neither the firm's general engineering education nor its domain experience in water and wastewater engineering satisfied the competence threshold for rural highway design — a specific technical field requiring both foundational knowledge and practical experience in that domain.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.229936+00:00
value: When County A elected to use internal staff rather than Engineer B for construction period services, Engineer B was constrained from passively accepting that decision without affirmatively communicating to the County the heightened risks of proceeding without design engineer oversight — particularly given the firm's known competence limitations in rural roadway design.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.228484+00:00
value: Accountability obligation was partially satisfied through belated admission but was substantially violated by the prior false assurances and failure to disclose limitations before accepting the contract

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.229777+00:00
value: Engineer B was constrained from withholding or delaying disclosure of known design deficiencies attributable to the firm's lack of rural roadway design competence once those deficiencies became apparent during construction, and was obligated to promptly disclose those deficiencies to County A.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.229846+00:00
value: Engineer B was constrained to affirmatively communicate to County A the risks arising from the design deficiencies attributable to the firm's lack of rural roadway design competence, particularly during the construction period when those deficiencies materialized as problems requiring field revisions — and was prohibited from passively accepting the construction problems without disclosing their root cause in the firm's competence limitations.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.230722+00:00
value: The local-only advertisement policy prioritized local economic preference over competitive fairness and ultimately over competence, contributing to the award of a contract to an incompetent firm

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.227076+00:00
value: Competence obligation was violated — Engineer B accepted work outside their domain of expertise due to economic pressure without taking adequate steps to ensure competent delivery

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.230394+00:00
value: Public welfare obligation was violated — Engineer B subordinated public welfare to personal economic interests by accepting work outside competence and providing false assurances of capability

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.228935+00:00
value: Fairness in competition and qualification-based selection should prevail over local preference policies that compromise technical quality and public welfare

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.228727+00:00
value: Competence obligation is non-negotiable and overrides business development interests; the engineer should have declined the contract or associated with a competent roadway engineer

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.230779+00:00
value: Accountability obligation was partially satisfied through belated admission but was substantially violated by the prior false assurances and failure to disclose limitations before accepting the contract

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.230457+00:00
value: Competence obligation was violated — Engineer B accepted work outside their domain of expertise due to economic pressure without taking adequate steps to ensure competent delivery

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.230605+00:00
value: Client loyalty obligation was violated — Engineer B's acceptance of work outside their competence domain and delivery of a deficient design product failed to serve County A's interests faithfully

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.230529+00:00
value: Honesty obligation was violated — Engineer B's assurances of competence were false and misleading, enabling the County to make a contract award decision based on inaccurate information

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.230657+00:00
value: Procurement integrity was compromised — Engineer B used political lobbying rather than technical qualifications to secure the contract award, and the County's local preference policy created conditions that made such lobbying effective

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.230861+00:00
value: Professional reputation obligation overrides short-term business interests; the reputational harm to the profession from incompetent work products is a recognized ethical violation under Canon I.6

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.229111+00:00
value: Engineer B's financial self-interest in securing the rural roadway contract to avoid staff layoffs created a conflict of interest that constrained the firm from allowing economic pressure to override the professional obligation to decline work outside demonstrated competence.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.229182+00:00
value: Engineer B was constrained from allowing the firm's financial pressure — specifically the risk of staff layoffs from a downturn in committed work — to override the professional obligation to decline work outside demonstrated competence, as economic self-interest cannot justify acceptance of contracts that create foreseeable public safety risks.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.227881+00:00
value: Client loyalty obligation was violated — Engineer B's acceptance of work outside their competence domain and delivery of a deficient design product failed to serve County A's interests faithfully

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.230021+00:00
value: Client loyalty obligation was violated — Engineer B's acceptance of work outside their competence domain and delivery of a deficient design product failed to serve County A's interests faithfully

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.227593+00:00
value: Honesty obligation was violated — Engineer B's assurances of competence were false and misleading, enabling the County to make a contract award decision based on inaccurate information

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.229579+00:00
value: Engineer B was constrained from providing false or misleading assurances to County A regarding the firm's ability to perform rural roadway design services adequately, as such assurances constituted deceptive misrepresentation of professional qualifications.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.229636+00:00
value: Engineer B was constrained from providing false or misleading assurances to County A regarding the firm's ability to perform rural roadway design services adequately, as such assurances constituted deceptive misrepresentation of professional qualifications.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.228816+00:00
value: Honesty obligation prohibits false assurances regardless of business incentives; Engineer B should have disclosed the firm's water/wastewater specialization and lack of roadway experience

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.228290+00:00
value: Procurement integrity was compromised — Engineer B used political lobbying rather than technical qualifications to secure the contract award, and the County's local preference policy created conditions that made such lobbying effective

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.229704+00:00
value: Engineer B was constrained from substituting political lobbying of the County Commission for demonstrated technical qualification in rural roadway design, as such lobbying improperly influenced a public contract award through means other than merit-based qualification.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.229022+00:00
value: Procurement integrity was compromised — Engineer B used political lobbying rather than technical qualifications to secure the contract award, and the County's local preference policy created conditions that made such lobbying effective

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.230111+00:00
value: Competence obligation was violated — Engineer B accepted work outside their domain of expertise due to economic pressure without taking adequate steps to ensure competent delivery

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.230271+00:00
value: Accountability obligation was partially satisfied through belated admission but was substantially violated by the prior false assurances and failure to disclose limitations before accepting the contract

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.228561+00:00
value: Professional reputation obligation overrides short-term business interests; the reputational harm to the profession from incompetent work products is a recognized ethical violation under Canon I.6

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.228872+00:00
value: Professional reputation obligation overrides short-term business interests; the reputational harm to the profession from incompetent work products is a recognized ethical violation under Canon I.6

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.94
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.229464+00:00
value: Engineer B was constrained from affixing a professional seal to the rural roadway design documents without having exercised genuine responsible charge — including substantive technical review and direction — over work product in a domain where the firm lacked competence, as sealing such documents without adequate understanding constituted a violation of the responsible charge requirement.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.229390+00:00
value: Engineer B was prohibited from affixing their professional signature and seal to the rural highway design plans because Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer, lacked competence in rural roadway design — a specific technical domain distinct from the engineer's demonstrated area of expertise.

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:01:49.230209+00:00
value: Engineer B was constrained from remaining silent about the firm's known competence limitations and the resulting likelihood of design deficiencies once construction problems began materializing, and was obligated to promptly advise County A that the project was proceeding on the basis of a design produced outside the firm's competence domain.

design project completion before County bidding the project
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction.
from entity text: design project completion
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: County bidding the project
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: County bidding the project
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

field revisions and quantity miscalculations during construction phase
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
from entity text: field revisions and quantity miscalculations
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: construction phase
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: construction phase
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

meeting between Engineer B and County during construction phase
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
from entity text: meeting between Engineer B and County
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: construction phase
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: construction phase
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.197756
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without significant roadway design skills, accepted a rural highway design contract outside their domain of competence, producing a design with significant deficiencies including miscalculated

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B provided assurances of competence when bidding on the rural roadway design contract despite lacking the requisite skills, constituting a misrepresentation of qualifications to County A that induced the award of a contract the fir

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B provided affirmative assurances to County A that the firm could adequately perform rural roadway design services, despite knowing or having reason to know that the firm lacked experience in that domain, thereby misleading the Cou

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, whose professional expertise was in water and wastewater engineering, accepted a rural roadway design contract in a domain outside their competence without taking steps to verify their adequacy for the work or associating with a

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B lobbied the County Commission directly in favor of receiving a contract award, substituting political influence for technical qualification as a basis for contract award in a public engineering procurement

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's act of bidding on and accepting a rural roadway design contract outside the firm's water and wastewater competence domain, resulting in a deficient design with construction problems, failed to enhance the honor, reputation, and

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's incompetent roadway design produced deficiencies that caused problems during construction, implicating the public welfare obligation to ensure that engineering designs meet applicable standards and protect those who will use an

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, an experienced water and wastewater engineer with no rural roadway design experience, accepted a roadway design contract and provided false assurances of competence, resulting in a deficient design with miscalculated quantities

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B failed to faithfully serve County A's interests by delivering a deficient roadway design with miscalculated quantities and significant errors, requiring extensive field revisions and County staff effort to resolve, despite having

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B admitted during a meeting with the County, after construction problems had already materialized, that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design — a belated but partial acknowledgment of profe

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: County A published its advertisement for consulting engineering services only locally, pursuant to a policy of utilizing local design services whenever possible, which restricted competition to local firms regardless of whether those firms

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: County A's application of a local preference procurement policy restricted competition to geographically limited pools, enabling the award of the roadway design contract to Engineer B — a locally based but domain-incompetent firm — rather t

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without significant roadway design skills, accepted a rural highway design contract outside their domain of competence, producing a design with significant deficiencies including miscalculated

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, whose professional expertise was in water and wastewater engineering, accepted a rural roadway design contract in a domain outside their competence without taking steps to verify their adequacy for the work or associating with a

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without significant roadway design skills, accepted a rural highway design contract outside their domain of competence, producing a design with significant deficiencies including miscalculated

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, whose professional expertise was in water and wastewater engineering, accepted a rural roadway design contract in a domain outside their competence without taking steps to verify their adequacy for the work or associating with a

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, whose professional expertise was in water and wastewater engineering, accepted a rural roadway design contract in a domain outside their competence without taking steps to verify their adequacy for the work or associating with a

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B provided assurances of competence when bidding on the rural roadway design contract despite lacking the requisite skills, constituting a misrepresentation of qualifications to County A that induced the award of a contract the fir

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B provided affirmative assurances to County A that the firm could adequately perform rural roadway design services, despite knowing or having reason to know that the firm lacked experience in that domain, thereby misleading the Cou

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B provided assurances of competence when bidding on the rural roadway design contract despite lacking the requisite skills, constituting a misrepresentation of qualifications to County A that induced the award of a contract the fir

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B provided affirmative assurances to County A that the firm could adequately perform rural roadway design services, despite knowing or having reason to know that the firm lacked experience in that domain, thereby misleading the Cou

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B lobbied the County Commission directly in favor of receiving a contract award, substituting political influence for technical qualification as a basis for contract award in a public engineering procurement

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B lobbied the County Commission directly in favor of receiving a contract award, substituting political influence for technical qualification as a basis for contract award in a public engineering procurement

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without significant roadway design skills, accepted a rural highway design contract outside their domain of competence, producing a design with significant deficiencies including miscalculated

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's act of bidding on and accepting a rural roadway design contract outside the firm's water and wastewater competence domain, resulting in a deficient design with construction problems, failed to enhance the honor, reputation, and

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B failed to take responsibility for the firm's competence limitations before accepting the roadway design contract, and the resulting design deficiencies — including miscalculated quantities — reflect a failure of professional acco

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B admitted during a meeting with the County, after construction problems had already materialized, that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design — a belated but partial acknowledgment of profe

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B failed to take responsibility for the firm's competence limitations before accepting the roadway design contract, and the resulting design deficiencies — including miscalculated quantities — reflect a failure of professional acco

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B failed to take responsibility for the firm's competence limitations before accepting the roadway design contract, and the resulting design deficiencies — including miscalculated quantities — reflect a failure of professional acco

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B failed to faithfully serve County A's interests by delivering a deficient roadway design with miscalculated quantities and significant errors, requiring extensive field revisions and County staff effort to resolve, despite having

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's incompetent roadway design produced deficiencies that caused problems during construction, implicating the public welfare obligation to ensure that engineering designs meet applicable standards and protect those who will use an

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, an experienced water and wastewater engineer with no rural roadway design experience, accepted a roadway design contract and provided false assurances of competence, resulting in a deficient design with miscalculated quantities

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: County A published its advertisement for consulting engineering services only locally, pursuant to a policy of utilizing local design services whenever possible, which restricted competition to local firms regardless of whether those firms

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: County A's application of a local preference procurement policy restricted competition to geographically limited pools, enabling the award of the roadway design contract to Engineer B — a locally based but domain-incompetent firm — rather t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to conduct an honest self-assessment of the firm's competence in rural roadway design before accepting County A's contract, and to decline the engagement given the firm's lack of experience in that domain.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to represent the firm's qualifications and competence honestly when bidding on the rural roadway design contract, including refraining from providing assurances of adequacy in rural highway design where the firm lac

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to promptly disclose to County A any design deficiencies attributable to the firm's lack of rural roadway design competence, and to take affirmative remediation steps before or at the onset of construction rather th

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to promptly disclose to County A the design deficiencies attributable to the firm's lack of competence in rural roadway design — including miscalculated quantities and significant errors — before or upon discovery d

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to communicate to County A the risks of proceeding without the design engineer's involvement in construction period services, particularly given the firm's known competence limitations in rural roadway design, and t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to take full professional accountability for the design deficiencies, including acknowledging the competence limitations that caused them and cooperating with County A to remediate the problems — an obligation parti

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to advise County A when the engineer believed — or should have believed — that the project would not be successful due to the firm's lack of competence in rural roadway design, including advising the County before o

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for County A, serving the County's interests by delivering a competent and accurate rural roadway design — an obligation violated by delivering a deficient design with miscalcu

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: County A was obligated to evaluate whether its policy of advertising consulting engineering services only locally — thereby restricting competition to local firms — was consistent with applicable procurement fairness requirements and qualif

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to represent the firm's qualifications honestly to County A during the procurement process, including refraining from providing affirmative assurances of adequacy in rural roadway design when the firm lacked demonst

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from lobbying the County Commission directly in favor of receiving the roadway design contract award, and to compete for the contract solely on the basis of demonstrated technical qualifications rather th

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from lobbying the County Commission directly in favor of receiving the contract award, and to compete for the contract solely on the basis of demonstrated technical qualifications rather than political ad

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to verify, before accepting the rural roadway design contract from County A, that the firm possessed domain-specific competence in rural highway design established by education or experience in that specific technic

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from accepting the rural roadway design contract based on economic self-interest — specifically the firm's revenue downturn and risk of staff layoffs — when the firm lacked the technical competence to per

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from affixing their professional signature and seal to the rural roadway design plans, given that Engineer B was a water and wastewater engineer without significant roadway design skills and therefore lac

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated under NSPE I.6 to conduct themselves in a manner that enhances the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the engineering profession, including by refraining from bidding on and accepting a rural roadway design contra

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to perform rural roadway design services only if the firm possessed the requisite competence in that domain, and was obligated to decline or withdraw from the engagement upon recognizing that the firm lacked the nec

BER Case 02-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 02-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:31.126909+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:31.126909+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 02-5, the Board studied a situation in which a structural engineer, competent in severe weather structural engineering, designed a building that had a structural failure from a severe weather condition.
textreferences: In BER Case 02-5, the Board studied a situation in which a structural engineer, competent in severe weather structural engineering, designed a building that had a structural failure from a severe weather condition.
textreferences: The Board concluded that it was not unethical for the engineer to fail to follow the most recent design parameters for structural design in severe weather areas published in the most recent technical literature, because those recently proposed design parameters had not yet become standards.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about competence standards
usedincontext: Referenced to establish that an engineer competent in a field but unfamiliar with recently proposed (not yet standardized) design parameters was not acting unethically, distinguishing the threshold between competence and currency with emerging literature
version: 2002
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.182621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

BER Case 98-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 98-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:31.126909+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:31.126909+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 98-8, a professional engineer in civil engineering was asked to certify certain arms storage rooms and racks for the Army. This engineer had no significant training or knowledge in that area, although the engineer was considered a qualified engineer.
textreferences: In BER Case 98-8, a professional engineer in civil engineering was asked to certify certain arms storage rooms and racks for the Army. This engineer had no significant training or knowledge in that area, although the engineer was considered a qualified engineer.
textreferences: That case is analogous to the present case.
textreferences: The Board concluded that, because the engineer lacked competence in the specific area, it would not be ethical for the engineer to certify the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks.
usedby: Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about Engineer B's situation
usedincontext: Referenced as directly analogous precedent: a civil engineer lacking competence in arms storage certification acted unethically by certifying work outside their area of expertise, paralleling Engineer B's lack of competence in roadway design
version: 1998
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.182787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Construction Period Services Withdrawal Risk Constraint County A
type: ConstructionPeriodServicesWithdrawalRiskConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: County A decided to use its own staff for construction period services rather than retaining Engineer B. Given Engineer B's competence limitations in rural roadway design, the absence of design engineer oversight during construction compounded the risk of design deficiencies going undetected and unresolved.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Construction Period Services Withdrawal Risk Constraint
constraintstatement: When County A elected to use internal staff rather than Engineer B for construction period services, Engineer B was constrained from passively accepting that decision without affirmatively communicating to the County the heightened risks of proceeding without design engineer oversight — particularly given the firm's known competence limitations in rural roadway design.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.b — engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful; Section II.1.c
sourcetext: The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services.
temporalscope: Transition from design completion to construction phase
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
textreferences: The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.188407
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Deficient Design Disclosure Construction Period Rural Roadway
type: ConstructionPeriodServicesWithdrawalRiskConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Design deficiencies attributable to Engineer B's lack of competence in rural roadway design materialized during construction, requiring field revisions. Engineer B was constrained to disclose the competence-based origin of those deficiencies to County A rather than treating them as ordinary construction-phase adjustments.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Construction Period Services Withdrawal Risk Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to affirmatively communicate to County A the risks arising from the design deficiencies attributable to the firm's lack of rural roadway design competence, particularly during the construction period when those deficiencies materialized as problems requiring field revisions — and was prohibited from passively accepting the construction problems without disclosing their root cause in the firm's competence limitations.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:02.123366+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:02.123366+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics II.2.a; II.2.b; I.6; BER Case 98-8
sourcetext: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
temporalscope: During construction period when design deficiencies materialized
textreferences: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
textreferences: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.194990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Design Deficiency Early Disclosure Constraint Construction Phase
type: IncompleteRiskDisclosureProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: During construction, significant problems emerged from Engineer B's deficient rural roadway design, including miscalculated quantities and field revision requirements. Engineer B eventually admitted the problems were outside the firm's understanding but only after the County grew increasingly frustrated.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Incomplete Risk Disclosure Prohibition
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from withholding or delaying disclosure of known design deficiencies attributable to the firm's lack of rural roadway design competence once those deficiencies became apparent during construction, and was obligated to promptly disclose those deficiencies to County A.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c — engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code; Section III.1.b — engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful
sourcetext: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
temporalscope: Construction phase when design problems began occurring
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.187749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Domain-Specific Incompetence Seal Prohibition Rural Roadway
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetenceSealProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B, a water and wastewater engineer, accepted and performed rural highway design services for County A despite lacking competence in that domain, and sealed the resulting plans, which contained deficiencies that required field revisions during construction.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence Seal Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from affixing their professional signature and seal to the rural highway design plans because Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer, lacked competence in rural roadway design — a specific technical domain distinct from the engineer's demonstrated area of expertise.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:02.123366+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:02.123366+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics II.2.b; BER Case 98-8; BER Case 94-8
sourcetext: The Code of Ethics specifically states Engineers shall not affix their signature to any plans dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
temporalscope: At the time of plan completion and sealing, and throughout the design phase
textreferences: II.2.b. indicates further that Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
textreferences: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
textreferences: The Code of Ethics specifically states Engineers shall not affix their signature to any plans dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.194176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Domain Competence Constraint Rural Roadway Design
type: CompetenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was an experienced water and wastewater engineer with no experience in rural roadway design who nonetheless accepted, performed, and certified a rural roadway design project for County A, resulting in significant construction deficiencies.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Competence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B's lack of experience and competence in rural roadway design constrained the firm from ethically accepting, performing, or certifying rural roadway design work without either associating with a competent engineer or disclosing the limitation to County A.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a — engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
temporalscope: From pre-acceptance through design completion and construction
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.186940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Economic Pressure Non-Subordination Constraint Highway Contract
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidance
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was experiencing a downturn in committed work that threatened staff layoffs, creating financial pressure that drove the decision to pursue and accept a rural roadway design contract outside the firm's competence domain.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance
constraintstatement: Engineer B's financial self-interest in securing the rural roadway contract to avoid staff layoffs created a conflict of interest that constrained the firm from allowing economic pressure to override the professional obligation to decline work outside demonstrated competence.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Case precedent on competence and self-interest
sourcetext: Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
temporalscope: Pre-acceptance and procurement phase
textreferences: Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.187248
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Education-Experience Competence Threshold Rural Roadway Contract
type: Education-ExperienceCompetenceThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's firm had experience in water and wastewater engineering but lacked demonstrated competence in rural roadway design. The disjunctive 'education or experience' standard in II.2.a did not authorize acceptance because neither prong was satisfied for the specific technical domain involved.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from accepting the rural roadway design contract because neither the firm's general engineering education nor its domain experience in water and wastewater engineering satisfied the competence threshold for rural highway design — a specific technical field requiring both foundational knowledge and practical experience in that domain.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:56:02.123366+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:56:02.123366+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics II.2.a; BER Case 98-8
sourcetext: II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
temporalscope: At the time of bid submission and contract acceptance
textreferences: Education provides scientific and technical knowledge which are a necessary foundation for professional competence, but it is also the experiences of working within the technical fields that build competence.
textreferences: II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
textreferences: II.2.a., alone does not settle the ethical questions of this case since it allows for the undertaking of assignments when engineers are qualified by education 'or' experience.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.194348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Financial Pressure Non-Subordination Constraint Roadway Contract
type: EthicalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was experiencing a downturn in committed work that threatened staff layoffs, and this financial pressure drove the decision to pursue and accept a rural roadway design contract outside the firm's competence domain despite the foreseeable risk of deficient design.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Ethical Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from allowing the firm's financial pressure — specifically the risk of staff layoffs from a downturn in committed work — to override the professional obligation to decline work outside demonstrated competence, as economic self-interest cannot justify acceptance of contracts that create foreseeable public safety risks.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; BER Case precedent establishing that economic pressure does not justify scope overreach
sourcetext: Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
temporalscope: Pre-acceptance and procurement phase
textreferences: Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.189057
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Political Lobbying Non-Substitution Constraint County Commission
type: EthicalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B lobbied the County Commission directly in favor of receiving the rural roadway design contract award, substituting political influence for technical qualification in a domain where the firm lacked demonstrated competence.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Ethical Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from substituting political lobbying of the County Commission for demonstrated technical qualification in rural roadway design, as such lobbying improperly influenced a public contract award through means other than merit-based qualification.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.b — engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers; Section III.10 — engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement through political activities
sourcetext: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
temporalscope: Procurement phase prior to contract award
textreferences: Engineer B received an award from the County for a single roadway design project.
textreferences: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.187543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Project Success Notification Constraint Rural Roadway Construction
type: ProjectSuccessAdverseNotificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B eventually admitted at a meeting that the construction problems were outside the firm's understanding of proper design, but this admission came only after the County grew increasingly frustrated — suggesting the disclosure was reactive rather than proactive as required.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Project Success Adverse Notification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from remaining silent about the firm's known competence limitations and the resulting likelihood of design deficiencies once construction problems began materializing, and was obligated to promptly advise County A that the project was proceeding on the basis of a design produced outside the firm's competence domain.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.b — engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful
sourcetext: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
temporalscope: Construction phase when problems began occurring immediately
textreferences: During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
textreferences: The County grew increasingly frustrated with the quality of work provided by Engineer B.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.188888
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Responsible Charge Verification Constraint Roadway Design Seal
type: ResponsibleChargeVerificationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B completed and presumably sealed the rural roadway design despite lacking competence in that domain, resulting in a deficient design that caused significant construction problems — demonstrating that the firm could not have exercised genuine responsible charge over the work product.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Responsible Charge Verification Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from affixing a professional seal to the rural roadway design documents without having exercised genuine responsible charge — including substantive technical review and direction — over work product in a domain where the firm lacked competence, as sealing such documents without adequate understanding constituted a violation of the responsible charge requirement.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.b — engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence
sourcetext: Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction.
temporalscope: Design completion and document submission phase
textreferences: Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.187919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Conflict of Interest - Engineer B Self-Interest vs. Public Welfare
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the decision to respond to the advertisement through project completion
affectedparties: County A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer B's competing interests between firm financial survival and professional obligation to decline work outside competence
terminatedby: Not formally resolved — conflict persisted through project and was only acknowledged post-hoc
textreferences: Engineer B was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
textreferences: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
triggeringevent: Financial pressure creating personal/firm interest in securing the contract that competed directly with professional obligation to decline work outside competence
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.181187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Competence Misrepresentation - Highway Contract
type: CompetenceMisrepresentationtoClientState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From bidding through contract execution
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public road users
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services
stateclass: Competence Misrepresentation to Client State
subject: Engineer B's representation of capability to perform rural highway design services
terminatedby: Construction problems revealed actual competence deficiency
textreferences: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence
textreferences: Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services
triggeringevent: Engineer B bid on and accepted rural highway design contract implicitly representing competence in roadway design
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.183981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Competence Misrepresentation to County A
type: CompetenceMisrepresentationtoClientState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's response to the advertisement and lobbying of the County Commission through the acknowledgment of deficiencies during construction
affectedparties: County A
affectedparties: County Commission
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
stateclass: Competence Misrepresentation to Client State
subject: Engineer B's representations to County A regarding capability to perform rural roadway design
terminatedby: Engineer B's admission during construction meeting that problems were outside the firm's understanding of proper design
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
triggeringevent: Engineer B providing affirmative assurances of adequate performance capability to County A despite lacking rural roadway design experience, and lobbying the County Commission in their favor
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.180830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Financial Pressure Scope Overreach - Highway Contract
type: FinancialPressureDrivingScopeOverreachState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From period of financial pressure through acceptance of highway design contract
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Firm staff
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence
stateclass: Financial Pressure Driving Scope Overreach State
subject: Engineer B's firm decision to bid on rural highway contract outside competence domain
terminatedby: Contract accepted and work commenced
textreferences: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence
triggeringevent: Financial pressures on Engineer B's firm leading to pursuit of contract outside established competence
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.183829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Non-Deception Constraint Competence Assurance County A
type: Non-Deception
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B affirmatively assured County A of the firm's ability to perform rural roadway design services adequately despite lacking experience in that domain, constituting a deceptive misrepresentation of qualifications during the procurement process.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Non-Deception
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from providing false or misleading assurances to County A regarding the firm's ability to perform rural roadway design services adequately, as such assurances constituted deceptive misrepresentation of professional qualifications.
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:52:45.696672+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a — engineers shall not falsify or permit misrepresentation of their qualifications; Section III.2.b
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
temporalscope: Procurement and pre-acceptance phase
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.187393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Public Safety at Risk - Deficient Roadway Design
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From construction commencement through resolution of field design issues
affectedparties: Construction workers
affectedparties: County A
affectedparties: Public using the roadway
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Rural roadway project with design deficiencies requiring field revisions during construction
terminatedby: Resolution of field issues through County staff intervention
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated.
textreferences: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
triggeringevent: Immediate construction problems revealing design deficiencies in a public roadway infrastructure project
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.181536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

County A Municipal Infrastructure Client
type: MunicipalInfrastructureClient
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated By County A Local-Only Advertisement
adheres to principle: Fairness in Professional Competition — Local Preference Policy Enabling Incompetent Award
has obligation: County A Competitive Procurement Fairness Local Advertisement Policy
attributes: {'entity_type': 'County government', 'procurement_policy': 'Local design services preference', 'advertisement_scope': 'Local only', 'construction_services': 'In-house county staff'}
caseinvolvement: County government that advertised for consulting engineering services for rural roadway design, applied a local preference procurement policy, awarded a design contract to Engineer B, chose to use own staff for construction-period services, and managed significant construction problems resulting from the deficient design while maintaining project budget.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:10.493305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:10.493305+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'County Construction Period Staff'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Municipal Infrastructure Client
sourcetext: County A was expecting a significant amount of rural roadway construction
textreferences: County A was expecting a significant amount of rural roadway construction
textreferences: It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible
textreferences: The County grew increasingly frustrated with the quality of work provided by Engineer B
textreferences: the County decided to advertise for consulting services
textreferences: the advertisement was published only locally
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.180336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Deficient Design Harm Materialized During Construction
type: DeficientDesignHarmMaterializedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the start of construction through resolution of field issues by County staff
affectedparties: County A
affectedparties: County construction staff
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
stateclass: Deficient Design Harm Materialized State
subject: County A's rural roadway construction project experiencing active harm from Engineer B's competence-deficient design
terminatedby: County staff efforts bringing project within budget despite excessive remediation burden
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: The County grew increasingly frustrated with the quality of work provided by Engineer B.
textreferences: Through the efforts of the County staff, the project was able to remain within its budget.
triggeringevent: Construction commencement revealing immediate problems attributable to Engineer B's lack of rural roadway design competence
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.181354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Construction Period Services Continuity County A Roadway
type: ConstructionPeriodServicesContinuityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Outside Area of Competence - Rural Roadway Design
casecontext: County A elected to use its own staff for construction period services rather than retaining Engineer B, and construction problems began immediately — problems that Engineer B later admitted were attributable to design deficiencies within the firm's competence limitations.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.76
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount — Design Deficiencies Affecting Construction Safety
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Construction Period Services Continuity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to communicate to County A the risks of proceeding without the design engineer's involvement in construction period services, particularly given the firm's known competence limitations in rural roadway design, and to remain available to address design deficiencies during construction.
sourcetext: The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services.
temporalscope: At the time County A decided to use its own staff for construction period services, and throughout the construction phase
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.186449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Deficient Design Harm Materialized - Highway
type: DeficientDesignHarmMaterializedState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From construction commencement through identification of design-caused problems
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Construction contractors
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public road users
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards
stateclass: Deficient Design Harm Materialized State
subject: Engineer B's rural highway design and resulting construction problems
terminatedby: Not specified; construction problems ongoing at time of case analysis
textreferences: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards
triggeringevent: Rural highway design produced by Engineer B (lacking roadway competence) entered construction and produced concrete adverse consequences
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.183662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Design Deficiency Early Disclosure County A Construction
type: DesignDeficiencyEarlyDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Deficient Design Harm Materialized - Highway
casecontext: Engineer B admitted during a meeting with County A — only after construction problems had already materialized — that the problems were outside the firm's understanding of proper design, when earlier disclosure could have prevented the construction difficulties.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Professional Accountability — Engineer B Failure to Acknowledge Competence Limits
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Design Deficiency Early Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to promptly disclose to County A any design deficiencies attributable to the firm's lack of rural roadway design competence, and to take affirmative remediation steps before or at the onset of construction rather than waiting until construction problems materialized.
sourcetext: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
temporalscope: Upon recognition of design deficiencies, prior to or at the onset of construction
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.185976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Political Lobbying Non-Substitution County Commission
type: PoliticalLobbyingNon-SubstitutionforTechnicalQualificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer B Political Lobbying County Commission Rural Roadway Contract
casecontext: Engineer B lobbied the County Commission directly in favor of receiving the rural roadway design contract award, substituting political advocacy to elected officials for technical qualification-based selection, in a domain where the firm lacked the requisite competence.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Procurement Integrity Implicated By Engineer B Lobbying County Commission
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:55:00.057965+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:55:00.057965+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Political Lobbying Non-Substitution for Technical Qualification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from lobbying the County Commission directly in favor of receiving the roadway design contract award, and to compete for the contract solely on the basis of demonstrated technical qualifications rather than substituting political influence for the qualification-based selection process.
sourcetext: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
temporalscope: During the procurement process for the rural roadway design contract
textreferences: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
textreferences: I.6 indicates that engineers shall conduct themselves in a way so to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.193976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Project Success Notification Obligation Rural Roadway
type: ProjectSuccessNotificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Deficient Design Harm Materialized During Construction
casecontext: Engineer B completed the rural roadway design despite lacking competence in the domain, and only admitted the competence limitations after construction problems had already materialized, when earlier notification could have allowed the County to engage a qualified firm.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Violated By Engineer B Accepting Out-of-Competence Roadway Contract
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Project Success Notification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to advise County A when the engineer believed — or should have believed — that the project would not be successful due to the firm's lack of competence in rural roadway design, including advising the County before or during design that the firm's limitations created material risk of design deficiencies.
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
temporalscope: Upon recognition that the firm's competence limitations created material risk of project failure, prior to or during the design phase
textreferences: During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.186754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount — Design Deficiencies Affecting Construction Safety
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Construction-phase problems arising from design deficiencies
appliedto: Rural roadway design quality
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Economic interests of Engineer B's firm
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's incompetent roadway design produced deficiencies that caused problems during construction, implicating the public welfare obligation to ensure that engineering designs meet applicable standards and protect those who will use and be affected by the constructed infrastructure
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:59.297123+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:59.297123+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount requires that engineers not accept design commissions they cannot competently execute, because incompetent design directly threatens the safety and welfare of the public who will use the resulting infrastructure
invokedby: Engineer B Rural Roadway Design Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation is paramount and cannot be subordinated to business interests; the deficient design that caused construction problems is a concrete manifestation of the harm that results when this principle is violated
textreferences: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
textreferences: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.191788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Competence Obligation Rural Roadway Design Performance
type: CompetenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Outside Area of Competence - Rural Roadway Design
defeasible under: Engineer B Rural Highway Design Domain Incompetence
casecontext: Engineer B performed rural roadway design for County A despite lacking experience in that domain, resulting in significant design deficiencies including miscalculated quantities and errors requiring extensive field revisions during construction.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Competence Assurance Violated By Engineer B Accepting Roadway Design Contract
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Competence Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to perform rural roadway design services only if the firm possessed the requisite competence in that domain, and was obligated to decline or withdraw from the engagement upon recognizing that the firm lacked the necessary expertise to perform the work adequately.
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
temporalscope: Throughout the design phase and upon recognition of competence limitations
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.185812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Rural Roadway
type: Pre-AcceptanceCompetenceSelf-AssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Financial Pressure Driving Scope Overreach
casecontext: Engineer B, an experienced water and wastewater engineer with no rural roadway design experience, responded to County A's advertisement for consulting engineering services for rural roadway design.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Competence Assurance Violated By Engineer B Accepting Roadway Design Contract
derived from principle: Competence Assurance — Engineer B Roadway Design Acceptance
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to conduct an honest self-assessment of the firm's competence in rural roadway design before accepting County A's contract, and to decline the engagement given the firm's lack of experience in that domain.
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
temporalscope: Prior to submitting a response to County A's advertisement and prior to accepting the contract award
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.193221
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Professional Accountability Admission Construction Meeting
type: EthicalObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Deficient Design Harm Materialized - Highway
casecontext: Engineer B admitted during a construction-phase meeting with County A that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design, representing a partial fulfillment of the accountability obligation after the harm had already occurred.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Professional Accountability Partially Satisfied By Engineer B Admission During Construction
derived from principle: Professional Accountability — Engineer B Failure to Acknowledge Competence Limits
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Ethical Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to take full professional accountability for the design deficiencies, including acknowledging the competence limitations that caused them and cooperating with County A to remediate the problems — an obligation partially satisfied by the admission during the construction meeting but violated by the failure to disclose earlier.
sourcetext: During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
temporalscope: Upon recognition of design deficiencies and throughout the construction problem resolution period
textreferences: During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: The County grew increasingly frustrated with the quality of work provided by Engineer B.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.186135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Professional Seal Affixation Rural Roadway Design
type: ProfessionalSealAffixationCompetenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Outside Area of Competence - Rural Roadway Design
defeasible under: Engineer B Rural Highway Design Domain Incompetence
casecontext: Engineer B, a water and wastewater engineer, accepted and completed a rural roadway design contract for County A despite lacking competence in rural highway design, and affixed their professional seal to the resulting plans, which contained significant deficiencies including miscalculated quantities that caused problems during construction.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Competence Assurance — Engineer B Roadway Design Acceptance
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:55:00.057965+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:55:00.057965+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Professional Seal Affixation Competence Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from affixing their professional signature and seal to the rural roadway design plans, given that Engineer B was a water and wastewater engineer without significant roadway design skills and therefore lacked competence in the specific technical domain of rural highway design.
sourcetext: The Code of Ethics specifically states Engineers shall not affix their signature to any plans dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
temporalscope: At the time of sealing and delivering the rural roadway design plans to County A
textreferences: II.2.b. indicates further that Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
textreferences: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
textreferences: The Code of Ethics specifically states Engineers shall not affix their signature to any plans dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
textreferences: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.192894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Violated By Engineer B Accepting Out-of-Competence Roadway Contract
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County A rural roadway design project
appliedto: Traveling public who would use the designed roadway
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Firm financial survival
balancingwith: Local employment preservation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, an experienced water and wastewater engineer with no rural roadway design experience, accepted a roadway design contract and provided false assurances of competence, resulting in a deficient design with miscalculated quantities and significant field revision requirements that imposed costs and risks on the public infrastructure project
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare requires that engineers decline work outside their competence domain because deficient designs on public infrastructure directly threaten the safety, reliability, and fiscal integrity of public assets serving the community
invokedby: Engineer B Rural Roadway Design Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation was violated — Engineer B subordinated public welfare to personal economic interests by accepting work outside competence and providing false assurances of capability
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.184182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Financial Pressure Driving Scope Overreach
type: FinancialPressureDrivingScopeOverreachState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the period of work downturn through the decision to respond to the County advertisement and accept the contract
affectedparties: County A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer B's staff
affectedparties: Other competing local firms
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
stateclass: Financial Pressure Driving Scope Overreach State
subject: Engineer B's financial condition and its influence on the decision to pursue rural roadway design work
terminatedby: Award of contract to Engineer B (financial pressure partially relieved by contract award, though competence consequences persisted)
textreferences: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
textreferences: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
triggeringevent: Downturn in committed work threatening firm bottom line and potential staff layoffs, coinciding with County advertisement for roadway design services
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.181029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Honest Competence Representation Rural Roadway Bidding
type: HonestCompetenceRepresentationinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Competence Misrepresentation - Highway Contract
prevails over: Engineer B Economic Pressure Non-Subordination Rural Roadway Contract
casecontext: Engineer B provided assurances of competence when bidding on the rural roadway design contract despite the firm's expertise being limited to water and wastewater engineering, and despite lacking significant roadway design skills.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Honesty Violated By Engineer B False Assurances of Competence
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations — Engineer B Bidding Assurances
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:55:00.057965+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:55:00.057965+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Honest Competence Representation in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to represent the firm's qualifications and competence honestly when bidding on the rural roadway design contract, including refraining from providing assurances of adequacy in rural highway design where the firm lacked demonstrated experience in that specific technical domain.
sourcetext: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
temporalscope: During the bidding and procurement process for the rural roadway design contract
textreferences: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
textreferences: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.193374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Outside Area of Competence - Rural Roadway Design
type: OutsideAreaofCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer B considered responding to the advertisement through project completion and construction
affectedparties: County A
affectedparties: County construction staff
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public using the roadway
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:15.397238+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer)
stateclass: Outside Area of Competence
subject: Engineer B's professional competence relative to rural roadway design
terminatedby: Not terminated — competence gap persisted through project completion and was acknowledged during construction
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer)
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
triggeringevent: County advertisement for rural roadway design consulting services responded to by Engineer B, an experienced water and wastewater engineer with no rural roadway design experience
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.180667
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Rural Highway Design Domain Incompetence
type: Domain-SpecificIncompetencewithGeneralLicensureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From bidding on the rural highway contract through construction problems materializing
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Construction contractors
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public road users
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:48:00.422063+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services
stateclass: Domain-Specific Incompetence with General Licensure State
subject: Engineer B's competence relative to rural highway design services
terminatedby: Construction problems confirmed competence deficiency; ethical determination by Board
textreferences: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence
textreferences: Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services
textreferences: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards
triggeringevent: Engineer B, a water and wastewater engineer, bid on and accepted a rural highway design contract without possessing roadway design competence
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.183464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated By County A Local-Only Advertisement
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineering services procurement process
appliedto: Non-local qualified roadway design firms excluded from competition
balancingwith: County policy on local services
balancingwith: Local economic development preferences
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: County A published its advertisement for consulting engineering services only locally, pursuant to a policy of utilizing local design services whenever possible, which restricted competition to local firms regardless of whether those firms possessed adequate competence for rural roadway design
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Fairness in professional competition requires that procurement processes not artificially restrict the competitive pool in ways that systematically exclude more qualified firms, particularly when the local pool may lack the specialized competence required for the project
invokedby: County A Municipal Infrastructure Client
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases.
tensionresolution: The local-only advertisement policy prioritized local economic preference over competitive fairness and ultimately over competence, contributing to the award of a contract to an incompetent firm
textreferences: All local engineering firms responded to the advertisement.
textreferences: It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases.
textreferences: Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally.
textreferences: There was enough design work available that each of the local firms could receive one or more design projects.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.184857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition — Local Preference Policy Enabling Incompetent Award
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Award of contract to Engineer B over potentially more qualified competitors
appliedto: Rural roadway design procurement process
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Local economic development interests
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: County A's application of a local preference procurement policy restricted competition to geographically limited pools, enabling the award of the roadway design contract to Engineer B — a locally based but domain-incompetent firm — rather than to more qualified non-local competitors, thereby undermining fair competitive access and resulting in a deficient design
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:59.297123+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:59.297123+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Fairness in professional competition requires that procurement processes not restrict competition in ways that result in contracts being awarded to less qualified firms; local preference policies that produce this outcome violate the principle even when applied with non-discriminatory intent
invokedby: County A Municipal Infrastructure Client
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
tensionresolution: Fairness in competition and qualification-based selection should prevail over local preference policies that compromise technical quality and public welfare
textreferences: In the present case, the question is whether Engineer B is competent.
textreferences: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.192747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Client Loyalty Violated By Engineer B Deficient Design Delivery
type: ClientLoyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County A Municipal Infrastructure Client
appliedto: Rural roadway design contract
balancingwith: Professional Competence limitations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B failed to faithfully serve County A's interests by delivering a deficient roadway design with miscalculated quantities and significant errors, requiring extensive field revisions and County staff effort to resolve, despite having contractually committed to provide adequate design services
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Client loyalty requires engineers to execute contracted work competently and diligently; accepting a contract one cannot competently perform is itself a violation of client loyalty because it deprives the client of the faithful service they contracted for
invokedby: Engineer B Rural Roadway Design Engineer
principleclass: Client Loyalty
sourcetext: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
tensionresolution: Client loyalty obligation was violated — Engineer B's acceptance of work outside their competence domain and delivery of a deficient design product failed to serve County A's interests faithfully
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction.
textreferences: The County grew increasingly frustrated with the quality of work provided by Engineer B.
textreferences: Through the efforts of the County staff, the project was able to remain within its budget.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.185187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Design Deficiency Early Disclosure Construction Problems
type: DesignDeficiencyEarlyDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Economic Pressure Non-Subordination Rural Roadway Contract
defeasible under: Deficient Design Harm Materialized During Construction
casecontext: Engineer B admitted during a meeting with the County, after construction problems had already materialized, that the problems encountered were outside the firm's expertise — a disclosure that came too late to prevent the construction difficulties that resulted from the deficient design.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Professional Accountability — Engineer B Failure to Acknowledge Competence Limits
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:55:00.057965+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:55:00.057965+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Design Deficiency Early Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to promptly disclose to County A the design deficiencies attributable to the firm's lack of competence in rural roadway design — including miscalculated quantities and significant errors — before or upon discovery during construction, rather than waiting until construction problems had already materialized before acknowledging the limitations.
sourcetext: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer B's recognition during design or early construction that the design contained deficiencies attributable to lack of competence in rural roadway design
textreferences: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
textreferences: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.193815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Faithful Agent Obligation County A Roadway Design
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Economic Pressure Non-Subordination Rural Roadway Contract
defeasible under: Engineer B Rural Highway Design Domain Incompetence
casecontext: Engineer B delivered a rural roadway design to County A that contained significant deficiencies including miscalculated quantities, requiring extensive field revisions during construction and causing the County significant time and effort to resolve.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Client Loyalty Violated By Engineer B Deficient Design Delivery
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for County A, serving the County's interests by delivering a competent and accurate rural roadway design — an obligation violated by delivering a deficient design with miscalculated quantities and significant errors.
sourcetext: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
temporalscope: Throughout the design engagement and delivery of the design product
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve.
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: The County grew increasingly frustrated with the quality of work provided by Engineer B.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.186297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Professional Honor Reputation Preservation Rural Roadway Bidding
type: ProfessionalHonorandReputationPreservationinCompetenceDecisionsObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Economic Pressure Non-Subordination Rural Roadway Contract
prevails over: Engineer B Economic Pressure Non-Subordination Rural Roadway Contract
casecontext: Engineer B bid on and accepted a rural roadway design contract outside the firm's water and wastewater competence domain, resulting in a deficient design and construction problems, thereby failing to conduct themselves in a manner that enhances the honor and reputation of the engineering profession.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Professional Reputation and Honor — Engineer B Bidding Outside Competence Domain
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:55:00.057965+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:55:00.057965+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Professional Honor and Reputation Preservation in Competence Decisions Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated under NSPE I.6 to conduct themselves in a manner that enhances the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the engineering profession, including by refraining from bidding on and accepting a rural roadway design contract for which the firm lacked adequate competence.
sourcetext: Finally, I.6 indicates that engineers shall conduct themselves in a way so to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
temporalscope: During the bidding process and upon acceptance of the rural roadway design contract
textreferences: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
textreferences: Finally, I.6 indicates that engineers shall conduct themselves in a way so to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.193678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations — Engineer B Bidding Assurances
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Contract acceptance for rural roadway design
appliedto: Procurement bid representations to County A
balancingwith: Business development interests
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B provided assurances of competence when bidding on the rural roadway design contract despite lacking the requisite skills, constituting a misrepresentation of qualifications to County A that induced the award of a contract the firm could not adequately perform
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:59.297123+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:59.297123+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations requires that engineers accurately disclose their actual competence domain when bidding, and prohibits assurances of capability that are not grounded in genuine education or experience in the specific technical field
invokedby: Engineer B Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
tensionresolution: Honesty obligation prohibits false assurances regardless of business incentives; Engineer B should have disclosed the firm's water/wastewater specialization and lack of roadway experience
textreferences: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
textreferences: II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.191949
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Professional Accountability Partially Satisfied By Engineer B Admission During Construction
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Construction period design deficiency resolution
appliedto: County A Municipal Infrastructure Client
balancingwith: Firm financial interests
balancingwith: Liability concerns
balancingwith: Reputational protection
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B admitted during a meeting with the County, after construction problems had already materialized, that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design — a belated but partial acknowledgment of professional failure
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability requires engineers to acknowledge errors and limitations; Engineer B's admission during the construction meeting represents a partial satisfaction of this obligation, though it came after the harm had already materialized rather than before accepting the contract or at the outset of identified problems
invokedby: Engineer B Rural Roadway Design Engineer
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
tensionresolution: Accountability obligation was partially satisfied through belated admission but was substantially violated by the prior false assurances and failure to disclose limitations before accepting the contract
textreferences: During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: The County grew increasingly frustrated with the quality of work provided by Engineer B.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.184700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Professional Reputation and Honor — Engineer B Bidding Outside Competence Domain
type: ProfessionalReputationandHonorObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Procurement bidding conduct
appliedto: Professional reputation of the engineering discipline
balancingwith: Business development interests
balancingwith: Economic interests of the firm
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's act of bidding on and accepting a rural roadway design contract outside the firm's water and wastewater competence domain, resulting in a deficient design with construction problems, failed to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the engineering profession as required by NSPE Canon I.6
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:59.297123+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:59.297123+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The obligation to enhance professional honor and reputation operates as a constraint on business development conduct, prohibiting engineers from pursuing contracts that, by virtue of the engineer's incompetence, will foreseeably result in deficient work that discredits the profession
invokedby: Engineer B Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor
principleclass: Professional Reputation and Honor Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
tensionresolution: Professional reputation obligation overrides short-term business interests; the reputational harm to the profession from incompetent work products is a recognized ethical violation under Canon I.6
textreferences: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
textreferences: I.6 indicates that engineers shall conduct themselves in a way so to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.192579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Honest Competence Representation County A Procurement
type: HonestCompetenceRepresentationinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Economic Pressure Non-Subordination Rural Roadway Contract
defeasible under: Engineer B Competence Misrepresentation to County A
casecontext: Engineer B responded to County A's advertisement for rural roadway design consulting services and provided affirmative assurances of adequacy despite having no rural roadway design experience.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Honesty Violated By Engineer B False Assurances of Competence
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations — Engineer B Bidding Assurances
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Honest Competence Representation in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to represent the firm's qualifications honestly to County A during the procurement process, including refraining from providing affirmative assurances of adequacy in rural roadway design when the firm lacked demonstrated experience in that domain.
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
temporalscope: During the procurement response and contract negotiation phase
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.185517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Honesty Violated By Engineer B False Assurances of Competence
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Contract award decision
appliedto: County A Municipal Infrastructure Client
balancingwith: Firm financial survival
balancingwith: Local employment preservation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B provided affirmative assurances to County A that the firm could adequately perform rural roadway design services, despite knowing or having reason to know that the firm lacked experience in that domain, thereby misleading the County into awarding a contract to an incompetent firm
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations prohibits engineers from making affirmative false statements about their qualifications and capabilities to prospective clients, even when economic pressure creates strong incentives to do so
invokedby: Engineer B Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
tensionresolution: Honesty obligation was violated — Engineer B's assurances of competence were false and misleading, enabling the County to make a contract award decision based on inaccurate information
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.184519
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Professional Accountability — Engineer B Failure to Acknowledge Competence Limits
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Design deficiencies and construction-phase problems
appliedto: Failure to acknowledge domain incompetence prior to contract acceptance
balancingwith: Business development interests
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B failed to take responsibility for the firm's competence limitations before accepting the roadway design contract, and the resulting design deficiencies — including miscalculated quantities — reflect a failure of professional accountability that caused downstream harm during construction
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:59.297123+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:59.297123+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability requires engineers to honestly assess and acknowledge their own limitations before undertaking work, not merely after errors have caused harm; accepting work outside one's competence and producing deficient results without acknowledgment is a failure of this principle
invokedby: Engineer B Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
tensionresolution: Accountability obligation requires proactive acknowledgment of limitations; economic pressure to win contracts does not excuse accepting work the engineer cannot competently perform
textreferences: Engineer B did not meet this standard when bidding and accepting a contract involving work for which the firm did not have adequate competence.
textreferences: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
textreferences: The problems that occurred during construction would have been avoided if the design met standards.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.192122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Competence Assurance — Engineer B Roadway Design Acceptance
type: CompetenceAssuranceUnderNovelToolAdoption
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Affixing signature to deficient roadway design plans
appliedto: Rural roadway design contract acceptance
balancingwith: Business development interests
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without significant roadway design skills, accepted a rural highway design contract outside their domain of competence, producing a design with significant deficiencies including miscalculated quantities, in violation of the principle requiring engineers to ensure sufficient competence before undertaking professional work
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:53:59.297123+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:53:59.297123+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, competence assurance requires that an engineer not accept or sign plans for a technical domain — rural highway design — in which they lack education or experience, regardless of general licensure status. The principle is violated at the point of contract acceptance, not merely at the point of design execution.
invokedby: Engineer B Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor
principleclass: Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption
sourcetext: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
tensionresolution: Competence obligation is non-negotiable and overrides business development interests; the engineer should have declined the contract or associated with a competent roadway engineer
textreferences: II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
textreferences: II.2.b. indicates further that Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
textreferences: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
textreferences: The Code of Ethics specifically states Engineers shall not affix their signature to any plans dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.191604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Political Lobbying County Commission Rural Roadway Contract
type: PoliticalLobbyingNon-SubstitutionforTechnicalQualificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Economic Pressure Non-Subordination Rural Roadway Contract
defeasible under: Engineer B Financial Pressure Driving Scope Overreach
casecontext: Engineer B lobbied the County Commission directly in their favor during the procurement process for the rural roadway design contract.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Procurement Integrity Implicated By Engineer B Lobbying County Commission
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Political Lobbying Non-Substitution for Technical Qualification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from lobbying the County Commission directly in favor of receiving the contract award, and to compete for the contract solely on the basis of demonstrated technical qualifications rather than political advocacy.
sourcetext: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
temporalscope: During the procurement and contract award phase
textreferences: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.185669
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Procurement Integrity Implicated By Engineer B Lobbying County Commission
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County A engineering services procurement
appliedto: County Commission contract award decision
balancingwith: Firm financial survival
balancingwith: Local employment preservation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B lobbied the County Commission directly in favor of receiving a contract award, substituting political influence for technical qualification as a basis for contract award in a public engineering procurement
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Procurement integrity requires that public engineering contracts be awarded based on qualifications and merit, not political lobbying; Engineer B's lobbying of the County Commission undermined the integrity of the qualification-based selection process
invokedby: Engineer B Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
tensionresolution: Procurement integrity was compromised — Engineer B used political lobbying rather than technical qualifications to secure the contract award, and the County's local preference policy created conditions that made such lobbying effective
textreferences: Engineer B received an award from the County for a single roadway design project.
textreferences: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.185033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

County A Competitive Procurement Fairness Local Advertisement Policy
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Domain-Specific Competence Verification Rural Roadway Contract
defeasible under: Public Safety at Risk - Deficient Roadway Design
casecontext: County A published its advertisement for rural roadway design consulting services only locally pursuant to a local preference policy, which resulted in the contract being awarded to a local firm that lacked competence in rural roadway design.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.78
derived from principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated By County A Local-Only Advertisement
derived from principle: Fairness in Professional Competition — Local Preference Policy Enabling Incompetent Award
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: County A
obligationclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
obligationstatement: County A was obligated to evaluate whether its policy of advertising consulting engineering services only locally — thereby restricting competition to local firms — was consistent with applicable procurement fairness requirements and qualification-based selection principles, particularly when local firms may lack competence in the required domain.
sourcetext: It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases.
temporalscope: At the time of establishing and implementing the local-only advertisement policy
textreferences: All local engineering firms responded to the advertisement.
textreferences: It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases.
textreferences: Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.186590
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Competence Assurance Violated By Engineer B Accepting Roadway Design Contract
type: CompetenceAssuranceUnderNovelToolAdoption
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: County A as client
appliedto: Rural roadway design project
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Firm financial survival
balancingwith: Local employment preservation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, whose professional expertise was in water and wastewater engineering, accepted a rural roadway design contract in a domain outside their competence without taking steps to verify their adequacy for the work or associating with a competent roadway design engineer, resulting in a deficient design product
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:49:41.293858+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Competence assurance requires engineers to honestly evaluate whether their training and experience are adequate for a specific project scope before accepting the engagement, and to decline or associate with specialists when they are not — economic pressure does not justify accepting work one cannot competently perform
invokedby: Engineer B Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor
principleclass: Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption
sourcetext: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
tensionresolution: Competence obligation was violated — Engineer B accepted work outside their domain of expertise due to economic pressure without taking adequate steps to ensure competent delivery
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
textreferences: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.184346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Rural Roadway Design Engineer
type: RuralRoadwayDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client Loyalty Violated By Engineer B Deficient Design Delivery
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability Partially Satisfied By Engineer B Admission During Construction
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Violated By Engineer B Accepting Out-of-Competence Roadway Contract
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount — Design Deficiencies Affecting Construction Safety
has obligation: Engineer B Competence Obligation Rural Roadway Design Performance
has obligation: Engineer B Construction Period Services Continuity County A Roadway
has obligation: Engineer B Design Deficiency Early Disclosure Construction Problems
has obligation: Engineer B Design Deficiency Early Disclosure County A Construction
has obligation: Engineer B Faithful Agent Obligation County A Roadway Design
has obligation: Engineer B Professional Accountability Admission Construction Meeting
has obligation: Engineer B Project Success Notification Obligation Rural Roadway
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'design_domain': 'Rural roadway (outside primary expertise)', 'design_outcome': 'Deficient — multiple field revisions, quantity miscalculations'}
caseinvolvement: Performed the rural roadway design for County A's project, producing a design with significant deficiencies including miscalculated quantities and issues that required numerous field revisions during construction, ultimately admitting the problems stemmed from lack of domain knowledge.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:10.493305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:10.493305+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'County A'}
relationships: {'type': 'same_person_as', 'target': 'Engineer B Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Rural Roadway Design Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction
textreferences: A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated
textreferences: Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design
textreferences: If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.180185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Domain-Specific Competence Verification Rural Roadway Contract
type: Domain-SpecificCompetenceVerificationBeforeAssignmentAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: County A Competitive Procurement Fairness Local Advertisement Policy
competes with: Engineer B Economic Pressure Non-Subordination Rural Roadway Contract
defeasible under: Conflict of Interest - Engineer B Self-Interest vs. Public Welfare
prevails over: County A Competitive Procurement Fairness Local Advertisement Policy
prevails over: Engineer B Economic Pressure Non-Subordination Rural Roadway Contract
casecontext: Engineer B, whose professional expertise was in water and wastewater engineering, accepted a rural roadway design contract from County A despite lacking demonstrated competence in rural highway design, analogous to BER Cases 98-8 and 94-8 where engineers competent in one domain were found to have acted unethically by undertaking work in a different domain outside their competence.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Competence Assurance Violated By Engineer B Accepting Roadway Design Contract
derived from principle: Competence Assurance — Engineer B Roadway Design Acceptance
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:55:00.057965+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:55:00.057965+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Domain-Specific Competence Verification Before Assignment Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to verify, before accepting the rural roadway design contract from County A, that the firm possessed domain-specific competence in rural highway design established by education or experience in that specific technical field — and to decline the contract upon determining that the firm's water and wastewater expertise did not constitute competence in rural roadway design.
sourcetext: II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
temporalscope: Prior to accepting the rural roadway design contract from County A
textreferences: II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
textreferences: In BER Case 98-8, a professional engineer in civil engineering was asked to certify certain arms storage rooms and racks for the Army. This engineer had no significant training or knowledge in that area, although the engineer was considered a qualified engineer. The Board concluded that, because the engineer lacked competence in the specific area, it would not be ethical for the engineer to certify the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks. That case is analogous to the present case.
textreferences: In both instances, while competent in some areas, the engineer in question may not have been competent in the specific areas of practice in question, in which case, the engineer acted unethically.
textreferences: In this case, it is clear that Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.193079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor
type: Out-of-CompetenceEngineeringContractor
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Competence Assurance Violated By Engineer B Accepting Roadway Design Contract
adheres to principle: Competence Assurance — Engineer B Roadway Design Acceptance
adheres to principle: Honesty Violated By Engineer B False Assurances of Competence
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations — Engineer B Bidding Assurances
adheres to principle: Procurement Integrity Implicated By Engineer B Lobbying County Commission
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability — Engineer B Failure to Acknowledge Competence Limits
adheres to principle: Professional Reputation and Honor — Engineer B Bidding Outside Competence Domain
has obligation: Engineer B Domain-Specific Competence Verification Rural Roadway Contract
has obligation: Engineer B Economic Pressure Non-Subordination Rural Roadway Contract
has obligation: Engineer B Honest Competence Representation County A Procurement
has obligation: Engineer B Honest Competence Representation Rural Roadway Bidding
has obligation: Engineer B Political Lobbying County Commission Rural Roadway Contract
has obligation: Engineer B Political Lobbying Non-Substitution County Commission
has obligation: Engineer B Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Rural Roadway
has obligation: Engineer B Professional Honor Reputation Preservation Rural Roadway Bidding
has obligation: Engineer B Professional Seal Affixation Rural Roadway Design
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Water and wastewater engineering', 'firm_role': 'Owner', 'competence_gap': 'Rural roadway design', 'business_motivation': 'Downturn in committed work, risk of staff layoffs'}
caseinvolvement: Owner of a local water and wastewater engineering firm who accepted a rural roadway design contract outside their competence domain, provided assurances of adequacy to secure the award, lobbied the County Commission, produced a deficient design resulting in numerous field revisions and quantity miscalculations, and ultimately admitted the problems were outside the firm's understanding.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:47:10.493305+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:47:10.493305+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'County A'}
relationships: {'type': 'contractor', 'target': 'County A County Engineering Client'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor
sourcetext: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design
textreferences: Engineer B received an award from the County for a single roadway design project
textreferences: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work
textreferences: They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.180019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction

Engineer B Economic Pressure Non-Subordination Rural Roadway Contract
type: EconomicPressureNon-SubordinationofCompetenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Design Deficiency Early Disclosure Construction Problems
competes with: Engineer B Domain-Specific Competence Verification Rural Roadway Contract
competes with: Engineer B Faithful Agent Obligation County A Roadway Design
competes with: Engineer B Honest Competence Representation County A Procurement
competes with: Engineer B Political Lobbying County Commission Rural Roadway Contract
competes with: Engineer B Professional Honor Reputation Preservation Rural Roadway Bidding
defeasible under: Engineer B Financial Pressure Driving Scope Overreach
defeasible under: Engineer B Financial Pressure Scope Overreach - Highway Contract
casecontext: Engineer B was experiencing a business downturn that threatened staff layoffs, and accepted a rural roadway design contract outside the firm's competence domain to address the economic shortfall.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 12
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 12
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T19:51:16.845764+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Economic Pressure Non-Subordination of Competence Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from accepting the rural roadway design contract based on economic self-interest — specifically the firm's revenue downturn and risk of staff layoffs — when the firm lacked the technical competence to perform the work adequately.
sourcetext: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
temporalscope: At the time of deciding whether to respond to County A's advertisement and accept the contract award
textreferences: Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
textreferences: One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
textreferences: While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
wasattributedto: Case 12 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T20:03:54.193537
was generated by: ProEthica Case 12 Extraction