Providing Incomplete, Self-Serving Advice
The Board cited this case to establish the principle that engineers must provide complete and objective reports, and that intentional disregard or selective use of information in engineering reports is unethical.
The Board cited this case as relatively analogous to establish that submitting incomplete work product without disclosing its incompleteness is clearly unethical, paralleling Engineer A's omission of relevant delivery methods.
By rendering free professional services, Engineer A violates the prohibition on using complimentary work to secure future contracts, and this violation matters causally because the free services rendered become a direct basis for the BER ethical finding against the engineer.
Steering the city toward a particular method that benefits Engineer A creates a conflict of interest and undermines faithful agency to the client, and this distortion compounds the harm by directly triggering the self-promotional credential inclusion that follows.
Although the city administrator's request carries no direct normative violation, it initiates the advisory engagement that sets every downstream action in motion, making responsiveness to public need the foundational value whose exercise opens the door to the ethical problems that follow.
Omitting relevant delivery options from the memo narrows the city's decision space in a way that serves the engineer's interests rather than the client's, violating completeness and objectivity obligations whose breach is serious enough to independently produce an adverse BER ethical finding.
CausalLink_Self-Promotional Credential In
Embedding credentials in a memo framed as neutral advice misrepresents the document's purpose and violates prohibitions on using gifts or free services to secure work, converting what was already an ethically compromised memo into an undisclosed solicitation.
It was unethical for Engineer A to leave out relevant and pertinent information from the analysis/ recommendation.
Beyond the Board's finding that omitting relevant information was unethical, Engineer A's selective disclosure was compounded by the specific vulnerability of the recipient. Because City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer, they lacked any independent means of detecting that two of four approved delivery methods had been silently excluded from the analysis. This asymmetry of expertise created a heightened duty of candor: the less technically equipped the client, the more complete and transparent the advisory communication must be. Engineer A's failure to disclose the full option set was therefore not merely an incomplete analysis but a structurally misleading one, because a non-engineer client would have no basis to question what was absent from the memo. The ethical violation is thus more serious than it would have been had the memo been delivered to a technically sophisticated client capable of independently recognizing the omission.
The Board's conclusion that omitting relevant information was unethical applies with particular force to the exclusion of Construction-Manager-at-Risk, because that omission carried a second-order ethical dimension the Board did not address. Under the applicable funding source, if City B had selected Construction-Manager-at-Risk, the funding agency would have required the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record to be two distinct entities — a constraint that would have directly disqualified Engineer A's firm from serving in its preferred combined role. By omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the memo entirely, Engineer A avoided having to disclose this regulatory constraint, which would have revealed a concrete, project-specific reason why that method was disadvantageous to Engineer A's business interests. The omission of Construction-Manager-at-Risk was therefore not merely an analytical gap but a strategically motivated suppression of a funding constraint that was directly material to understanding Engineer A's conflict of interest. This constitutes a separate and aggravated dimension of the ethical violation beyond the general incompleteness finding.
The Board's finding of an ethical violation for omitting relevant information implicitly raises, but does not resolve, the question of whether Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to proactively disclose their conflict of interest before or at the time of delivering the advisory memo — independent of the completeness of the options analysis itself. Even if Engineer A had included all four delivery methods with equal rigor, the undisclosed financial interest in the recommended method would have remained a separate ethical problem. The duty to disclose a conflict of interest is not satisfied merely by producing a technically complete analysis; it requires explicit, upfront acknowledgment that the advisor stands to benefit commercially from the client's adoption of the recommended course of action. Engineer A's failure to make this disclosure deprived City Administrator of the information necessary to weigh the advice critically or to seek a second opinion, and this failure is analytically distinct from — and in addition to — the incomplete options analysis the Board identified.
The Board's conclusion that recommending Progressive-Design-Build was ethical provided the reasoning was objective, valid, and comparative is correct as a conditional proposition, but the condition was not met in this case. The Board's framing implies that the recommendation itself is separable from the process that produced it, but in practice the two cannot be cleanly divorced. A recommendation that emerges from a selectively framed analysis — one that excluded two of four approved methods without explanation — cannot be retroactively rendered objective simply because the recommended method might have prevailed in a complete analysis. The ethical validity of the recommendation is inseparable from the integrity of the analytical process that generated it. Because the process was compromised by selective omission and undisclosed conflict of interest, the recommendation itself carries the taint of that process, and the Board's conditional approval should be understood as describing what Engineer A should have done rather than validating what Engineer A actually did.
The Board's conditional approval of recommending a method within Engineer A's own service capabilities does not resolve the deeper tension between the advisory role and the prospective vendor role that Engineer A simultaneously occupied. When an engineer provides unsolicited advisory services to a prospective client without a contractual relationship, and then recommends the delivery method under which they are best positioned to compete for work, the structural conflict of interest is not neutralized by the quality of the technical reasoning. The advisory role carries an implicit representation of disinterested expertise; the vendor role carries an inherent financial stake in the outcome. These roles are not inherently irreconcilable, but they can only be ethically combined through full upfront disclosure of the conflict, explicit acknowledgment that the client may wish to seek independent advice, and a demonstrably complete and balanced analysis. Engineer A satisfied none of these conditions, meaning the dual-role problem was never resolved and the conditional ethical approval the Board described was never actually achieved.
The Board's finding that including marketing materials and project references was not unethical in isolation requires important qualification when considered in the full context of the engagement. The Board appears to have evaluated the credential inclusion as a standalone act, but its ethical character cannot be assessed in isolation from the circumstances in which it occurred: an unsolicited advisory memo, prepared without compensation, delivered to a non-engineer public official, in the absence of any contractual relationship, recommending the delivery method under which Engineer A's firm was best positioned to compete. In this context, the inclusion of project summaries and references functioned not merely as transparent disclosure of qualifications but as a commercial inducement embedded within what was presented as objective professional advice. The absence of a contractual relationship is particularly significant: when an engineer provides free advisory services and simultaneously promotes their own credentials to secure future work, the combined effect approaches the kind of indirect contribution or gift to influence a professional decision that the applicable code provisions are designed to prohibit. The Board's finding that this was not unethical in isolation should not be read to mean it was unethical in combination with the other conduct, and a complete ethical assessment requires treating the credential inclusion as one element of a pattern rather than an isolated act.
It was ethical for Engineer A to recommend progressive design build is the best choice, as long as reasons are objective, described, valid, and compared against all available and appropriate delivery methods.
In response to Q101: Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to proactively disclose to City Administrator that Engineer A's firm stood to benefit financially from the recommended project delivery method, and this obligation arose at the moment Engineer A accepted the advisory request — not merely upon formal contract execution. The absence of a contractual relationship does not diminish this duty; if anything, it heightens it, because without a formal engagement structure, City Administrator had no procedural mechanism to prompt or require such disclosure. When an engineer voluntarily assumes an advisory role, the ethical duties of objectivity and candor attach to that role regardless of whether compensation is involved. Engineer A's failure to disclose the conflict of interest at the outset of the advisory engagement constitutes a standalone ethical violation independent of the incomplete options analysis.
In response to Q102: Engineer A bears a heightened duty of candor and completeness precisely because City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer and therefore lacked the technical capacity to independently evaluate whether the memo's scope was complete, whether the omitted methods were materially relevant, or whether Engineer A's recommendation was shaped by self-interest. The asymmetry of technical knowledge between Engineer A and City Administrator is not a neutral background condition — it is an ethically significant factor that amplifies Engineer A's responsibility to ensure the advisory memo was comprehensive and unbiased. A sophisticated engineering client might have recognized that Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk were absent from the analysis and demanded their inclusion; City Administrator had no basis to make that demand. This asymmetry means that Engineer A's selective omission was more harmful in practice than it would have been in a technically peer-to-peer advisory context, and the Board's finding of unethical conduct in Conclusion 1 is further reinforced by this heightened duty.
In response to Q103: Engineer A bore a separate and distinct obligation to disclose the funding agency's requirement that the Construction-Manager-at-Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities when presenting Construction-Manager-at-Risk as a delivery option. This regulatory constraint was directly material to City B's decision-making and to Engineer A's own eligibility under that method. By omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the analysis entirely, Engineer A avoided having to make this disclosure — but the omission of the method does not cure the underlying ethical problem; it compounds it. Had Engineer A included Construction-Manager-at-Risk and disclosed the separation requirement, City Administrator would have received a complete picture of both the method's availability and Engineer A's limited role under it. The failure to disclose this funding constraint constitutes a separate violation of the duty to issue objective and truthful professional reports, beyond the general incompleteness finding in Board Conclusion 1.
In response to Q104: The provision of a detailed, unsolicited advisory memo without compensation, in a context where Engineer A had no existing contractual relationship with City B and stood to benefit from the recommended delivery method, raises a serious question under the prohibition on offering contributions or gifts to influence professional decisions. While the memo is not a monetary gift, it constitutes a thing of professional value — substantive engineering analysis — provided free of charge in a manner structurally designed to position Engineer A favorably for a future contract. The ethical concern is not merely that Engineer A provided free services, but that the free services were selectively framed to advantage Engineer A's preferred outcome. This pattern — providing free, strategically incomplete advisory work to a non-engineer public official in order to shape a procurement decision — is functionally analogous to an indirect inducement and warrants scrutiny under Code Section II.5.b., even if it does not constitute a direct monetary contribution.
In response to Q201: The principle that an engineer should limit advisory scope to areas within their own expertise does not override the obligation to present all available and approved delivery methods to a client seeking a complete options analysis. These principles are not in genuine conflict when properly understood: Engineer A was not required to offer to perform services under Design-Bid-Build or Fixed-Price-Design-Build, but was required to identify those methods as approved options, describe their general characteristics, and explain why they were or were not recommended for City B's project. An engineer's competence boundary governs what services they may contract to perform, not what information they may convey in an advisory capacity. The selective omission of two methods cannot be justified on competence grounds; it can only be explained by self-interest, which is precisely the conflict the Board identified in Conclusion 1.
In response to Q202 and Q303: The dual role of disinterested technical advisor and prospective service provider is not inherently irreconcilable, but it can only be ethically maintained through full upfront disclosure of the conflict of interest. Without such disclosure, the advisory role is structurally compromised from the outset, because the client — particularly a non-engineer public official — cannot calibrate the weight to give the advice without knowing the advisor's financial stake in the outcome. Engineer A's failure to disclose this dual role before or at the time of providing the memo means that City Administrator received what appeared to be neutral expert guidance but was in fact advocacy dressed as analysis. From a virtue ethics perspective, this reflects a failure of practical wisdom: a professionally virtuous engineer would have recognized that the appearance of objectivity, without its substance, is itself a form of deception toward a client who lacks the tools to pierce that appearance.
In response to Q203: A professional report can be materially false and ethically deficient even when every individual statement it contains is technically accurate, if the selective omission of relevant information creates a false overall impression in the mind of a non-expert reader. Engineer A's memo may have contained no factually incorrect statements about Design-Bid-Build or Progressive-Design-Build, yet by silently omitting Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, it conveyed the false impression that only two approved methods existed or were viable. This is precisely the kind of structural misrepresentation that Code Section II.3.a. is designed to prevent: the duty to be objective and truthful in professional reports is not satisfied merely by avoiding false statements, but requires that the report as a whole not mislead the reader. The Board's finding in Conclusion 1 implicitly recognizes this principle, and it should be understood as establishing that omission-based misrepresentation is a violation of the truthfulness obligation even in the absence of affirmative falsehood.
In response to Q301 and Q302: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's omission of two of four approved delivery methods constitutes a structural breach of the categorical duty of honesty regardless of whether Progressive-Design-Build was objectively the superior choice for City B's project. The deontological analysis does not permit consequentialist justification: even if the recommended method would have produced the best outcome for City B, the manner in which the recommendation was reached — through selective framing that concealed alternatives — violated Engineer A's duty to provide complete and truthful professional advice. From a consequentialist standpoint, the harm is compounded by the public funding context: City B's selection of a delivery method influences how public resources are allocated, and a procurement decision shaped by an incomplete, self-interested analysis risks locking a municipality into a suboptimal contractual structure with no independent basis for comparison. The convergence of both frameworks on an adverse ethical judgment strengthens the Board's finding in Conclusion 1.
In response to Q304: The inclusion of self-promotional project summaries and references in an advisory memo provided without a contractual relationship and without compensation is more ethically problematic than the Board's Conclusion 3 suggests when considered in its full context. While the Board found the credential inclusion not unethical in isolation, the combination of free services, selective analysis favoring Engineer A's preferred method, and appended self-promotional materials creates a composite pattern that functions as an indirect inducement — each element individually defensible, but collectively constituting an effort to influence City Administrator's procurement decision through professional services rather than through transparent competition. Code Section II.5.b.'s prohibition on indirect contributions to influence professional decisions should be read to encompass this kind of structured advisory-plus-marketing package when delivered free of charge to a non-engineer public official in the absence of any existing contractual relationship. The Board's finding in Conclusion 3 should therefore be understood as narrowly limited to the credential inclusion viewed in isolation, and should not be read to immunize the overall pattern of conduct.
In response to Q401: Engineer A's recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build would have been ethically sound if Engineer A had disclosed the conflict of interest upfront, evaluated all four approved delivery methods with equal analytical rigor, and then concluded — on objective grounds — that Progressive-Design-Build was the best fit for City B's wastewater project. This counterfactual is important because it clarifies that the Board's Conclusion 2 is not merely aspirational: it identifies a specific and achievable standard of ethical compliance. The ethical deficiency in Engineer A's actual conduct was not the recommendation itself, but the process by which it was reached and presented. A conflict of interest, once disclosed, does not disqualify an engineer from providing advice; it simply requires that the advice be demonstrably objective and complete so that the client can weigh it with full knowledge of the advisor's stake in the outcome.
In response to Q402: Engineer A's failure to consider referring City Administrator to a neutral third-party resource or an independent engineer for the delivery method analysis is itself ethically significant, though it does not rise to the level of a standalone violation. When an engineer recognizes — or should recognize — that their personal financial interest in the outcome of an advisory engagement creates a structural conflict that cannot be fully neutralized through disclosure alone, the professionally virtuous course of action is to consider whether referral to a disinterested party better serves the client's interests. Engineer A's decision to proceed with the advisory memo rather than recommend an independent analysis reflects a failure of the practical wisdom expected of a licensed professional engineer, particularly given the public funding context and the non-engineer status of City Administrator. While the Board did not address this alternative, it represents the most conservative and ethically unambiguous path Engineer A could have taken.
In response to Q403: Including Construction-Manager-at-Risk in the analysis with a clear disclosure that the funding agency's separation requirement would preclude Engineer A's firm from serving as both the CM-at-Risk and the Engineer of Record would have substantially transformed the ethical character of the memo, though it would not have fully resolved all ethical concerns. Such a disclosure would have demonstrated that Engineer A was willing to present options that limited their own commercial opportunity, which is strong evidence of objectivity. However, the memo would still have required inclusion of Fixed-Price-Design-Build and disclosure of Engineer A's conflict of interest with respect to Progressive-Design-Build to be fully compliant. The disclosure of the CM-at-Risk separation constraint is therefore a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical compliance — it addresses one dimension of the incompleteness problem but does not substitute for the full analysis the Board required in Conclusion 1.
In response to Q404: The absence of an existing contractual relationship between Engineer A and City B at the time the memo was prepared makes the self-promotional credential inclusion more ethically problematic, not less. When an engineer provides advisory services under an existing contract, the inclusion of relevant qualifications may serve a legitimate informational purpose within an established professional relationship governed by defined scope and compensation terms. In the absence of any contract, the credential inclusion serves no purpose other than to influence City B's future procurement decision — it is, in effect, unsolicited marketing embedded within what City Administrator reasonably understood to be neutral technical advice. This conflation of advisory and promotional functions, delivered free of charge to a non-engineer public official, is precisely the kind of indirect mechanism that Code Section II.5.b. is designed to address, and the Board's finding in Conclusion 3 should be read narrowly rather than as a general endorsement of credential inclusion in unsolicited advisory contexts.
It was not unethical to include marketing materials that display Engineer A’s firm’s qualifications.
The tension between Engineer A Professional Competence Advisory and Engineer A Complete Options Analysis Duty was not resolved in Engineer A's favor. While it might seem reasonable for an engineer to limit advisory scope to methods within their own expertise, the Board's finding makes clear that the duty of completeness overrides any self-imposed scope limitation rooted in personal qualification. An engineer advising a non-engineer public official on all approved funding options cannot ethically narrow that analysis to only the options they are qualified to perform. The correct resolution of this tension is not to omit methods outside one's competence, but rather to either disclose the limitation explicitly and recommend the client seek supplemental advice on those methods, or to provide a complete analysis with appropriate caveats about the engineer's own qualifications relative to each option. Choosing instead to silently omit two of four approved methods transforms a competence limitation into a structural misrepresentation.
The case reveals an irreconcilable structural tension between Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity and Engineer A Conflict of Interest Non-Disclosure that cannot be resolved merely by ensuring the recommended method is objectively defensible. The Board found it ethical to recommend Progressive-Design-Build provided the reasoning was objective, valid, and comparative — but this condition was never met because the conflict of interest was never disclosed and the comparative analysis was never complete. This case teaches that Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity and Engineer A Objectivity Advisory are not independent principles that can be satisfied in isolation: objectivity in the final recommendation is undermined at the root when the framing of the analysis is shaped by undisclosed self-interest. The two principles can only be reconciled through upfront disclosure of the conflict, followed by a genuinely complete and comparative analysis. Without that disclosure, even a technically sound recommendation carries an ethical defect that no post-hoc justification can cure.
The interaction between Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation and Engineer A Honesty Incomplete Memo reveals a critical principle: technical accuracy in individual statements does not satisfy the duty of truthfulness when selective omission produces a materially false overall impression. Every factual claim in Engineer A's memo may have been accurate, yet the memo as a whole was misleading because it presented a two-option landscape to a non-engineer client who had no independent means of knowing that four options existed. This case establishes that Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation must be understood holistically — it governs the impression conveyed by the totality of a professional communication, not merely the literal accuracy of its component parts. The principle of Engineer A Complete Options Analysis therefore functions as a necessary operational condition for satisfying Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation: completeness is not a separate, additive duty but an integral component of honesty itself. The heightened vulnerability of City Administrator Non-Engineer Client amplifies this obligation, because the asymmetry of expertise between advisor and recipient increases the potential for omission to function as effective deception.
The tension between Engineer A Objectivity Advisory and Engineer A Gratuitous Services Extension was left unresolved by the Board, which addressed the self-promotional credential inclusion in isolation rather than examining the structural conflict created by the provision of free advisory services to a prospective client. This case teaches that these two principles exist in a relationship of mutual contamination: the very act of providing unsolicited free advisory services to a non-client creates a structural incentive — securing future work — that is incompatible with the independence required for objective advice. Engineer A Objectivity Advisory cannot be fully satisfied in a context where Engineer A Free Services Extension has already established a commercial dynamic. The Board's finding that credential inclusion was not unethical in isolation does not resolve this deeper tension, because the ethical problem is not the credential inclusion per se but the overall architecture of an advisory engagement designed to position Engineer A as the preferred provider. This case suggests that when an engineer provides free advisory services to a prospective client on a question where the engineer has a financial stake in the outcome, the engineer bears an affirmative obligation under Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure to make that structural conflict explicit before the advice is delivered, or to decline the advisory role entirely.
The case demonstrates that Engineer A Funding Constraint Disclosure and Engineer A Complete Options Analysis Duty are not merely parallel obligations but are hierarchically ordered: the duty to disclose regulatory constraints that affect the viability of a delivery option is a precondition for the completeness of the options analysis itself. By omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the memo without disclosing the funding agency's requirement that the CM-at-Risk firm and Engineer of Record be separate entities — a constraint that would have disqualified Engineer A from serving in both roles — Engineer A committed two compounding ethical violations. First, the omission of the option itself violated Engineer A Complete Options Analysis Duty. Second, even if the option had been included, omitting the regulatory constraint that would have affected Engineer A's own eligibility would have constituted a separate violation of Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure and Engineer A Transparency Advisory Memo. This layered structure of obligation means that full ethical compliance required not only listing all four methods but also disclosing the specific regulatory constraint that intersected with Engineer A's own financial interest — a disclosure that would have been particularly material to City Administrator Non-Engineer Client, who lacked the expertise to independently identify this constraint.
Should Engineer A provide a free advisory memo to the city, or decline and recommend a formal selection process?
A city administrator asks Engineer A for informal guidance on a water system project. Engineer A must decide whether to respond with a free advisory memo or to decline and direct the city to a formal procurement process. Providing the memo at no charge creates the foundational ethical problem: it constitutes a gratuitous professional service rendered with the intent, or at least the effect, of positioning Engineer A for the subsequent paid engagement.
Engineer A declines to prepare the memo at no charge and instead advises the city administrator to initiate a formal engineer selection process, preserving competitive fairness and avoiding the appearance of using complimentary work to secure future contracts.
Engineer A prepares and delivers a complimentary advisory memo in response to the informal request, rendering professional services without compensation and thereby opening the door to the downstream ethical violations identified by the BER.
Engineer A prepares the memo but explicitly charges a nominal fee and discloses in writing that the engagement does not confer any preference for future work, partially mitigating the free-services concern while still responding to the public need.
Must Engineer A include all relevant delivery and financing options in the advisory memo, or may Engineer A limit the memo to options that align with Engineer A's preferred method?
Having decided to prepare the advisory memo, Engineer A must choose whether to present all relevant project delivery and financing options available to the city or to omit alternatives that would not favor Engineer A's preferred method. The normative record shows that Engineer A's compliance with completeness and objectivity obligations was unmet, and that the engineer possessed advanced proficiency in options completeness, making the omission a deliberate rather than inadvertent choice.
Engineer A prepares a memo that surveys the full range of project delivery methods and financing alternatives available to the city, with objective analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each, enabling the city to make a fully informed decision.
Engineer A selectively presents only the delivery method that aligns with Engineer A's expertise and business interests, omitting alternatives that might lead the city toward a different procurement path, thereby narrowing the city's decision space in Engineer A's favor.
Recognizing the conflict of interest inherent in advising on method selection while also being a potential contractor, Engineer A discloses the conflict and recommends that the city retain an independent advisor to evaluate delivery options objectively.
Should Engineer A recommend a project delivery method based solely on the city's needs, or may Engineer A favor a method that benefits Engineer A's own practice?
Within the advisory memo, Engineer A must decide whether to recommend a particular project delivery method in a manner that is objectively justified or to steer the recommendation toward the method in which Engineer A has a competitive advantage. The causal record shows that a biased method recommendation directly triggered the subsequent self-promotional credential inclusion, compounding the ethical harm and creating a conflict of interest that was never disclosed to the city.
Engineer A bases the method recommendation exclusively on an objective analysis of the city's technical requirements, budget constraints, and timeline, and discloses in writing any personal or financial interest Engineer A may have in the recommended approach.
Engineer A recommends the delivery method that aligns with Engineer A's own expertise and business development interests without disclosing the conflict, presenting the recommendation as if it were a neutral, client-centered conclusion.
Engineer A discloses to the city administrator that a conflict of interest prevents Engineer A from making an objective method recommendation and abstains from that portion of the analysis, suggesting the city seek independent guidance on method selection.
Should Engineer A include self-promotional credentials in the advisory memo, or keep the document limited to objective technical guidance?
After drafting the substantive content of the memo, Engineer A must decide whether to embed credentials, qualifications, and experience highlights within the document. Because the memo was framed as neutral professional advice, inserting self-promotional material converts it into an undisclosed solicitation, violating prohibitions on using gifts or free services to secure work and misrepresenting the document's purpose to the city.
Engineer A confines the memo to objective technical analysis and omits any reference to Engineer A's own qualifications, experience, or interest in performing future work, preserving the document's integrity as neutral professional advice.
Engineer A incorporates a section highlighting Engineer A's relevant experience and qualifications within the advisory memo, effectively using the complimentary document as a vehicle for solicitation without disclosing that dual purpose to the city.
Engineer A appends a clearly labeled, separate statement of qualifications to the memo and explicitly discloses that Engineer A is interested in being considered for the subsequent project, distinguishing the advisory content from the solicitation and allowing the city to evaluate each on its own terms.
Engineer A recommending Progressive Design-Build equals Engineer A providing firm experience summary and references
Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
Engineer A recommending Progressive Design-Build
Engineer A providing firm experience summary and references
Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times
Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work, except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.
The question emerged because Engineer A occupied an advisory role for a non-engineer client who was entirely dependent on that advice, yet no formal engagement existed that would unambiguously trigger standard conflict of interest disclosure protocols. The combination of a self-interested recommendation, a financially vulnerable client, and the absence of a contract created a structural gap in which the scope of the disclosure obligation was neither clearly satisfied nor clearly inapplicable.
The question emerged because Engineer A Selective Option Disclosure created a factual record in which literal accuracy and material honesty point in opposite directions, forcing a determination of whether the Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation is satisfied by the absence of false sentences or requires that the overall impression conveyed to a City Administrator Non-Engineer be accurate. The presence of Engineer A Conflict of Interest Undisclosed and the Engineer A Self-Interested Recommendation deepens the tension, because the omission was not random but served Engineer A's business interest, making it harder to treat the gap as a neutral drafting choice rather than a deliberate act of deception.
This question arose because Engineer A's decision to provide free services to City Administrator was not a neutral act of professional generosity but a business development strategy, and that strategic purpose infected the advisory output by giving Engineer A a concrete reason to recommend Progressive-Design-Build and omit the two methods outside Engineer A's qualification scope. The question forces analysis of whether the objectivity principle can survive the structural incentive created by the free services act, or whether the two principles collapse into a single compound violation where the gratuitous services extension is the mechanism by which objectivity fails.
This question arose because the same memo that could be defended as a competent engineer recommending what they know best is also a document that a non-engineer client relied upon as a complete analysis of available options, and the City Administrator had no basis to know that two approved methods were absent. The deontological framing sharpens the question by asking whether the structural fact of omission, independent of intent or outcome, constitutes a breach of the categorical duty of honesty that engineers owe to clients who cannot independently verify the completeness of professional advice.
The question emerged because Engineer A occupied an advisory role toward a non-engineer client who lacked the capacity to detect the omission, making the consequentialist harm of the selective disclosure difficult to separate from the structural conflict of interest that motivated it. The combination of Selective Scope Omission, undisclosed self-interest, and public funding constraints created a factual record in which the efficiency rationale for narrowing the analysis is indistinguishable from a self-serving rationale, forcing the question of which consequence actually dominated.
This question emerged because the data shows a licensed engineer in an advisory role to a non-engineer client making a recommendation that happened to align precisely with the engineer's own business interest, while omitting options the engineer could not profit from. Virtue ethics surfaces the question because the framework demands that integrity and practical wisdom be visible in the reasoning process itself, not just in formal compliance, and the combination of selective disclosure, free services, and credential promotion creates a pattern that contests whether Engineer A's character met that standard.
This question arose because the BER's finding that credential inclusion was not unethical in isolation left unresolved whether deontological analysis, which focuses on the nature of the act rather than its isolated outcome, reaches a different conclusion when the same act is embedded in a pattern that includes selective disclosure, biased recommendation, and free service provision. The question forces a determination of whether the duty to separate objective advice from commercial self-interest is violated by the structural composition of the memo, even absent a finding of explicit misconduct on the credential element alone.
This question arose because the original BER finding bundled two distinct failures, non-disclosure and selective omission, making it unclear whether either violation was independently disqualifying or whether both had to be present for the conduct to be unethical. By positing a corrected version of the scenario where both failures are remedied, the question forces a determination of whether the underlying conflict of interest is itself an ethical barrier or merely a procedural one that transparency and completeness can resolve.
This question arose because the BER finding identified what Engineer A did wrong but left open whether a structurally different choice, specifically referring the City Administrator to a neutral third party, would have satisfied all competing obligations simultaneously. The question probes whether the ethical lapse was in the content of the memo or in the prior decision to prepare any memo at all given the conflict, and whether failing to consider the referral option is itself a breach of the Advisory Role Integrity Principle.
This question emerged because the ethical violation in the original memo involved two distinct failures, selective omission of options and undisclosed self-interest, and the hypothetical disclosure addresses only one narrow aspect of one failure. The question forces analysis of whether a single corrective disclosure can redeem a memo that was defective on multiple independent grounds, which is genuinely uncertain because disclosure norms and completeness norms operate through different warrants and neither automatically satisfies the other.
This question arose because the Gratuitous Services Prohibition Principle and the Self-Promotion Advisory Constraint both attach to the same action, the credential inclusion, but they produce different severity assessments depending on whether a prior contractual relationship existed. The absence of any contract with City B sharpens the question of whether the memo as a whole, including the credential inclusion, constituted an unsolicited inducement rather than a professional advisory communication.
The question arose because Engineer A occupied an advisory role toward a non-engineer client who was entirely dependent on Engineer A's analysis to make an informed selection, and Engineer A's memo was structurally incomplete in a way that aligned with Engineer A's own business interests. The combination of selective disclosure, an undisclosed conflict of interest, free services rendered to cultivate the relationship, and a client with no independent means to detect the omission created a situation where the gap between what was provided and what professional integrity required became ethically significant.
The question arose because Engineer A occupied an advisory role for a non-engineer client who depended entirely on Engineer A's analysis, and Engineer A's recommendation happened to align perfectly with Engineer A's own commercial interest. That alignment, combined with the selective omission of competing methods and the inclusion of Engineer A's own credentials in the memo, made it impossible to determine from the record whether the recommendation reflected objective professional judgment or self-interested advocacy.
The question arose because Engineer A occupied an advisory role for a non-engineer client who was dependent on objective guidance, and Engineer A used that position to include firm credentials and project summaries that served the firm's interest in being selected for the recommended delivery method. The tension between the duty of objectivity in an advisory role and the prohibition on using advisory services as a vehicle for self-promotion created genuine uncertainty about whether the credential inclusion was professional transparency or an ethically impermissible act of self-dealing.
This question arose because Engineer A's selective omission of two delivery methods was directed at a recipient who had no professional basis to recognize the analysis as incomplete, making the City Administrator's reliance on the memo total rather than partial. The gap between what a licensed engineer would notice and what the City Administrator could detect created the contested space where the standard duty of candor may be insufficient and a heightened duty may be required.
This question arose because the regulatory constraint was not merely missing information but a fact that changed the practical meaning of the option presented, making the omission potentially more serious than a general failure to cover all delivery methods. The question forces a determination of whether presenting a constrained option without its constraint is a distinct form of deception or simply one instance of the same incomplete analysis already identified.
The question emerged because Engineer A occupied two simultaneous roles, that of a responsive advisor answering a legitimate request and that of a prospective contractor with a financial interest in the outcome, and the free memo with appended credentials made it impossible to separate professional responsiveness from self-interested solicitation. The absence of any contract, combined with the inclusion of qualifications tied to the recommended method, created a factual record that fits the definition of a contribution offered to influence a professional decision, which forced the ethical question of whether the memo's form and content crossed the boundary the prohibition was designed to enforce.
This question emerged because Engineer A's selective memo created a factual record in which omitting two approved options could be defended as professional restraint or condemned as a violation of the duty to give the non-engineer City Administrator a full picture. The tension is genuine rather than merely apparent because both principles draw on recognized engineering ethics norms, and neither automatically overrides the other without additional facts about whether a referral or disclosure of scope limits was offered.
This question emerged because the same set of facts, Engineer A preparing a memo at a non-engineer administrator's request, simultaneously satisfies the data conditions for two incompatible warrants: one authorizing technical advisory service and one prohibiting undisclosed self-interested recommendation. The question of whether the roles can be reconciled without full upfront disclosure arose precisely because the data shows Engineer A never tested that reconciliation, choosing instead to act as though the advisory role and the service provider interest were not in tension at all.
Was it ethical for Engineer A to provide a recommendation on project delivery methods that only included two of the possible methods, without providing the complete analysis and the reasoning behind recommending the two selected methods over others?
Did Engineer A have an obligation to proactively disclose to City Administrator that Engineer A's firm stood to benefit financially from the recommended project delivery method before or at the time of providing the advisory memo, even in the absence of a formal contractual relationship?
Because City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer and was therefore unable to independently evaluate the completeness or objectivity of Engineer A's memo, does Engineer A bear a heightened duty of candor and completeness toward a non-engineer client compared to a technically sophisticated client?
Given that the funding source requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record to be two distinct entities, was Engineer A obligated to disclose this regulatory constraint when presenting Construction-Manager-at-Risk as a delivery option, and does omitting this constraint constitute a separate ethical violation beyond the incomplete options analysis?
Does the provision of a detailed advisory memo without compensation, in a context where Engineer A had no existing contractual relationship with City B, constitute an improper extension of gratuitous services intended to secure future work, and how should this be evaluated under the prohibition on offering contributions or gifts to influence professional decisions?
Was it ethical for Engineer A to recommend the method for which they could provide services?
Does the principle of Engineer A Professional Competence Advisory — which might counsel Engineer A to limit the scope of analysis to methods within their own expertise — conflict with the principle of Engineer A Complete Options Analysis Duty, which requires presenting all available and approved delivery methods regardless of Engineer A's qualifications to perform them?
How does the principle of Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity conflict with Engineer A Conflict of Interest Non-Disclosure when Engineer A occupies a dual role as both a disinterested technical advisor and a prospective service provider, and can these roles ever be reconciled without full upfront disclosure?
Does the principle of Engineer A Truthfulness Obligation — requiring that all statements be truthful — conflict with Engineer A Honesty Incomplete Memo in a case where every individual statement in the memo may be technically accurate, yet the selective omission of two delivery methods creates a materially false overall impression for a non-engineer client?
Does the principle of Engineer A Objectivity Advisory — requiring neutral, evidence-based analysis — come into irreconcilable tension with Engineer A Gratuitous Services Extension, given that the very act of providing free advisory services to a prospective client creates a structural incentive that undermines the independence required for objective advice?
Was it ethical for Engineer A to include project summaries and references to encourage selection of their firm for the recommended method for project delivery?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty of honesty and completeness when preparing the advisory memo, given that omitting two of four approved delivery methods constitutes a structural misrepresentation regardless of whether the recommended method was objectively superior?
From a consequentialist standpoint, did the harm caused by Engineer A's selective disclosure — potentially locking City B into a suboptimal or self-serving delivery method with public funding — outweigh any efficiency benefit gained by narrowing the analysis to two methods?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and practical wisdom expected of a licensed engineer when they allowed personal business interest to shape the framing of an advisory memo delivered to a non-engineer public official who had no independent means of detecting the omission?
From a deontological perspective, does the inclusion of self-promotional credentials and project references in an unsolicited advisory memo — provided without a contractual relationship — constitute a form of indirect inducement that violates Engineer A's duty to separate objective professional advice from commercial self-interest, even if the Board found it not unethical in isolation?
Would Engineer A's recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build have been ethically sound if they had disclosed their conflict of interest upfront, evaluated all four approved delivery methods with equal rigor, and then concluded that Progressive-Design-Build was the best fit for City B's wastewater project?
What if Engineer A had referred City Administrator to a neutral third-party resource or an independent engineer for the delivery method analysis rather than preparing the memo themselves — would this have resolved the conflict of interest entirely, and does the failure to consider this alternative itself constitute an ethical lapse?
If Engineer A had included Construction-Manager-at-Risk in the analysis but disclosed that the funding agency's requirement for separate CM-at-Risk and Engineer of Record entities would disqualify Engineer A's firm from serving in both roles, would the inclusion of that disclosure have transformed an otherwise self-serving memo into an ethically compliant one?
Would the ethical character of Engineer A's self-promotional credential inclusion have changed if City B had an existing contractual relationship with Engineer A at the time the memo was prepared, and does the absence of any contract make the credential inclusion more or less problematic under the prohibition on indirect inducements?
Because Engineer A accepted a request to analyze all approved delivery methods and then omitted two without any disclosure, the board found that the competence limitation did not justify the omission. The board concluded that silent omission under these conditions converts a personal qualification boundary into a structural misrepresentation, regardless of whether the omitted methods were ones Engineer A could perform.
Because Engineer A presented what appeared to be neutral expert guidance while holding an undisclosed financial stake in the recommended delivery method, and because City Administrator lacked the technical background to recognize the conflict, the board found that Engineer A's failure to disclose the dual role constituted a failure of practical wisdom and rendered the advisory memo structurally deceptive regardless of whether any individual statement in it was technically accurate.
Because Engineer A presented only two of four approved methods to a non-engineer client who had no basis for knowing the analysis was incomplete, the board found that the memo's structural omission created a materially false impression, satisfying the conditions for an omission-based truthfulness violation under II.3.a. even in the absence of any affirmatively false statement.
Because Engineer A's omission was both a categorical breach of the duty of honesty under deontological analysis and a source of concrete public harm under consequentialist analysis, the board found that the convergence of both ethical frameworks on an adverse judgment strengthened the finding that Engineer A's conduct was ethically deficient, with the public funding context serving as a compounding factor under the consequentialist lens.
Because Engineer A combined free services, selective analysis, and self-promotional materials into a single advisory package delivered to a non-engineer public official with no prior contractual relationship, the board found that the overall pattern constituted an indirect inducement under II.5.b., while narrowly limiting the finding that credential inclusion alone is not unethical to that isolated element viewed outside its context.
Because the board identified the process rather than the outcome as the source of the ethical violation, it concluded that a recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build would have been ethically sound under the counterfactual conditions of full disclosure and complete analysis, establishing that conflict of interest does not disqualify an engineer from advising but requires that the advice be demonstrably objective and complete so the client can weigh it with full knowledge of the advisor's stake.
Because Engineer A's financial stake in the recommended outcome created a structural conflict that disclosure alone could not fully resolve, and because City Administrator had no independent means of evaluating the advice, the board found that Engineer A's failure to consider referring City Administrator to a neutral resource reflected a lapse in practical professional wisdom, even though that failure did not independently constitute a code violation.
Because the memo omitted Fixed-Price-Design-Build and concealed Engineer A's financial stake in the recommended method, the board found that disclosing the CM-at-Risk separation constraint was a necessary but not sufficient remedial step, and that the ethical deficiency of the memo could not be cured by that disclosure alone.
Because Engineer A had no contract with City B when the memo was delivered, the board found that embedding credentials and project references in the memo conflated advisory and promotional functions in a way that Code Section II.5.b. is designed to prevent, and that the absence of a contract made the credential inclusion more ethically problematic than it would have been under an established professional relationship.
Because Engineer A left out two of four approved delivery methods without explanation or disclosure, and because City Administrator lacked the technical background to identify the gap, the board concluded that the memo created a materially false impression of completeness and therefore violated the engineer's duty to provide objective and truthful professional reports.
Because the ethical problem in this case was the incomplete analysis and the undisclosed conflict rather than the direction of the recommendation itself, the board found that recommending Progressive-Design-Build was permissible in principle, provided the engineer met the conditions of full disclosure and complete comparative analysis that were absent from the actual memo.
Because the recommendation was generated through a process that excluded two approved methods without explanation and concealed a financial stake in the outcome, the board found that the recommendation itself carried the taint of that process. The board's conditional approval describes what an ethical recommendation would have required, not a validation of what Engineer A actually did.
The board found that including qualifications and project references was not independently unethical, but immediately qualified that finding in C2 by explaining that the absence of a contract with City B made the credential inclusion more problematic rather than less, and that the Conclusion 3 finding should not be read as a general endorsement of self-promotional content in unsolicited advisory memos.
Because City Administrator was not a licensed engineer and had no independent basis to detect that two delivery methods had been silently excluded, the board concluded that Engineer A's duty of candor was heightened relative to what it would have been with a technically sophisticated client, and that the omission under these conditions constituted a structurally misleading communication rather than merely an incomplete one.
Because the funding source's requirement that the CM-at-Risk firm and Engineer of Record be separate entities would have directly disqualified Engineer A from its preferred role, and because Engineer A omitted that method without disclosing this constraint, the board found that the omission was not merely an analytical gap but a strategically motivated suppression that constituted a separate and aggravated dimension of the ethical violation.
Because Engineer A stood to benefit commercially from City B's adoption of the recommended delivery method and never disclosed this interest, the board concluded that a separate ethical violation existed independent of the completeness of the options analysis, because the undisclosed conflict deprived City Administrator of the information needed to evaluate the advice with appropriate skepticism.
Because Engineer A never disclosed the conflict of interest and never completed the comparative analysis, the board concluded that the structural tension between Advisory Role Integrity and Conflict of Interest Non-Disclosure was irreconcilable under the facts as they stood, and that the only path to reconciliation would have been upfront disclosure followed by a complete analysis.
Because Engineer A's memo was technically accurate in its individual claims but omitted two of four approved delivery methods in a communication directed at a non-engineer client who had no basis to question what was absent, the board concluded that the Truthfulness Obligation was violated at the level of the overall impression conveyed, and that completeness functions as a necessary operational condition for satisfying that obligation rather than as a separate duty.
Given that Engineer A provided free advisory services to a prospective client without disclosing the financial incentive that motivated the engagement, the board's finding that credential inclusion was not unethical in isolation left unresolved the deeper structural problem: the advisory engagement was architecturally designed to secure future work, and that design made genuine objectivity impossible regardless of whether any individual statement in the memo was accurate.
Given that Engineer A omitted both the CM-at-Risk option and the funding agency rule that would have disqualified Engineer A from serving in both roles, the board concluded that two compounding violations occurred: the omission of the delivery method violated the complete options analysis duty, and the separate omission of the regulatory constraint that intersected with Engineer A's financial interest violated the conflict of interest disclosure obligation in a way that was especially material because the client had no independent means of detecting it.
Because Engineer A never disclosed the dual role and never satisfied any of the conditions that would have made the combination of advisor and prospective vendor ethically permissible, the board found that the structural conflict of interest was never resolved. The conditional ethical approval the board described remained a hypothetical standard that Engineer A's actual conduct did not meet.
Because the credential inclusion did not occur in isolation but as part of a pattern that included free services, selective omission, and undisclosed financial interest, the board's finding that it was not unethical in isolation does not resolve its ethical character in combination with the other conduct. Assessed as one element of the full pattern, the credential inclusion approaches the kind of indirect inducement the applicable code provisions are designed to prohibit.
Because Engineer A accepted the advisory request while holding a financial interest in the recommended outcome and never disclosed that interest, the board found a standalone ethical violation independent of the incomplete options analysis. The absence of a formal contract made the violation more serious, not less, because it removed the only procedural safeguard that might otherwise have prompted disclosure.
Because City Administrator was a non-engineer who had no basis to detect that two approved delivery methods were missing from the memo, the board found that Engineer A's standard duty of candor was heightened in this context, and the selective omission was therefore more harmful than it would have been in a peer-to-peer advisory setting.
Because the funding agency's separation requirement was directly material to City B's options and to Engineer A's own role, the board found that omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the memo was not a neutral editorial choice but a mechanism that allowed Engineer A to avoid a disclosure that would have revealed a limitation on Engineer A's eligibility, constituting a separate violation beyond the general incompleteness finding.
Because Engineer A provided free, strategically incomplete advisory work to a non-engineer public official in a context where Engineer A had a direct financial interest in the recommended outcome, the board found that the memo was functionally analogous to an indirect inducement and warranted scrutiny under the prohibition on gifts or contributions intended to influence professional decisions, even absent a direct monetary transfer.
Because City Administrator asked for an analysis of delivery methods and not merely a list of services Engineer A could provide, the board found that Engineer A's competence boundaries governed what Engineer A could contract to perform but did not justify omitting methods from an advisory memo, and that the actual explanation for the omission was self-interest rather than any legitimate competence constraint.
property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
cure period before test hammer drops before count began
that following cure, the test hammer was dropped several times before the count began
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.6
An engineer serving in a purely advisory capacity must not allow interest in obtaining subsequent work to shape the advice given; doing so corrupts the advisory relationship and deprives the client of the independent judgment they sought.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.85
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.8
The principle required Engineer A to analyze all four approved delivery methods and to disclose and justify any exclusion.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.62
The principle required Engineer A to either maintain clear separation between the advisory recommendation and any interest in follow-on work, or to disclose explicitly that the recommendation was not independent of Engineer A's business interest in the project.
The NSPE Code prohibition on offering valuable consideration to secure work applies to the extension of free professional services that are structured to benefit the engineer's subsequent engagement prospects.
The completeness obligation required Engineer A to either provide a full analysis of all four methodologies with pros and cons or to refer City B to neutral resources, not to submit a partial analysis that served Engineer A's interest in subsequent work.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.82
Objectivity required Engineer A to present all relevant methodologies without bias toward the option that would generate subsequent work for Engineer A.
property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
Informal Advisory Relationship Active; Engineer A Advising Public Client
property=terminates; happening's terminates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
Free Advisory Services Rendered; Potential Inducement State
Self-Serving Recommendation State; Conflict of Interest Active
Undisclosed Conflict of Interest; Compromised Advisory Integrity
Incomplete Information Held by Client; Decision Scope Artificially Reduced
Uncompensated Professional Services Provided; Free Services as Competitive Advantage
Four Delivery Methods Approved; Full Option Set Available to City B
Incomplete Information State; Owner Decision Bias State
property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Prohibition on Free Services to Secure Work
property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Objectivity and Truthfulness; Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest; Faithful Agency to Client
Professional Integrity; Faithful Agency to Client
Completeness of Information; Objectivity and Truthfulness; Inclusion of All Relevant and Pertinent Information
Professional Integrity; Avoidance of Deceptive Conduct
Prohibition on Free Services to Secure Work; Objectivity and Truthfulness; Prohibition on Gifts or Valuable Consideration to Secure Work
property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
that following cure, the test hammer was dropped several times before the count began (referenced in discussion of BER Case 95-5)
relation_type=has_provider; property=hasClient
City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
relation_type=has_client; property=hasClient
Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B
property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
Engineer A was required to provide a complete analysis of all four project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons, but instead provided only a partial comparative evaluation that omitted full analysis and favored the opt
Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build, the delivery method under which Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services, without disclosing to the non-engineer City Administrator that Engineer A had a direct competitive in
Engineer A's summary memo presented an incomplete picture of the available delivery methods, creating a false impression that only two of the four approved options were viable, without disclosing the basis for excluding the other two.
Engineer A's obligation to be truthful required that the advisory memo accurately represent the state of analysis, including its incompleteness, and not present a partial evaluation as though it were a complete professional assessment.
Engineer A was engaged in a purely advisory capacity with no existing contractual relationship with City B, but used the advisory memo to simultaneously recommend a delivery method and market the firm's qualifications under that method, ble
Engineer A's advisory role required independence from personal interest, but Engineer A allowed the prospect of subsequent construction services work to shape the scope and content of the advisory memo, recommending the delivery method most
Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build without disclosing that Engineer A was qualified to provide construction services under that delivery method and stood to benefit financially from the recommendation, depriving City B of infor
Engineer A's advisory recommendation to City B was not objective because it excluded two of four approved delivery methods and recommended the method under which Engineer A could provide follow-on construction services.
Engineer A was qualified to evaluate and provide services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, and therefore possessed the competence to analyze all four approved delivery methods, making the omission of two opti
Engineer A did not disclose to City B the basis for excluding two of the four approved delivery methods from the analysis, nor did Engineer A disclose the firm's interest in providing construction services under the recommended method.
Engineer A omitted two of the four funding-agency-approved delivery methods, Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, from the summary memo, presenting only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable options.
Engineer A provided a free advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build, a delivery method under which Engineer A was qualified to provide subsequent paid construction services, thereby extending free services as valuable considerati
Engineer A failed to provide an objective analysis of project delivery methodologies by recommending the option most favorable to Engineer A's own subsequent employment without disclosing that interest or providing balanced analysis.
Engineer A provided a partial comparative evaluation of project delivery methodologies that omitted full analysis of all four methodologies and excluded information unfavorable to the recommended option, mirroring the selective omission con
Engineer A was obligated to present all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods to City B in the advisory memo, rather than limiting the analysis to Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build.
Engineer A was obligated to include all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons in the advisory memo provided to City B, and to refrain from presenting a partial analysis that omitted
Engineer A was obligated to disclose to City B Administrator that Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build, and therefore has a financial interest in the outcome of the recommendation, before o
Engineer A was obligated to provide City B with an objective, unbiased analysis of all available project delivery methods and to refrain from using the advisory memo as a vehicle to promote the firm's own construction services under the rec
Engineer A was obligated to structure the advisory memo to serve City B's interests by objectively analyzing all available delivery options, rather than recommending the option most favorable to Engineer A's own subsequent commercial engage
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from providing free advisory engineering services to City B as a vehicle to position for subsequent paid construction services under the recommended delivery method.
Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent of City B's interests when providing advisory services, placing City B's need for complete and unbiased information above Engineer A's own commercial interest in being engaged for construc
Engineer A was obligated to disclose to City B Administrator all constraints imposed by the specific funding source on the available delivery methods, including the requirement that if Construction-Manager-at-Risk is selected, the Construct
property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
Engineer A; City Administrator; Other engineers who might have competed for the work
Engineer A; City Administrator; City as client entity
property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Professional must disclose basis for excluding options
Professional must not limit option presentation to self-serving alternatives
property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Duty to disclose material information affecting client decisions
Duty to provide complete and objective professional advice
property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
City B's use of a specific funding source that restricts approved project delivery methods and imposes additional requirements such as separation of Construction Manager at Risk and Engineer of Record
property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Project delivery method selected and funding agency requirements satisfied
Professional must not recommend options solely or primarily on the basis of personal gain
Duty to provide objective and unbiased professional advice
Duty to disclose personal or business interest in recommended option
Conflict of interest disclosed to client
City Administrator's request for a recommendation in the absence of any existing contractual engagement
Professional must not present partial analysis as if it were complete
Duty to disclose limitations in the scope of analysis provided
property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods... Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator
Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B. City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options. Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project
The City Administrator of City B, who is not a licensed professional engineer, solicited Engineer A's recommendation on project delivery methods and received a memo that omitted one of the four approved options.
City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer
Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator
Via class 'Non-Engineer Administrator': The City Administrator functions as the client-side representative receiving professional engineering advice. This is a specialization of the Client Role, with the distinguishing attribute of lacking engineering licensure, which is ethically significant because it increases the engineer's duty of candor and completeness.
City Administrator solicited engineering advice from Engineer A on project delivery methods, acting as the client-side decision-maker without professional engineering licensure. It was not clear whether the solicitation was knowingly for donated services.
context: Municipal administrator receiving professional engineering advisory services
City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A
It is not clear whether City Administrator knowingly solicited a donation of services
City Administrator's request for a recommendation before Engineer A preparing the summary memo
City Administrator's request for a recommendation
City B is the municipal owner commissioning wastewater system improvements and seeking professional engineering advice on project delivery method selection under a specific funding source.
funding_constraint: Specific funding source with four approved delivery methods
Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B
Via class 'Municipal Client': City B functions as the commissioning client for the wastewater project. The municipal government context is a specialization of the general Client Role, warranting a medium-confidence match to that parent class.
Engineer A, with no existing contract with City B, was asked by the City Administrator (a non-engineer) to advise on project delivery methods for a wastewater improvement project under a specific funding source. Four methods were approved by the funding agency. Engineer A's memo identified only two, omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and recommended Progressive-Design-Build, a method under which Engineer A is qualified to provide services.
Engineer A was prohibited from presenting only a subset of the four funding-agency-approved delivery methods in the advisory memo to City B Administrator. The advisory role required presenting all four approved options so that City B could make an informed selection.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2 (Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence) and Section III.2 (Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession)
At the time Engineer A prepared and submitted the advisory memo to City B Administrator
Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
Via class 'Advisory Scope Completeness Constraint': The selective omission of options is driven by a conflict of interest and partially maps to Conflict of Interest Avoidance. However, the specific mechanism here is the completeness of advisory disclosure rather than merely the existence of a conflict, making this a variant that warrants a distinct class. The closest existing class is Conflict of Interest Avoidance but it does not capture the affirmative duty to present all options.
Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
Advisory Objectivity Maintenance Capability
Engineer A had the capability to structure the delivery method analysis objectively, separating the advisory role from the firm's interest in being selected to provide construction services under the recommended method.
Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build and included the firm's experience and references in the advisory memo, conflating the advisory function with self-promotion in a context where Engineer A stood to benefit from the client selecting that delivery method.
The failure to maintain objectivity is evidenced by the recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build accompanied by the firm's own project experience and references, effectively using the advisory memo as a marketing document.
Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
Engineer A was required to structure the advisory memo so that the analysis and recommendation reflected City B's interests rather than Engineer A's potential benefit from subsequent paid construction work.
Engineer A prepared an advisory memo for City B on project delivery methods while holding a competitive interest in the outcome, and the resulting memo was partial and self-serving.
Engineer A failed to maintain advisory objectivity by recommending a delivery method that would benefit Engineer A and omitting full analysis of alternatives.
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
Engineer A is qualified to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk but not under Design-Bid-Build or Fixed-Price-Design-Build. This competence asymmetry created a structural bias in the advisory analysis that was not disclosed to City B Administrator.
Engineer A's uneven competence across the four approved delivery methods constrained the objectivity of the advisory analysis. Engineer A was required to disclose that the firm's qualifications were stronger for some methods than others, so that City B could assess whether the advisory analysis was complete and unbiased.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2 (Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence)
At the time Engineer A prepared and submitted the advisory memo
Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods.
Via class 'Competence Scope Advisory Constraint': This maps to the existing Competence Constraint class as a variant applied specifically to the advisory context where uneven competence across options can distort the advice given. The existing class covers capability boundaries generally; this variant adds the advisory-distortion dimension. Matching as a variant with medium confidence.
Conflict of Interest Recognition Capability
Engineer A had the capability to recognize that being qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build created a competitive interest in the outcome of the advisory recommendation, triggering a disclosure obligation.
Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build to City B while being qualified to provide construction services under that delivery method, without disclosing the competitive interest to the City Administrator.
Engineer A's qualification to perform services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, combined with the recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build without disclosure of that qualification.
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Advisory
Engineer A had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the advisory recommendation because Engineer A is qualified to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build, the method recommended. This interest was not disclosed to City B Administrator, who is not a licensed engineer and was relying on Engineer A's advice.
Engineer A was required to avoid acting in a manner where a personal business interest in securing future work under Progressive-Design-Build conflicted with the duty to provide City B with objective and complete advisory services, and was required to disclose that interest before or at the time of providing the recommendation.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section III.2 (Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible) and Section II.4
Throughout the advisory engagement with City B Administrator
Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects.
Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)'
Engineer A was required to recognize that being qualified and positioned to provide paid construction services under Progressive-Design-Build created a conflict of interest that should have been disclosed before or alongside any advisory recommendation favoring that method.
Engineer A served as a project delivery advisor to City B while also being qualified to provide construction services under one of the methods being evaluated, creating a financial interest in the outcome of the recommendation.
Engineer A recommended a project delivery method under which Engineer A could provide subsequent paid services without disclosing this competitive interest to City Administrator.
Engineer A is a licensed professional engineer qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods in City B.
Construction services, Progressive-Design-Build, Construction-Manager-at-Risk
Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B and is a licensed professional engineer in State C
Client Instruction Boundary Judgment Capability
Engineer A had the capability to recognize that the fiduciary duty to act as a faithful agent of City B's interests required presenting complete and unbiased information, and that structuring the memo to favor a personally beneficial option exceeded the limits of permissible advisory conduct.
Engineer A was acting in a purely advisory capacity for City B with no existing contractual relationship, and the fiduciary duty in that role required prioritizing the client's informational needs over the firm's competitive interests.
The obligation to place City B's need for complete information above Engineer A's interest in being selected to provide construction services under the recommended delivery method.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Instruction Boundary Judgment Capability'
Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B but provided advisory services without charge, which in context appears designed to create goodwill and secure future work under the recommended Progressive-Design-Build delivery method.
Engineer A was prohibited from providing free engineering advisory services to City B Administrator as a means of positioning the firm to secure future paid work, because doing so constitutes a form of valuable consideration offered to influence a public official and creates a conflict between the engineer's commercial interest and the duty to provide objective advice.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section III.2 and Section II.5 (Engineers shall not falsify or permit misrepresentation of their, or their associates', academic or professional qualifications)
At the time Engineer A agreed to provide and provided the advisory memo without a contract
City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
Engineer A Free Services Gift Prohibition
Engineer A provided a free partial advisory memo to City Administrator recommending Progressive-Design-Build, a delivery method under which Engineer A's firm was qualified to provide paid services, effectively using the free service as a vehicle to secure future work.
Engineer A was prohibited from providing free engineering advisory services to City B as a means of positioning for subsequent paid construction services, because such provision constitutes an improper gift or valuable consideration offered to secure future work.
NSPE Code of Ethics provision prohibiting gifts or valuable consideration to secure work
At the time Engineer A provided the unsolicited or informally solicited advisory memo to City Administrator
not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER.
Engineer A had the capability to identify and communicate the constraints imposed by the specific funding source on available delivery methods, including the entity-separation requirement applicable to Construction-Manager-at-Risk.
The funding source approved four delivery methods and imposed an entity-separation requirement on Construction-Manager-at-Risk. Engineer A's memo omitted two approved methods and did not address the entity-separation constraint that would have affected Engineer A's own eligibility under that method.
Engineer A's engagement with the funding source context and preparation of a delivery method advisory memo, which required knowledge of which methods were approved under the funding source.
City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source
if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities
The funding source governing City B's wastewater project approved four delivery methods. Engineer A's memo presented only two, which could have caused City B to select a method without awareness of all compliant alternatives, potentially affecting funding eligibility and procurement strategy.
Engineer A was required to accurately represent to City B Administrator all four project delivery methods approved under the specific funding source, because the funding agency's regulatory framework defined the permissible option set and Engineer A had no authority to narrow that set in the advisory memo.
Funding agency regulatory requirements governing approved project delivery methods under the specific funding source
At the time Engineer A prepared the advisory memo for City B Administrator
Gratuitous Services Conflict Recognition Capability
Engineer A was required to recognize that providing a free advisory memo to City Administrator, in a context where Engineer A stood to benefit from subsequent paid construction services, constituted a prohibited extension of free services as a solicitation vehicle.
City Administrator solicited advice from Engineer A on project delivery methods. It was unclear whether the administrator knowingly sought a donation of services. Engineer A provided a free advisory memo recommending a method under which Engineer A could provide paid construction services.
The BER found that Engineer A's provision of free advisory services combined with a self-serving recommendation was unethical as an extension of free services, regardless of whether City Administrator knowingly solicited a donation.
It is not clear whether City Administrator knowingly solicited a donation of services.
the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information and the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical
Engineer A Non-Engineer Client Communication
Non-Engineer Client Communication Capability
Engineer A had the capability to recognize that the City Administrator lacked engineering licensure and therefore could not independently evaluate the completeness or objectivity of the advisory memo, creating a heightened duty to ensure the information provided was complete and unbiased.
The City Administrator of City B is not a licensed professional engineer and solicited Engineer A's recommendation precisely because of that knowledge gap. Engineer A's memo omitted two of four approved options without explanation, leaving the Administrator unable to make a fully informed decision.
The City Administrator's reliance on Engineer A's memo as the basis for a procurement decision, without the technical background to detect that two approved delivery methods had been omitted.
Options Completeness Assessment Capability
Engineer A had the capability to identify all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods and to present them completely to City B, but failed to exercise this capability by omitting Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the advisory memo.
Engineer A prepared a summary memo identifying only two of the four funding-agency-approved delivery methods, omitting Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the analysis presented to the non-engineer City Administrator.
Engineer A's knowledge of the four approved delivery methods under the funding source, as evidenced by the ability to identify Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build, which implies awareness of the full option set.
Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build
Engineer A Options Completeness Advisory
Engineer A was required to identify and present all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons, and failed to exercise this capability by limiting the memo to a partial comparative evaluation.
Engineer A advised City B on project delivery methods for a wastewater project funded by a specific agency that approved four methodologies. The advisory memo addressed fewer than all four and recommended the method most beneficial to Engineer A.
The BER found that Engineer A omitted three of four approved methodologies from the advisory memo, depriving City Administrator of the information needed for an informed decision.
Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons by compiling properly referenced resources from others
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
Engineer A Progressive Design Build Experience Summary
Summary of Firm Experience with Progressive-Design-Build Projects
Engineer Qualification and Experience Resource
Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
Submitted by Engineer A alongside the delivery method recommendation to City B, documenting the firm's qualifications and past project references for Progressive-Design-Build work.
Via class 'Engineer Qualification and Experience Resource': This type of qualification and experience documentation fits within the existing Reference Material class as supporting documentation for professional practice. No more specific existing class covers firm experience summaries and project references.
Engineer A Referral Alternative Advisory
City Administrator solicited an analysis of water and wastewater project delivery methodologies. Engineer A provided a partial memo covering only two of four funding-agency-approved methods and recommended the one under which Engineer A was qualified to provide paid services, rather than referring the administrator to complete independent resources.
When Engineer A could not provide a complete, unbiased analysis of all four delivery methodologies without incurring a conflict of interest, Engineer A was constrained to either refer City Administrator to independent resources covering all options or decline to provide advisory services, rather than providing a partial self-serving substitute.
NSPE Code of Ethics, BER Case 95-5, BER Case 99-8
At the time Engineer A responded to City Administrator's solicitation for advisory services
Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services.
Referral Resource Identification Capability
Engineer A had the capability to identify and refer City Administrator to publicly available or subscription resources providing complete analyses of project delivery methodologies, as an ethical alternative to providing a partial, self-serving advisory memo.
Engineer A was asked informally by City Administrator to advise on project delivery methods for a wastewater project. Rather than referring the administrator to neutral complete resources, Engineer A provided a partial memo recommending a method under which Engineer A could provide paid construction services.
The case analysis identifies referral to library, free, or subscription resources as a fully ethical response that Engineer A could have chosen but did not.
Report Completeness Integrity Capability
Engineer A was required to possess the capability to recognize that omitting three of four approved project delivery methodologies from the advisory memo constituted an incomplete and potentially misleading professional product, analogous to the selective omission of contrary evidence condemned in BER 95-5 and 99-8.
Engineer A prepared a summary advisory memo for City B on project delivery methods but included only a partial comparative evaluation with no full analysis and a recommendation favoring the method under which Engineer A could provide paid services.
Engineer A's advisory memo presented only one methodology favorably and omitted full analysis of the other three, which the BER found to be incomplete and self-serving in the same manner as prior cases involving selective use of information.
BER Case 95-5 addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports.
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8)
Engineer A Report Integrity Advisory Memo
Engineer A's advisory memo omitted two of four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods and provided no comparative analysis, presenting only a partial and self-serving evaluation. BER Case 95-5 and 99-8 were cited as precedents for the completeness and integrity obligations applicable to professional reports.
Engineer A was constrained to provide an objective and truthful advisory memo that included all relevant and pertinent information about the four approved delivery methodologies, and was prohibited from selectively omitting two methodologies in a manner that rendered the advisory product misleading.
At the time Engineer A prepared and submitted the advisory memo to City Administrator
BER Case 95-5 addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports
include all relevant and pertinent information
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Non-Deception (Constraint)'
Engineer A having no contractual relationship with City B during City Administrator's request for a recommendation
Engineer A having no contractual relationship with City B
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
Engineer A preparing the summary memo (with omissions) before Engineer A recommending Progressive Design-Build
Engineer A preparing the summary memo (with omissions)
Before memo preparation; at the point of initial contact
Following City Administrator's solicitation, before memo submission
After the case was submitted to the BER for review
At the point Engineer A's recommendation was made within the memo
Upon delivery of the summary memo to the City Administrator
Upon completion and delivery of the advisory memo
Prior to City Administrator's outreach to Engineer A
Prior to memo preparation, initial solicitation phase
At time of memo submission, concurrent with recommendation
wastewater system improvements project after City Administrator's request for a recommendation on project delivery methods
City Administrator's request for a recommendation on project delivery methods
Informal Guidance Request → Advisory Engagement Initiated
In the present case, City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A.
Informal Guidance Request -- City Administrator solicits informal guidance from Engineer A on project delivery methods
Advisory Engagement Initiated -- An informal advisory relationship between Engineer A and City B comes into existence
Without the City Administrator's solicitation, no advisory relationship between Engineer A and City B would have come into existence
City Administrator's decision to solicit guidance
Engineer A being a licensed professional engineer providing construction services in the community
Upcoming wastewater system improvements project requiring delivery method selection
City Administrator soliciting a recommendation from Engineer A on project delivery methods
Advisory Memo Preparation → Free Services Rendered
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A’s benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services
Advisory Memo Preparation -- Engineer A prepares the summary memo containing an engineering evaluation
Free Services Rendered -- Engineer A delivers the advisory memo without a contract or compensation
Had Engineer A only compiled referenced third-party resources (no engineering services) or charged for the work, no extension of free services would have occurred
City B's lack of an existing contractual relationship with Engineer A
Engineer A preparing and delivering an engineering evaluation
Delivery of an engineering evaluation memo without a contract or compensation
Biased Method Recommendation → Self-Promotional Credential Inclusion
Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm’s experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
Biased Method Recommendation -- Engineer A recommends Progressive-Design-Build
Self-Promotional Credential Inclusion -- Engineer A attaches a summary of the firm's experience and references
Without the recommendation, there would have been no occasion to attach the firm's self-promotional credentials
Engineer A having made the recommendation
Engineer A's decision to attach firm experience and references
Engineer A accompanying the recommendation with the firm's own experience and references
Advisory Engagement Initiated → Advisory Memo Preparation
Advisory Engagement Initiated -- Informal advisory relationship comes into existence
Advisory Memo Preparation -- Engineer A chooses to prepare a formal summary memo responding to the solicitation
Had Engineer A merely referred the City Administrator to outside resources, no advisory memo (and thus no engineering services) would have been prepared
Engineer A's decision to respond formally with a memo rather than referring to resources
Engineer A choosing to prepare and deliver a formal summary memo in response to the solicitation
Free Services Rendered → BER Ethical Finding
the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER.
Free Services Rendered -- Engineer A delivers the advisory memo without contract or compensation
BER Ethical Finding -- BER finds the extension of free services unethical
Had no free engineering services been rendered, the second ground of the BER's unethical finding would not exist
NSPE Code prohibition against offering valuable consideration to secure work
Provision of engineering services without contract or compensation
Extension of free engineering services as a means tied to securing future work, evaluated under the NSPE Code
Selective Scope Omission → Delivery Options Narrowed
Funding Approval Established -- Four project delivery methods received funding approval
Selective Scope Omission -- Engineer A chooses to present only two of the four viable methods
Delivery Options Narrowed -- City B receives a memo presenting only two of the approved options
Had Engineer A presented all four approved methods, City B would not have received a narrowed set of options
Engineer A's choice to present only two of the four methods
Existence of four funding-approved delivery methods
Omission of Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build
Engineer A presenting only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable options
Selective Scope Omission → BER Ethical Finding
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A’s benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER.
Selective Scope Omission -- Engineer A presents incomplete, self-serving information
Free Services Rendered -- Engineer A extends free engineering services via the memo
BER Ethical Finding -- BER concludes the conduct was unethical on two grounds
Had Engineer A provided a complete, objective analysis or merely referred to resources, the BER would not have found the conduct unethical
Incomplete/self-serving information in the memo
Provision of a partial, self-serving engineering evaluation combined with the extension of free services
Biased Method Recommendation → Conflict of Interest Created
When Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build, the method under which Engineer A's own firm s
Selective Scope Omission -- Engineer A narrows the viable options to two methods
Biased Method Recommendation -- Engineer A recommends Progressive-Design-Build, under which the firm is qualified to provide services
Conflict of Interest Created -- A conflict of interest arises because the recommended method benefits Engineer A's own firm
Had Engineer A presented a neutral, complete analysis without recommending the self-benefiting method, no conflict of interest would have been created
Absence of disclosure of the self-interest
Engineer A recommending the method that benefits the firm
Engineer A's qualification to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build
Recommending a delivery method under which Engineer A's own firm stands to gain work, within an evaluation that omits alternatives
Engineer A Complete Options Analysis Duty
Advisory evaluation of Progressive-Design-Build, Construction-Manager-at-Risk, and other delivery methodologies for City B
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
Engineer A was required to provide a complete analysis of all four project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons, but instead provided only a partial comparative evaluation that omitted full analysis and favored the option beneficial to Engineer A.
The complete options analysis obligation required Engineer A to cover all material methodologies with balanced treatment, or to refer City B to neutral resources, rather than providing a self-serving partial analysis.
The BER found no justification for the partial analysis; Engineer A had clear alternatives including referral to neutral resources or a genuinely complete analysis.
Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons by compiling properly referenced resources from others, involving no provision of engineering services and thus not unethical.
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Non-Disclosure
Advisory memo recommending project delivery method to City B
Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build without disclosing that Engineer A was qualified to provide construction services under that delivery method and stood to benefit financially from the recommendation, depriving City B of information needed to assess the objectivity of the advice.
The conflict of interest disclosure obligation required Engineer A to inform City B that the recommended delivery method was one under which Engineer A could provide subsequent paid services before or at the time of making the recommendation.
Disclosure would not have fully resolved the conflict; the BER analysis implies Engineer A should have either disclosed and withdrawn from the advisory role or provided complete unbiased analysis.
Engineer A Professional Competence Advisory
City B wastewater project delivery method analysis
Engineer A was qualified to evaluate and provide services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, and therefore possessed the competence to analyze all four approved delivery methods, making the omission of two options a matter of choice rather than competence limitation.
Professional competence required Engineer A to apply the full scope of relevant expertise to the advisory task. Engineer A's qualifications under two of the four methods meant the firm had direct knowledge relevant to evaluating those methods but chose not to include them in the analysis.
Engineer A's competence was sufficient to perform a complete analysis. The incomplete analysis was not a competence failure but a choice that raises objectivity and conflict of interest concerns.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Competence'
City B wastewater project advisory relationship
Transparency required Engineer A to make visible the scope limitations of the memo and the firm's competitive interest in the recommended outcome, enabling City B to make an informed judgment about the weight to give the recommendation.
The transparency obligation was not met. City B, relying on a non-engineer administrator, was not positioned to identify the gaps in the analysis without Engineer A's disclosure.
City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Transparency'
Four delivery methods, including Construction-Management-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build, became formally approved and available options for City B to consider.
Four project delivery methods had already received funding approval from the relevant authority before Engineer A was contacted, making all four legally and financially viable options for City B's wastewater project.
Engineer A's conduct was formally characterized as unethical by the BER, establishing an official record of professional misconduct findings against the conduct described in the case.
Professional Standards Violation Recorded
The Board of Ethical Review analyzed Engineer A's conduct and concluded it was unethical on two grounds: providing incomplete and self-serving information, and extending free professional services to secure future work.
Engineer A Outside Design-Bid-Build Scope
Throughout the advice and recommendation process
Transforms the general duty of objectivity and completeness into a specific obligation to disclose the scope limitations of any analysis provided and to refrain from presenting partial evaluations as comprehensive professional advice.
Engineer A's qualification status relative to Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build delivery methods
Engineer A's lack of qualification to provide construction services under Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Outside Area of Competence'
City Administrator requested an analysis of water and wastewater project delivery methodologies. Engineer A's memo addressed only two of four approved methods, omitting Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build, which were the two methods under which Engineer A was not qualified to provide services.
Engineer A was constrained to present all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons in the advisory memo, and was prohibited from selectively presenting only the two methodologies under which Engineer A stood to benefit from subsequent paid work.
At the time Engineer A prepared the advisory memo for City Administrator
Engineer A prepared a summary memo for City B Administrator advising on project delivery methods for a wastewater system improvements project funded by a specific funding source that approved four delivery methods. Engineer A omitted Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build from the memo.
At the time of preparing and submitting the advisory memo to City B Administrator
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure
City B wastewater project delivery method recommendation
Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build, the delivery method under which Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services, without disclosing to the non-engineer City Administrator that Engineer A had a direct competitive interest in that recommendation.
The principle required Engineer A to disclose, before or alongside the recommendation, that Engineer A was qualified and presumably interested in providing construction services under the recommended delivery method, so that City B could weigh the recommendation accordingly.
The conflict of interest disclosure obligation was not satisfied. Engineer A provided firm experience and references alongside the recommendation, which functioned as a solicitation rather than a neutral advisory disclosure.
Honesty required Engineer A to present the full set of approved options and to be transparent about any reasons for limiting the analysis, so that City B could assess whether the recommendation reflected a complete professional evaluation.
The honesty obligation was not fully satisfied. The memo's selective presentation, without explanation of the omissions, was misleading to a non-engineer client who lacked the background to identify the gap independently.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Honesty'
Objectivity required Engineer A to provide an impartial comparative analysis of all approved options, free from the influence of Engineer A's own competitive interest in the outcome.
The objectivity obligation was not met. The recommendation reflected Engineer A's competitive interest rather than an impartial professional assessment of what delivery method best served City B's needs.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Objectivity'
Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build and simultaneously provided a summary of the firm's experience and references for that delivery method, without disclosing that Engineer A stood to benefit from the recommendation and without presenting comparable information for other approved methods.
Engineer A was prohibited from submitting a firm qualifications summary and project references alongside an advisory recommendation that steered City B toward the delivery method under which Engineer A could provide services, because doing so converted the advisory engagement into a self-promotional solicitation without disclosure of the conflict.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section III.5 (Engineers shall not falsify or permit misrepresentation of their, or their associates', academic or professional qualifications) and Section II.4 (Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption)
At the time Engineer A submitted the advisory memo and accompanying qualifications summary to City B Administrator
Via class 'Self-Promotion Advisory Constraint': The conduct maps to Conflict of Interest Avoidance because the engineer is using an advisory role to advance personal business interests. However, the specific prohibition on embedding self-promotional materials within an advisory product is a variant not fully captured by the existing class. Matching as a variant with medium confidence.
Blurring of the boundary between objective professional advice and solicitation
Reinforcement of the prohibited inducement through free services
Leverage the advisory role to promote the firm's qualifications and improve the likelihood of being selected for the wastewater project
Distinction between advisory services and business solicitation
Prohibition on Gifts or Valuable Consideration to Secure Work
Engineer A chose to accompany the delivery method recommendation with a summary of the firm's own experience on Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects, converting the advisory memo into a marketing document.
City B wastewater project delivery method selection
The principle required Engineer A to analyze all four approved delivery methods and to disclose and justify any exclusion. The omission of Construction-Manager-at-Risk is particularly significant because Engineer A is also qualified to provide services under that method, and its exclusion cannot be explained by Engineer A's own competence limitations.
The complete options analysis obligation was not satisfied. The selective presentation of options shaped City B's decision space in a manner that favored the option under which Engineer A could provide services.
Engineer A Gratuitous Services Extension
Free summary memo provided to City B Municipal Client
Engineer A provided a free advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build, a delivery method under which Engineer A was qualified to provide subsequent paid construction services, thereby extending free services as valuable consideration to secure future work.
Gratuitous Services Prohibition Principle
The BER found both the incompleteness and the extension of free services independently unethical, with no countervailing principle justifying either conduct.
Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services
Advisory recommendation to City B on project delivery method selection
The BER found that self-serving partial analysis violated the objectivity obligation; no competing interest justified the departure from objective analysis.
Transforms the general duty of honesty and objectivity into a concrete obligation to present all materially relevant options and disclose the basis for any exclusions.
Engineer A's competence relative to available project delivery methods
Engineer A's existing qualifications to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Qualified to Perform'
Engineer A Report Completeness Violation
Summary memo on project delivery methods for City B wastewater project
Engineer A provided a partial comparative evaluation of project delivery methodologies that omitted full analysis of all four methodologies and excluded information unfavorable to the recommended option, mirroring the selective omission condemned in BER 95-5 and 99-8.
No legitimate competing principle justified the omission; the BER found the incomplete submission unethical without qualification.
Engineer A did not inform anyone as to the incompleteness at the time of submission
the engineer failed to include in the report that the initial log indicated that several of the piles were driven to essential refusal (intentional disregard of other information)
Engineer A's professional services were consumed by City B without compensation, placing Engineer A's conduct within the category of free service provision that NSPE Code provisions address.
Uncompensated Professional Services Provided
By preparing and delivering the advisory memo without a contract or compensation, Engineer A provided professional services for free to City B, an occurrence that the BER later identified as equivalent to providing free services to secure future work.
Engineer A Funding Constraint Disclosure
City B sought advice on delivery methods under a specific funding source that imposed constraints on how certain methods could be structured. Engineer A's memo omitted two of the four approved methods and did not address the funding agency's entity-separation requirement for Construction-Manager-at-Risk.
Funding Constraint Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to disclose to City B Administrator all constraints imposed by the specific funding source on the available delivery methods, including the requirement that if Construction-Manager-at-Risk is selected, the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record must be two distinct entities.
Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
Engineer A Report Completeness Advisory Memo
Engineer A provided a summary memo to City B recommending Progressive-Design-Build while omitting two of the four approved delivery methods from the analysis, in a context where Engineer A was qualified to provide construction services under the recommended method.
Engineer A was obligated to include all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies with their respective pros and cons in the advisory memo provided to City B, and to refrain from presenting a partial analysis that omitted Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk.
At the time of preparing and submitting the advisory memo to City Administrator
Truthfulness in professional communications extends beyond avoiding false statements to include disclosure of material omissions that would mislead the recipient about the completeness or basis of the professional opinion.
Truthfulness and completeness reinforce each other here; both were violated by the same conduct of submitting a partial analysis without disclosure.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Truthfulness'
Engineer A Advisory Role Integrity Breach
Advisory recommendation to City B Municipal Client on project delivery method
Engineer A's advisory role required independence from personal interest, but Engineer A allowed the prospect of subsequent construction services work to shape the scope and content of the advisory memo, recommending the delivery method most favorable to Engineer A's own engagement.
The BER found that the self-serving recommendation violated the advisory role; Engineer A should have either disclosed the interest and recused from the advisory role or provided genuinely independent analysis.
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services.
City Administrator Non-Engineer Advisory Context
City Administrator's lack of professional engineering licensure and resulting reliance on Engineer A's advice
City Administrator obtains independent qualified advice or gains sufficient information to evaluate options independently
City Administrator, not a licensed professional engineer, sought technical advice on project delivery methods from Engineer A
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Information State'
City B's awareness of available delivery options was artificially limited to two methods rather than the four that had received funding approval.
As a result of Engineer A's selective omission, City B received a memo that presented only two of the four funding-approved delivery methods, meaning Construction-Management-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build were effectively removed from the city's decision-making process.
Engineer A provided a complimentary summary memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build, a delivery method under which Engineer A was qualified to provide construction services, without charge to City B, in circumstances where the free service functioned as valuable consideration to secure subsequent work.
Gratuitous Services Solicitation Prohibition Obligation
At the time of providing the unsolicited or informally solicited free advisory memo
the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information and the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
Engineer A transitioned from having no relationship with City B to occupying an informal advisory role for the city on a public infrastructure matter.
An informal advisory relationship between Engineer A and City B came into existence when the City Administrator approached Engineer A for guidance, despite no prior contractual relationship existing between the two parties.
Throughout the project planning and delivery method selection process
City B's obligation to select a project delivery method from the four approved under the specific funding source
Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Compliance State'
City B wastewater project advisory engagement
Engineer A was engaged in a purely advisory capacity with no existing contractual relationship with City B, but used the advisory memo to simultaneously recommend a delivery method and market the firm's qualifications under that method, blending advisory and business-development functions without disclosure.
The advisory role integrity obligation was not satisfied. The inclusion of firm experience summaries and project references within the advisory memo converted the advisory document into a hybrid advisory-solicitation without disclosing that dual character to the non-engineer client.
Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B. City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project
At the time City Administrator requests the recommendation and throughout the advice-giving interaction
Formation of a contractual relationship, if any
City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Relationship State'
Potential reliance on a non-neutral source with business interests in the outcome
Unsolicited Conflict of Interest Exposure
Obtain practical guidance on viable delivery methods for the upcoming wastewater system improvements project
Knowledge of neutral procurement resources
Recognition of conflict of interest in solicitation
City Administrator chose to solicit informal guidance on project delivery methods from Engineer A, a local provider with no current contract with City B, rather than consulting independent resources or a neutral party.
Engineer A was asked to advise City B on project delivery methods for a wastewater system improvements project, prepared a summary memo, and recommended Progressive-Design-Build while omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk as a viable option despite being qualified to provide services under it.
conflict_of_interest: Qualified and presumably interested in providing services under Progressive-Design-Build
omission: Did not identify Construction-Manager-at-Risk as a viable option in the memo
Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects
Engineer A provided a partial, comparative engineering evaluation of project delivery methodologies with no full analysis and a recommendation that served Engineer A's own interest, omitting relevant information and extending free services, both of which the BER found unethical.
obligation_violated: Objectivity, completeness, avoidance of self-interest
the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
Engineer A Self-Interested Recommendation
From the submission of the recommendation memo onward
Transforms the general conflict-of-interest principle into a concrete obligation to disclose business interest in a recommended project delivery method and to ensure the recommendation is grounded in the client's needs rather than the professional's commercial advantage.
Engineer A's recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build, a method under which Engineer A is qualified to provide services
Disclosure of Engineer A's business interest in the recommended method, or withdrawal of the recommendation
Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build
Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build and provided firm experience summaries and references, while being qualified to provide services under that method and having omitted other options
Via class 'Self-Interested Recommendation State': Conflict of Interest State captures the general condition of competing personal and professional interests. This new class is a more specific variant focused on the act of making a recommendation while holding an undisclosed business interest in the recommended option, which adds the disclosure and advice-objectivity dimensions not fully expressed by the general class.
Deprivation of complete information needed for an informed owner decision
Narrow the City Administrator's consideration to delivery methods favorable to Engineer A's firm
Knowledge of all four funding-approved delivery methods
Inclusion of All Relevant and Pertinent Information
Engineer A chose to present only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options in the memo, omitting Construction-Management-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build, both of which were approved under the proposed funding source and both of which were less advantageous to Engineer A's business interests.
Compromised objectivity of the advisory role
Potential harm to public interest through suboptimal project delivery selection
Steer City B toward selecting the delivery method most beneficial to Engineer A's firm
Objective evaluation of project delivery methods
Engineer A chose to recommend Progressive-Design-Build, the delivery method under which Engineer A's firm could directly compete for and win the construction contract, without providing a balanced or objective comparative analysis of all approved methods.
Engineer A's advisory role became compromised by an undisclosed personal financial interest in the recommended outcome.
When Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build, the method under which Engineer A's own firm stood to benefit directly, a conflict of interest came into existence between Engineer A's professional duty to provide objective advice and Engineer A's firm's financial interest in the outcome.
Engineer A CM-at-Risk Exclusion Disclosure
The funding agency imposed a specific structural requirement on Construction-Manager-at-Risk: the CM firm and Engineer of Record must be distinct entities. Engineer A omitted this method from the memo entirely rather than presenting it with its regulatory conditions, depriving City B of the ability to evaluate it.
Engineer A was required to disclose to City B Administrator the funding agency's requirement that under Construction-Manager-at-Risk, the CM firm and the Engineer of Record must be two distinct entities, rather than omitting that method from the advisory memo entirely, so that City B could evaluate the method with full knowledge of its regulatory conditions.
Funding agency regulatory requirements governing Construction-Manager-at-Risk under the specific funding source
if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
Engineer A provided a free advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build and attached a summary of Engineer A's firm's qualifications and past project references for that delivery method, effectively using the advisory product as a marketing vehicle.
Engineer A was prohibited from using the advisory engagement with City Administrator as a vehicle to promote Engineer A's own qualifications and services by structuring the memo to recommend the delivery method under which Engineer A could provide paid construction services.
NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest and objectivity provisions
Throughout the advisory engagement with City B
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Undisclosed
From the moment Engineer A began preparing the recommendation through any disclosure or correction
Engineer A's personal business interest in the recommended project delivery method conflicting with the duty to provide objective advice to City B
Disclosure of conflict to City B Administrator, or recusal from the advisory role
Engineer A, qualified to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build, recommended that method to a client without disclosing the business interest
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Conflict of Interest State'
From the point Engineer A provided the free partial analysis through the BER's determination
Other engineers who might have competed for the work
Engineer A's provision of free engineering services to City Administrator as a means of securing future work
Engineer A provided free engineering services in the form of a partial comparative evaluation, creating a situation where the provision of services functioned as a form of consideration to secure future work
From Engineer A's provision of the partial comparative evaluation through the BER's ethical determination
Engineer A's response to City Administrator's solicitation for analysis of water/wastewater methodologies
Not specified; the ethical violation was identified by the BER
Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons
City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A, who responded with a partial comparative engineering evaluation covering only some methodologies, with no full analysis, and a recommendation favoring Engineer A's own interests
Provision of free engineering services that could constitute an inducement to secure future work
Respond to the City Administrator's request and position the firm for future work on the wastewater project
Engineer A chose to prepare a formal summary memo responding to the City Administrator's informal solicitation rather than referring the City Administrator to neutral resources, declining to provide advisory services without a contract, or compiling a complete analysis from properly referenced third-party sources.
From submission of the summary memo through any correction or supplementation
Engineer A's memo to City B Administrator omitting two of four approved delivery methods
Full disclosure of all four approved options to City B Administrator
Engineer A prepared and submitted a memo identifying only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable options, omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build
Engineer A, who provides construction services in City B and is qualified to deliver services under Progressive-Design-Build, recommended Progressive-Design-Build to City B without disclosing that financial interest. Engineer A also included promotional materials about the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build in the same memo.
Engineer A was obligated to disclose to City B Administrator that Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build, and therefore has a financial interest in the outcome of the recommendation, before or concurrent with issuing the advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build.
At the time of preparing and submitting the advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build
Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects.
Via class 'Advisory Conflict Disclosure Obligation': This is a specialization of the existing Disclosure Obligation, focused specifically on conflict-of-interest disclosure in an advisory role where the engineer stands to benefit from the recommended option. The existing Disclosure Obligation is the closest match but does not encode the advisory-role and self-interest-in-recommendation specifics. Medium confidence match to parent.
Engineer A had no existing contractual relationship with City B and was asked to advise on project delivery methods. Engineer A recommended the delivery method under which the firm is qualified to provide construction services and included promotional firm experience and references in the advisory memo.
Engineer A was obligated to provide City B with an objective, unbiased analysis of all available project delivery methods and to refrain from using the advisory memo as a vehicle to promote the firm's own construction services under the recommended delivery method.
Throughout the preparation and submission of the advisory memo
Engineer A Self-Serving Advisory Recommendation
Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build, the delivery method under which Engineer A was qualified to provide construction services, while omitting analysis of two other approved methods, in a purely advisory capacity with no existing contractual relationship with City B.
Self-Serving Advisory Avoidance Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to structure the advisory memo to serve City B's interests by objectively analyzing all available delivery options, rather than recommending the option most favorable to Engineer A's own subsequent commercial engagement.
Throughout the preparation and delivery of the advisory memo
Via class 'Self-Serving Advisory Avoidance Obligation': The Advisory Role Objectivity Obligation extracted in prior sections is the closest existing extracted class, but it is listed under previously extracted classes rather than the canonical ontology. Among the canonical ontology classes, Disclosure Obligation is the closest parent because the self-serving advisory avoidance duty is partly grounded in the requirement to inform stakeholders about conflicts and limitations. However, this class is a distinct specialization emphasizing the prohibition on structuring advisory content to serve the engineer's own interests, which goes beyond mere disclosure. Matched as a variant with medium confidence.
Engineer A was asked by City B's non-engineer City Administrator to provide professional advisory services on project delivery methods. Engineer A's recommendation favored the delivery method under which Engineer A could provide construction services, and the memo included promotional content about the firm.
Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent of City B's interests when providing advisory services, placing City B's need for complete and unbiased information above Engineer A's own commercial interest in being engaged for construction services under the recommended delivery method.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Fiduciary Duty'