{'type': 'Private engineering consulting firm', 'services': 'Bridge and culvert design', 'jurisdictions': ['State Q', 'State Z']}
Engineering consulting firm employing Engineer A for bridge and culvert design work in State Q and State Z, whose competitive position is potentially affected by XYZ Engineers' marketing practices
{'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'XYZ Engineers'}
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A Competing Engineering Firm Employee'}
Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants
Anonymous Reporting Adequacy Constraint Engineer A Licensing Board Complaint
Engineer A filed an anonymous complaint with the engineering licensing board regarding Engineer B's misconduct; BER Case 02-11 concluded that anonymous reporting was ethical but that a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the board's investigation and fairer to the complainant
Engineer A was constrained in the adequacy of the anonymous complaint filed with the engineering licensing board — while the anonymous filing was ethical and better than no report, it was constrained in its effectiveness by the absence of an identified complainant who could provide sworn testimony, documentary evidence, or follow-up cooperation to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, establishing that a signed complaint would have been preferable to fully discharge the reporting obligation.
BER Case 02-11; NSPE Code of Ethics reporting obligation provisions
In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B.
At the time Engineer A filed the anonymous complaint with the engineering licensing board
The BER considered that a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, and fairer to the complainant, but concluded in this case that an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical.
Anonymous Reporting Adequacy Constraint Engineer A State Q and State Z Licensing Boards
Engineer A faced the question of whether an anonymous complaint to the licensing boards would adequately discharge the mandatory written reporting obligation under both states' rules, given the competitive relationship with XYZ Engineers and the potential investigative limitations of anonymous complaints, as addressed in BER Case 02-11.
Engineer A was constrained, if choosing to file an anonymous complaint against XYZ Engineers and Engineer B with the State Q and State Z licensing boards, from treating anonymous filing as a complete discharge of the mandatory written reporting obligation under both states' rules — particularly given that the licensing boards' investigative capacity may be materially limited by the absence of an identified complainant who can provide sworn testimony and documentary evidence — and was required to assess whether the gravity of the identified misconduct and the boards' investigative needs required identified rather than anonymous reporting.
State Q Licensing Board Rules (written reporting requirement); State Z Licensing Board Rules (written reporting requirement); BER Case 02-11 (anonymous complaint precedent)
The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
At the time Engineer A decided how to fulfill the reporting obligation to both licensing boards
Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions
Qualification proposals now exist in the public procurement record containing potentially misleading attribution; the misrepresentation is now an observable fact available to competitors and state boards
Obligation on XYZ/Engineer B to correct misrepresentation
Potential obligation on Engineer A to investigate and report
State boards may have obligation to investigate if notified
During XYZ's marketing campaign in States Q and Z
The qualification proposals submitted by XYZ Engineers create an ambiguous representation of project authorship: Engineer B's prior projects are listed at the beginning of the individual qualification section but the attribution to Engineer B's prior firm is not repeated within each specific project description. This structural ambiguity means readers may reasonably infer that XYZ Engineers performed work it did not perform.
The BER concluded that Engineer A had a clear obligation to report information on misconduct to the engineering licensing board.
the BER considered that a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, and fairer to the complainant, but concluded in this case that an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical.
BER in reasoning about Engineer A's reporting obligations and the permissibility of anonymous complaints
Cited as precedent establishing that engineers have a clear obligation to report misconduct to the engineering licensing board, and that an anonymous complaint, while less ideal than a signed one, is ethically permissible
BER Case 76-4 addressed the duty to report likely environmental damage to appropriate regulatory authorities.
The BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report Doe's observations to the applicable regulatory authority.
BER in reasoning about Engineer A's reporting obligations
Cited as precedent establishing the duty to report likely environmental damage to appropriate regulatory authorities when a client terminates an engineer and suppresses findings
Ethical guidance is now formally established; Engineer A's obligations are authoritatively confirmed; the case becomes part of the body of professional ethics precedent
Engineer A's obligation to report to State Z is formally confirmed by BER
Engineering community is put on notice of applicable standards
Future cases must be assessed against this precedent
BER analysis phase (after facts established)
The Board of Ethical Review analyzes the case using precedent cases BER 76-4 and BER 02-11, applying established ethical reasoning to conclude that Engineer A has no obligation to report to State Q but has a clear obligation to report to State Z. This application of precedent transforms prior case law into binding ethical guidance for the present situation.
CausalLink_Engineer A Declines State Q Re
CausalLink_Engineer A Investigates Market
CausalLink_Engineer A Reports to State Z
CausalLink_Engineer A Reviews Applicable
CausalLink_Engineer B Completes Prior Pro
CausalLink_Partial Attribution Disclosure
Engineer A is now an informed party with potential reporting obligations; the ethical situation expands from a two-party matter (XYZ/Engineer B) to include a third-party observer with professional duties
Engineer A must act in good faith, not merely competitive interest
Engineer A must determine whether a violation has occurred before reporting
Engineer A must review applicable codes and rules
During or after XYZ's submission of qualification proposals
Engineer A, working at competing firm ABC Consultants, becomes aware of XYZ Engineers' marketing practice and the attribution format used in their qualification proposals. This awareness is the precipitating event that initiates Engineer A's ethical deliberation and investigation.
Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint Engineer A State Z Reporting
Engineer A is a competing engineer who reviewed XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals and identified potential misconduct; the competitive relationship between Engineer A and XYZ Engineers creates a risk that reporting motivations may be mixed between genuine professional obligation and competitive self-interest
Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint
Engineer A was constrained, when reporting XYZ Engineers' State Z misconduct to the State Z licensing board, to ensure that the reporting decision was grounded in genuine professional ethics and public interest — not in competitive self-interest arising from Engineer A's status as a competing firm — and was constrained from allowing competitive motivations to either deter reporting of the genuine State Z rule violation or to inflate the State Q ambiguity into a reportable violation for competitive advantage.
NSPE Code of Ethics reporting obligation provisions; BER Case 02-11; Procurement Protest Ethical Boundary Constraint precedent
There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state.
At the time Engineer A filed or considered filing complaints with State Q and State Z licensing boards
The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z.
Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation Constraint Engineer A State Q Licensing Board
Engineer A, as a direct competitor of XYZ Engineers, faced the ethical tension between the mandatory reporting obligation under State Q rules and the risk that reporting a competitor could be perceived as — or actually motivated by — competitive self-interest rather than genuine public interest in accurate qualification representations.
Engineer A was constrained, in deciding whether and how to report XYZ Engineers' and Engineer B's qualification proposal practices to the State Q licensing board, to ensure that the reporting decision was grounded in genuine professional ethics and public interest rather than competitive self-interest — given that Engineer A worked for ABC Consultants, a direct competitor of XYZ Engineers in the same metropolitan market — while simultaneously being constrained from allowing competitive self-interest to deter reporting of genuine violations that the State Q rules required to be reported.
State Q Licensing Board Rules (reporting obligation); NSPE Code of Ethics (honorable conduct provisions); Procurement Protest Ethical Boundary principles
At the time Engineer A assessed whether to report to the State Q licensing board
ABC's competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B
The proposal practices of Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were not unethical from the perspective of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
The Board's conclusion that XYZ Engineers' proposal practices were not unethical under the NSPE Code rests implicitly on a document-level reading of transparency: because the prefatory attribution notice existed somewhere in the proposal, the overall presentation did not constitute falsification or misrepresentation. However, this reasoning leaves unresolved a meaningful gap between technical compliance and the spirit of honesty required by Section II.5.a. A single prefatory notice in a lengthy qualifications document does not guarantee that evaluators — who routinely focus on individual project descriptions when scoring proposals — will connect that notice to each project listed. The Board's analysis would have been strengthened by acknowledging that the adequacy of a disclosure is a function not only of its presence but of its placement, prominence, and the realistic reading behavior of the intended audience. Government procurement evaluators using scoring rubrics are likely to assess individual project entries in isolation, meaning that a prefatory notice, however well-intentioned, may functionally fail to inform the evaluation of each project. The Board's silence on this point leaves a normative gap: the NSPE Code's honesty standard, as applied here, appears to treat disclosure as a binary condition rather than a graduated obligation calibrated to the risk of actual misunderstanding.
The Board's finding that XYZ Engineers' practices were not unethical under the NSPE Code does not fully address the institutional dimension of the firm's responsibility. Engineer B is an individual licensee, but XYZ Engineers as a firm made the deliberate organizational decision to structure its qualifications proposals in the manner described. Section III.9 and Section III.9.a impose credit-attribution obligations that apply to the professional conduct of engineers, and when a firm systematically deploys a proposal format that concentrates attribution disclosure in a single prefatory location while allowing project-level descriptions to stand without attribution, the firm bears independent institutional responsibility for that structural choice. The Board's analysis focused primarily on Engineer B's individual conduct without separately evaluating whether XYZ Engineers, as the entity submitting the proposals and controlling their format, bore a distinct and potentially higher obligation to ensure that attribution was unambiguous at every level of the document. This omission is significant because it leaves open the question of whether firms can insulate themselves from ethical scrutiny by delegating attribution decisions to individual engineers while retaining control over proposal architecture.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer B's practices were not unethical under the NSPE Code, when read alongside the finding that State Z's rules were violated, exposes a structural tension in the relationship between the NSPE Code and jurisdiction-specific licensing rules. The NSPE Code's honesty standard under Section II.5.a prohibits misrepresentation of qualifications but does not specify the granularity of attribution required in multi-employer proposal contexts. State Z's rules, by contrast, impose a precise project-level attribution requirement. The fact that conduct deemed compliant under the NSPE Code can simultaneously violate a state licensing rule suggests that the NSPE Code functions as a floor — not a ceiling — for professional honesty obligations, and that engineers practicing across multiple jurisdictions cannot rely solely on NSPE Code compliance to satisfy their full ethical and legal obligations. This divergence also raises a calibration concern: if the NSPE Code's honesty standard is consistently less demanding than jurisdiction-specific rules in states with detailed attribution requirements, the Code may systematically underprotect clients and competing firms in those jurisdictions. Engineers and firms operating in multi-state markets should therefore treat the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's rules as the operative standard for proposal preparation, rather than defaulting to the NSPE Code's more general formulation.
While the Board implicitly affirmed Engineer A's reporting obligation to the State Z board by framing the State Z violation as established, the Board did not address the conflict-of-interest dimension introduced by Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor of XYZ Engineers. Both states' licensing rules impose a mandatory reporting obligation on licensees who have knowledge or reason to believe a violation has occurred, and the NSPE Code similarly supports reporting of unethical or illegal practice. However, the mandatory character of this obligation does not eliminate the ethical significance of the reporter's motivation. From a virtue ethics perspective, the legitimacy of Engineer A's reporting action depends in part on whether it was motivated by genuine concern for client protection and professional integrity rather than competitive self-interest. The Board's analysis would have been more complete had it acknowledged this tension and clarified that the mandatory reporting obligation remains valid and must be fulfilled regardless of the reporter's competitive position — but that Engineer A should be transparent about the competitive relationship when filing the report, and should confine the report strictly to documented rule violations rather than using the reporting mechanism to cast broader reputational doubt on XYZ Engineers. This framing preserves the integrity of the licensing enforcement system while acknowledging that competitive motivation, though it does not void the reporting duty, is an ethically relevant factor that the reporting engineer should consciously examine.
The Board's analysis of Engineer A's reporting obligation appropriately distinguished between State Q and State Z based on the differing specificity of each state's licensing rules, concluding that a violation was established in State Z but not in State Q. This jurisdiction-differentiated outcome carries an important practical implication that the Board did not make explicit: Engineer A's obligation to report to the State Z board is mandatory under both states' rules once Engineer A has knowledge or reason to believe a violation occurred, and that threshold was met by Engineer A's own review of the State Z rules. The Board's reasoning therefore implicitly confirms that Engineer A's decision to report to the State Z board was not merely permissible but obligatory — and that declining to report after identifying a clear rule violation would itself have constituted a breach of Engineer A's professional obligations. Conversely, the absence of a comparable violation under State Q's more permissive standard means that reporting to the State Q board would have been unsupported by the factual record and potentially inconsistent with Section III.7's prohibition on conduct that injures the professional reputation of another engineer without factual basis. This asymmetry — mandatory reporting in State Z, inappropriate reporting in State Q — illustrates that the reporting obligation is not a blanket duty triggered by competitive suspicion but a jurisdiction-specific, evidence-calibrated professional responsibility.
Engineer A's status as a direct competitor of XYZ Engineers does create a potential conflict of interest that warrants careful self-examination before initiating any reporting action. However, that competitive relationship does not nullify the legitimacy of the reporting obligation itself. The NSPE Code and the licensing rules of both states impose a mandatory reporting duty on any licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe a violation has occurred — the rules do not carve out an exception for competitors, nor do they require the reporting engineer to be a disinterested party. The competitive motivation is ethically relevant to the question of motivational integrity (see Q306), but it does not transform a genuine violation into a non-violation, nor does it relieve Engineer A of the duty to report. What the conflict of interest does require is that Engineer A act with scrupulous accuracy — neither overstating the violation nor selectively reporting only in jurisdictions where it benefits ABC Consultants competitively. The fact that Engineer A declined to report to the State Q board, where no clear rule violation was found, and reported only to the State Z board, where a specific rule was clearly breached, is consistent with good-faith application of the reporting obligation rather than weaponization of the licensing system. The conflict of interest concern is real but does not override the mandatory reporting duty when the underlying violation is genuine.
The Board's analysis focused primarily on Engineer B's individual conduct and did not separately evaluate XYZ Engineers' institutional culpability. This omission is analytically significant. XYZ Engineers, as the firm that prepared, reviewed, and submitted the qualifications proposals, bears independent institutional responsibility for the attribution practices embedded in those documents. A firm that knowingly structures proposal documents in a way that places attribution notices only in prefatory sections — while allowing lengthy individual project descriptions to function without any attribution reminder — has made an organizational decision about disclosure architecture. That decision cannot be attributed solely to Engineer B. Under NSPE Code Section II.5.a, the prohibition against permitting misrepresentation of qualifications applies to the firm as well as the individual engineer. The Board's conclusion that XYZ Engineers' practices were not unethical under the NSPE Code is defensible for State Q purposes, but the analysis would have been more complete had it separately assessed whether XYZ Engineers, as an institution, exercised adequate supervisory oversight to ensure that the prefatory attribution notice was sufficient to prevent a misleading overall impression — particularly given that the State Z rules imposed a stricter standard that the firm's proposal structure failed to meet.
The prefatory attribution notice placed only at the beginning of Engineer B's individual qualification section — but not repeated within each project description — occupies an ethically ambiguous middle ground. It technically avoids outright falsification under the NSPE Code and satisfies the less specific State Q rules, but it does not fully satisfy the spirit of honesty and transparency that the Code's Section II.5.a demands. Sophisticated government procurement evaluators reading a lengthy qualifications proposal are most likely to focus their substantive evaluation on the detailed project descriptions themselves, not on a prefatory notice that may be several pages removed from the specific project narratives. A disclosure architecture that places the attribution caveat where it is least likely to be operationally noticed by evaluators — while allowing project descriptions to read as if they represent Engineer B's independent work product — creates a structural risk of misleading impressions even without any single false statement. The Board's conclusion that this practice was not unethical under the NSPE Code is defensible as a minimum compliance determination, but it should not be read as an endorsement of the practice as aspirationally ethical. The more transparent and professionally sound approach would have been to include attribution information adjacent to each project description, as State Z's rules explicitly require and as the intellectual integrity principle underlying Section III.9.a would support.
From a deontological perspective, Engineer B's prefatory-only attribution disclosure does not fully satisfy a categorical duty of honesty in professional representations. A Kantian analysis would ask whether the disclosure practice could be universalized — that is, whether a world in which all engineers disclosed prior-employer project credits only in prefatory sections, while allowing detailed project narratives to stand without attribution, would be consistent with a rational system of professional trust. It would not. The categorical duty of honesty requires that representations be structured so that the audience receives accurate information at the point of decision, not merely at a point in the document where the information is technically present but practically obscured. Engineer B's disclosure satisfies a weak non-falsification duty but falls short of the stronger duty of affirmative transparency that deontological ethics demands of licensed professionals whose representations directly affect client procurement decisions. The Board's finding of no NSPE Code violation reflects a minimum compliance threshold, not a deontological endorsement of the practice.
From a consequentialist perspective, the partial attribution disclosure practice adopted by XYZ Engineers produces a net harm to the competitive fairness of the procurement process and to the integrity of the profession, even if it does not rise to the level of an NSPE Code violation under the State Q standard. The competitive advantage gained by XYZ Engineers through a proposal structure that allows Engineer B's prior-employer projects to function as apparent independent credentials — without per-project attribution reminders — is an advantage that competing firms who provide more granular attribution do not enjoy. Firms that fully comply with the spirit of attribution requirements bear a disclosure cost (potential client skepticism about the depth of in-house experience) that XYZ Engineers partially avoids through its disclosure architecture. Over time, if this practice were normalized, it would create a race-to-minimum-disclosure dynamic that degrades the informational quality of qualification proposals across the profession. The consequentialist calculus therefore supports the stricter State Z approach as producing better aggregate outcomes for clients, competing firms, and the profession — and suggests that the NSPE Code's current standard may be insufficiently calibrated to prevent this form of structural misleading.
From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B did not fully demonstrate the professional integrity and intellectual honesty expected of a licensed engineer. A virtuous engineer — one who has internalized the character traits of honesty, transparency, and respect for clients as rational decision-makers — would not structure a qualifications proposal in a way that is technically transparent at the document level but practically obscure at the project-description level where evaluators focus their attention. The virtue ethics standard asks not merely whether Engineer B avoided lying, but whether Engineer B acted as a person of good professional character would act. A person of good professional character, aware that clients reading lengthy proposal narratives may not carry forward a prefatory attribution notice into their evaluation of each project, would take affirmative steps to ensure that the attribution was visible at the point of evaluation. Engineer B's approach reflects a compliance-minimizing orientation rather than a virtue-maximizing one, and while it may satisfy the minimum threshold for avoiding an NSPE Code violation, it falls short of the aspirational standard of professional integrity that the Code is designed to cultivate.
From a virtue ethics perspective, the licensing regime's mandatory competitor-reporting obligation presents a genuine tension between professional solidarity and public protection, but that tension does not undermine the obligation's legitimacy. The virtue of professional solidarity — which would counsel engineers to resolve ambiguous situations in favor of colleagues rather than reporting them to regulatory authorities — is a real professional virtue, but it is subordinate to the more fundamental virtues of honesty and public protection when a genuine violation is at stake. Engineer A's decision to report to the State Z board, where a specific and clear rule violation existed, reflects appropriate motivational integrity only if Engineer A's primary concern was the integrity of the qualification proposal process and the protection of clients from misleading representations — not the elimination of a competitor. The case facts suggest that Engineer A conducted a careful, jurisdiction-specific analysis and declined to report where no clear violation existed (State Q), which is consistent with good-faith application of the reporting obligation. However, the virtue ethics framework would require Engineer A to honestly examine whether the decision to report was driven by genuine concern for professional standards or by competitive self-interest — and to refrain from reporting if the honest answer is the latter. The licensing system is not designed to be an instrument of competitive strategy, and a virtuous engineer would use it only when the public protection rationale is genuine and primary.
The counterfactual in which XYZ Engineers had included attribution notices adjacent to each project description throughout the proposal body would almost certainly have led the Board to the same conclusion of no NSPE Code violation — and indeed would have represented a more clearly compliant practice. The Board's conclusion that the prefatory notice was sufficient to avoid a violation under the NSPE Code and State Q rules rested on the finding that the notice was present and identifiable, not that it was optimally placed. Had the attribution appeared at the project-description level, the case for compliance would have been even stronger, and the ambiguity that gave rise to Engineer A's concern would have been eliminated. This counterfactual therefore confirms that the Board's conclusion was a minimum-threshold determination: the prefatory notice was just sufficient to avoid a violation, but project-level attribution would have been the clearly preferable practice. The counterfactual also reveals that the NSPE Code's honesty standard under Section II.5.a does not affirmatively require project-level attribution — it only prohibits misrepresentation — which is the gap that State Z's more specific rules were designed to close.
The counterfactual in which State Q's licensing rules were as specific as State Z's — requiring attribution information to appear next to each individual project listing — would have reversed the Board's conclusion on Question 2 with respect to State Q. Under that scenario, XYZ Engineers' prefatory-only attribution structure would have constituted a clear violation of State Q rules, and Engineer A would have had an obligation to report to the State Q board as well. This counterfactual is analytically important because it demonstrates that the Board's conclusion on the reporting obligation is entirely dependent on the jurisdiction-specific content of the applicable licensing rules, not on the NSPE Code of Ethics alone. The NSPE Code's general prohibition on misrepresentation of qualifications was insufficient to establish a clear violation in State Q; it was only the specific, granular language of State Z's rules that created the unambiguous violation triggering the mandatory reporting obligation. This reveals a structural gap: engineers practicing in jurisdictions with less specific rules receive less protection from the kind of partial-disclosure practices at issue here, and the NSPE Code does not fill that gap.
The counterfactual in which Engineer A had relied solely on the NSPE Code of Ethics — without reviewing the jurisdiction-specific licensing rules of State Q and State Z — reveals a critical gap in the Code's ability to capture jurisdiction-specific professional misconduct. Under the NSPE Code alone, the analysis of XYZ Engineers' proposal practice would have been inconclusive: the prefatory attribution notice arguably avoids outright falsification under Section II.5.a, and the Code does not specify the granularity of attribution required. Engineer A would likely have concluded that the practice was ethically questionable but not clearly prohibited — and would not have identified the specific State Z rule violation that triggered the mandatory reporting obligation. This scenario confirms that the NSPE Code functions as a floor of general ethical principles, not as a comprehensive substitute for jurisdiction-specific licensing rules. Engineers practicing across multiple jurisdictions have an affirmative obligation to identify and apply the specific rules of each jurisdiction — an obligation that the Code itself acknowledges through Section III.8.a's requirement to conform with state registration laws. The case therefore stands as a practical illustration of why multi-jurisdictional practice requires jurisdiction-specific rule review, and why reliance on the NSPE Code alone is insufficient for compliance purposes.
The divergence between State Q's general misrepresentation prohibition and State Z's granular project-level attribution requirement reveals that the NSPE Code's honesty standard under Section II.5.a is insufficiently calibrated to address the specific risks of cross-employer project credit attribution in multi-jurisdictional practice. The Code prohibits falsification and misrepresentation but does not specify the structural requirements for attribution disclosures — leaving engineers and firms free to adopt disclosure architectures that are technically non-false but practically obscure. State Z's legislature and licensing board identified this gap and addressed it through specific rules requiring attribution information to appear adjacent to each project listing. The NSPE Code has not made a parallel adjustment. This divergence suggests that the Code's honesty standard, while adequate for clear cases of falsification, is not adequate to govern the more subtle forms of misleading representation that arise from disclosure architecture choices. The Board's conclusion that XYZ Engineers' practice was not unethical under the NSPE Code, while correct as a matter of minimum compliance, should prompt the NSPE to consider whether the Code's attribution provisions need to be updated to reflect the more specific standards that state licensing bodies have found necessary to protect the integrity of the qualification proposal process.
The Board resolved the tension between the Transparency Principle and Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity by treating document-level disclosure as sufficient to satisfy the NSPE Code's honesty standard, even when that disclosure was not repeated at the project-description level where evaluators are most likely to focus. This resolution effectively privileges formal transparency — the existence of a prefatory notice — over functional transparency — the practical likelihood that a reader will connect that notice to each individual project description in a lengthy proposal body. The case thereby teaches that the NSPE Code's minimum compliance threshold for honesty in professional representations is calibrated to the document as a whole rather than to the reader's likely cognitive path through it. While this outcome avoids finding a violation under the Code, it leaves an unresolved gap between the aspirational standard of intellectual integrity in authorship, which would demand granular attribution, and the minimum standard the Board was willing to enforce. Practitioners and firms should treat this gap as a reason to adopt project-level attribution as a best practice rather than as a ceiling set by the Board's finding.
The case reveals a structural tension between the Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation and the Fairness in Professional Competition principle that the Board did not fully resolve. By affirming Engineer A's obligation to report to the State Z board without separately examining whether Engineer A's competitive motivation compromised the integrity of that reporting decision, the Board implicitly treated the reporting duty as categorical — that is, the obligation to report a genuine licensing violation is not diminished or tainted by the reporter's competitive interest in the outcome. This resolution is consistent with a deontological reading of the reporting obligation: if a violation exists, it must be reported regardless of the reporter's motivation. However, the Board's silence on the conflict-of-interest dimension leaves open the consequentialist concern that mandatory reporting rules, when exercised by direct competitors, can function as instruments of competitive harm even when the underlying violation is real. The case teaches that the NSPE Code and state licensing rules prioritize public protection and regulatory integrity over the risk of competitive misuse, but that this prioritization is most defensible when the reported violation is clear and material — as it was under State Z's specific attribution rules — rather than marginal or ambiguous.
The most significant principle interaction in this case is the divergence between the Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation and the Honesty in Professional Representations principle as operationalized across two regulatory environments. The Board's analysis demonstrates that a single course of conduct — Engineer B's prefatory-only attribution practice — can simultaneously satisfy the NSPE Code's honesty standard and State Q's misrepresentation prohibition while violating State Z's more granular project-level attribution rule. This divergence reveals that the NSPE Code functions as a floor, not a ceiling, for professional honesty, and that jurisdiction-specific rules can impose materially higher standards without creating a logical contradiction with the Code. The practical teaching for multi-jurisdictional practitioners is that compliance with the NSPE Code does not guarantee compliance with all applicable state rules, and that the Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation requires independent rule-by-rule analysis in each state of practice. Firms operating across state lines must therefore treat the most demanding applicable jurisdiction's attribution standard as the operative benchmark for proposal preparation, not the most permissive one, if they wish to avoid selective non-compliance. This case also implicitly suggests that the NSPE Code's honesty provisions may benefit from revision to incorporate more explicit guidance on multi-jurisdictional attribution practices, closing the gap between the Code's general standard and the more specific requirements that some states have found necessary to protect clients and competitors alike.
Conflict of Interest Avoidance Constraint Engineer A Competitor Reporting Decision
Engineer A's status as a direct competitor of XYZ Engineers in the same metropolitan bridge and culvert market created a potential conflict of interest in the reporting decision, requiring careful separation of professional ethics obligations from competitive business interests.
Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
Engineer A was constrained by conflict of interest avoidance obligations from allowing the competitive business relationship between ABC Consultants and XYZ Engineers to influence either the decision to report or the manner of reporting — requiring that the reporting decision be made on the basis of the identified ethical and regulatory violations alone, and prohibiting Engineer A from using the mandatory reporting obligation as a vehicle for competitive advantage or from suppressing a genuine reporting obligation to avoid the appearance of competitive motivation.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Conflict of Interest provisions; NSPE Code Section III.2 (engineers shall not attempt to injure the professional reputation of other engineers)
Throughout Engineer A's assessment and reporting decision process
Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers satisfy their honesty and non-misrepresentation obligations by including prior-employer attribution only in a prefatory notice at the beginning of the qualification section, or by repeating attribution information adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal?
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers must decide how to present prior-employer project experience in qualification proposals submitted across State Q and State Z, choosing between a prefatory attribution notice placed only at the beginning of the individual qualification section versus repeating attribution information adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body.
Include prior-employer attribution only in a prefatory notice at the beginning of the individual qualification section without repeating it within each project description
Include prior-employer attribution information adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body in addition to any prefatory notice
Honesty in Professional Representations Obligation XYZ Engineers Qualification Proposals Both States
Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers disclose prior-employer project attribution only in a prefatory section of qualification proposals, or must attribution appear adjacent to each individual project description in order to satisfy the NSPE Code's honesty standard and applicable state licensing rules?
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers: Attribution Disclosure Granularity in Qualification Proposals Across State Q and State Z
Include prior-employer attribution notice only in the prefatory section of Engineer B's individual qualification section, without repeating attribution within each project description
Include prior-employer attribution information immediately adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body, in addition to any prefatory notice
Should Engineer A report XYZ Engineers' attribution practices to the licensing boards of both State Z and State Q, only State Z, or neither — and does Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor of XYZ Engineers create a conflict of interest that modifies or voids the mandatory reporting obligation?
Engineer A: Jurisdiction-Differentiated Reporting Obligation to State Licensing Boards Given Competitor Status and Differential State Rules
Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Z licensing board only, after reviewing and confirming a specific rule violation under State Z's project-level attribution requirement, and decline to report to State Q where no clear rule violation is established
Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Z and State Q, treating the NSPE Code's general honesty standard as sufficient to establish a reportable violation in both jurisdictions regardless of the differential specificity of each state's rules
Decline to report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to either state licensing board, on the grounds that Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor creates a disqualifying conflict of interest that voids the reporting obligation
When preparing qualification proposals for submission in multiple states with differing attribution specificity requirements, should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers apply the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's project-level attribution standard to all proposals, or may they calibrate disclosure granularity to the minimum required by each individual state's rules?
Multi-Jurisdictional Compliance Standard: Whether Engineers and Firms Operating Across State Lines Must Apply the Most Stringent Applicable Jurisdiction's Attribution Rules as the Operative Benchmark for Proposal Preparation
Calibrate attribution disclosure granularity to the minimum required by each individual state's licensing rules, using a prefatory-only notice in states with general misrepresentation prohibitions and project-level attribution only where explicitly required by state rules
Apply the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's project-level attribution requirement as the uniform standard for all qualification proposals submitted across all states, regardless of whether each individual state's rules require that level of specificity
Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers include prior-employer project attribution only in a prefatory section of qualification proposals, or repeat it adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body?
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers: Attribution Disclosure Architecture in Qualification Proposals
Disclose prior-employer attribution only in a prefatory section of Engineer B's individual qualification section, without repeating attribution adjacent to each project description
Include prior-employer attribution notice immediately adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body, in addition to any prefatory section notice
Should Engineer A report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing board in State Q, given that State Q's rules do not specifically require project-level attribution placement and no clear rule violation is identifiable under State Q's standard?
Engineer A: Jurisdiction-Differentiated Reporting Obligation for Competitor Misconduct Across State Q and State Z
Decline to report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Q licensing board after determining that State Q's rules do not specifically prohibit the prefatory-only disclosure structure
Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Q licensing board on the basis that the NSPE Code's general misrepresentation prohibition is sufficient to establish a reportable violation regardless of State Q's rule specificity
Should Engineer A conduct an independent, jurisdiction-specific review of the licensing rules of each state in which XYZ Engineers' attribution practice occurred before deciding whether and where to report, rather than relying solely on the NSPE Code of Ethics to assess the conduct?
Engineer A: Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Review Obligation Before Acting on Competitor Misconduct
Conduct an independent, jurisdiction-specific review of the licensing board rules of each state in which XYZ Engineers' practice occurred before determining whether and where to report
Assess XYZ Engineers' attribution practice solely against the NSPE Code of Ethics without separately reviewing the jurisdiction-specific licensing rules of State Q and State Z
Should Engineer A review the jurisdiction-specific licensing rules of both State Q and State Z, and report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Z licensing board given that a specific rule violation is identifiable there but not under State Q's more permissive standard?
Engineer A discovers that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals list Engineer B's prior-employer projects without per-project attribution, potentially violating State Z's specific licensing rules. Engineer A must decide whether to review the applicable jurisdiction-specific rules of both states and report the conduct to the relevant licensing board(s).
Review the jurisdiction-specific licensing rules of both State Q and State Z, report the identified violation to the State Z licensing board, and decline to report to the State Q board where no specific rule violation is established
Refrain from reviewing jurisdiction-specific rules and rely solely on the NSPE Code of Ethics to assess XYZ Engineers' conduct, taking no reporting action in either state
Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z without differentiating between the specificity of each state's applicable rules
Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers include prior-employer attribution information adjacent to each individual project description in qualification proposals, rather than disclosing it only in a single prefatory section of Engineer B's qualifications, in order to satisfy both the NSPE Code's honesty standard and the more specific attribution requirements of State Z?
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers must decide how to structure attribution disclosures for Engineer B's prior-employer projects in qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z — specifically whether to place attribution only in a prefatory section of Engineer B's individual qualifications or to include attribution information adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body.
Include prior-employer attribution information adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body, in addition to any prefatory notice, to satisfy both the NSPE Code's spirit of honesty and State Z's specific per-project attribution requirement
Disclose prior-employer attribution only in a single prefatory section of Engineer B's individual qualifications without repeating attribution adjacent to each project description in the proposal body
Should Engineer A fulfill the mandatory competitor misconduct reporting obligation by reporting XYZ Engineers' attribution practices to the licensing board of State Z — where a specific rule violation is established — while declining to report to the State Q board where no clear rule violation is found, notwithstanding Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor?
Engineer A, a direct commercial competitor of XYZ Engineers, must decide whether to report XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal attribution practices to the licensing boards of State Q and State Z after reviewing each state's specific licensing rules and concluding that a clear rule violation exists in State Z but not in State Q.
Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practices to the State Z licensing board in writing while declining to report to the State Q board, based on jurisdiction-specific rule analysis
Refrain from reporting to either state's licensing board on the grounds that Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor creates a conflict of interest that undermines the legitimacy of any reporting action
Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practices to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z in writing, treating the NSPE Code's general misrepresentation prohibition as sufficient to establish a violation in both jurisdictions
Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Both States
Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers fulfill their jurisdiction-specific licensing rule compliance obligation by identifying and applying the specific attribution requirements of each state — including State Z's more stringent project-level attribution rule — when preparing qualification proposals for submission in those jurisdictions, rather than applying a uniform format that satisfies only the less specific State Q standard?
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers, operating across multiple licensing jurisdictions, must decide whether to identify and apply the most stringent jurisdiction-specific attribution rules of each state when preparing qualification proposals, or to apply a uniform proposal format calibrated to the less specific requirements of the more permissive jurisdiction.
Apply a uniform proposal format calibrated to the less specific State Q standard, placing prior-employer attribution only in a prefatory notice without reviewing whether State Z imposes more granular requirements
Identify and apply the specific attribution rules of each jurisdiction before preparing qualification proposals, tailoring proposal format to meet the most stringent applicable state requirement including State Z's project-level attribution rule
Jurisdiction-Specific Licensing Rule Compliance Obligation XYZ Engineers Engineer B Both States
Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers structure qualification proposals to include prior-employer attribution only in a prefatory section, or must attribution appear adjacent to each individual project description to satisfy the NSPE Code's honesty and transparency obligations?
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers: Attribution Disclosure Adequacy in Qualification Proposals
Include prior-employer attribution notice only in the prefatory section of Engineer B's individual qualification section, without repeating attribution adjacent to each project description
Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers apply the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's attribution standard — State Z's project-level requirement — as the operative benchmark for all qualification proposals, or is it ethically permissible to calibrate disclosure architecture to each state's minimum rule, accepting that the same proposal structure may comply in State Q while violating State Z?
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers: Jurisdiction-Specific Attribution Rule Compliance Across State Q and State Z
Calibrate proposal attribution architecture to each state's minimum licensing rule, using prefatory-only disclosure where state rules permit it and project-level attribution only where explicitly required
Adopt the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's attribution standard — project-level attribution adjacent to each project description — as the universal benchmark for all qualification proposals regardless of which state they are submitted in
Should Engineer A report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z, or should the reporting obligation be calibrated to the jurisdiction-specific content of each state's rules — reporting only where a clear rule violation is identifiable and declining to report where the applicable rules do not independently prohibit the practice?
Engineer A: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation Calibrated to Jurisdiction-Specific Rule Violations
Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Z licensing board only, after reviewing and confirming a specific rule violation under State Z's project-level attribution requirement, while declining to report to the State Q board where no clear rule violation is identifiable
Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z on the basis that the NSPE Code's general honesty standard is sufficient to establish a violation in both jurisdictions without separately reviewing each state's specific licensing rules
Decline to report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to any licensing board, citing Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor and the risk that the reporting mechanism would function as an instrument of competitive harm rather than genuine public protection
Should Engineer B and XYZ Engineers disclose prior-employer project attribution only in a prefatory section of qualification proposals, or include attribution adjacent to each individual project description throughout the proposal body?
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers: Attribution Disclosure Placement in Qualification Proposals
Should Engineer A report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z, or limit reporting to only the jurisdiction whose specific rules were clearly violated?
Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the State Z licensing board only, after reviewing and confirming a specific rule violation, while declining to report to State Q where no equivalent rule violation is established
Report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z on the basis that the NSPE Code's general misrepresentation prohibition applies in both jurisdictions regardless of rule-specific granularity
Decline to report to either state licensing board on the grounds that Engineer A's status as a direct commercial competitor creates a conflict of interest that disqualifies the reporting action
Should XYZ Engineers, as the firm controlling the structure and submission of qualification proposals, adopt the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's attribution standard as the operative benchmark for all proposals, or calibrate disclosure architecture separately to each jurisdiction's minimum rule requirements?
XYZ Engineers: Institutional Responsibility for Proposal Attribution Architecture Across Multiple Jurisdictions
Adopt the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's attribution standard — project-level attribution adjacent to each individual project description — as the uniform benchmark for all qualification proposals submitted across all states of practice
Calibrate the proposal attribution architecture separately to each jurisdiction's minimum rule requirements, using a prefatory-only notice in states with general misrepresentation prohibitions and project-level attribution only in states with explicit granularity requirements
The ethical situation bifurcates: State Z presents a clear violation requiring reporting; State Q presents an ambiguous situation not requiring reporting. Engineer A's obligations are now jurisdiction-specific.
Engineer A has clear obligation to report to State Z board
Engineer A has no clear obligation (but possible discretion) regarding State Q
Engineer A must act on findings in good faith
During Engineer A's review of applicable rules
Engineer A's review of the NSPE Code of Ethics and the licensing board rules of States Q and Z reveals that the two states have materially different standards governing attribution in qualification proposals. State Q's rules are similar to NSPE standards and do not clearly prohibit XYZ's practice, while State Z's rules are more specific and stringent and appear to have been clearly violated.
Engineer A Anonymous Complaint Ethical Permissibility Assessment
Competitor Misconduct Reporting Threshold Assessment Capability
Engineer A (in the BER Case 02-11 precedent context) exercised the capability to assess whether filing an anonymous complaint to the licensing board satisfied professional reporting obligations, correctly determining that an anonymous complaint was ethically permissible as better than no report at all, though a signed complaint would have been preferable
BER Case 02-11 precedent: Engineer A filed an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding Engineer B's misconduct and the BER evaluated whether anonymous filing was ethical
Filing of an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding Engineer B's misconduct, which the BER concluded was ethical in the circumstances
Engineer A had a clear obligation to report information on misconduct to the engineering licensing board
a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, and fairer to the complainant, but concluded in this case that an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical.
Engineer A Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment
Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
Engineer A demonstrated capability to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices provided fair competitive opportunity — recognizing that misrepresentation of prior-employer projects as current-firm accomplishments could create an unfair competitive advantage in qualification-based selection processes.
Engineer A, as an employee of ABC Consultants competing against XYZ Engineers in State Q and State Z, assessed whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices were fair and compliant with professional ethics
Questioning whether XYZ Engineers' marketing practice was misleading to clients and unethical, implying recognition that the practice could distort competitive procurement by inflating the apparent qualifications of the competing firm
Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z
ABC's competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states
Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
Engineer A Competitor Misconduct Reporting State Z Obligation Fulfillment
Engineer A possessed the capability to assess that XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal practices met the threshold of 'knowledge or reason to believe' misconduct triggering a mandatory reporting obligation to the State Z licensing board, and to act on that assessment by reporting
Engineer A evaluated XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal against State Z's specific rules and concluded that a mandatory reporting obligation to the State Z licensing board arose
Determination that Engineer B and XYZ Engineers' failure to meet State Z's specific attribution requirements constituted misconduct requiring mandatory reporting to the State Z licensing board
The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm.
Engineer A Competitor Misconduct Reporting Threshold Assessment State Q
Engineer A demonstrated capability to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices in State Q met the 'knowledge or reason to believe' threshold triggering a mandatory written reporting obligation to the State Q Board of Licensure, applying State Q's NCEES Model Rules-based misrepresentation standard to the identified proposal deficiencies.
Engineer A evaluated whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices in State Q constituted a violation requiring mandatory written reporting to the State Q Board of Licensure
Consideration of whether the proposal/marketing practice violated State Q's licensing board rules and whether Engineer A had an obligation to report to the State Q licensing jurisdiction
Engineer A Competitor Misconduct Reporting Threshold Assessment State Z
Engineer A demonstrated capability to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices in State Z — specifically the failure to include per-project attribution next to each specific project listing — met the 'knowledge or reason to believe' threshold triggering a mandatory written reporting obligation to the State Z Board of Licensure, applying State Z's more specific attribution requirements.
Engineer A evaluated whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices in State Z constituted a violation of State Z's unique per-project attribution requirements, triggering mandatory written reporting to the State Z Board of Licensure
Consideration of whether the proposal/marketing practice violated State Z's specific licensing board rules requiring per-project attribution and whether Engineer A had an obligation to report to the State Z licensing jurisdiction
any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project
Engineer / competitor at ABC Consultants
Decision may be perceived as inconsistent given reporting to State Z
XYZ Engineers faces no sanction in State Q despite disclosure that 'could have been clearer'
Avoiding misuse of licensing board complaint processes
Proportionality in ethics enforcement – not reporting where no clear violation exists
Avoiding harassment through unfounded complaints
Respect for jurisdictional rule distinctions
Avoid filing an unsupported or speculative ethics complaint in a jurisdiction where the rules do not clearly condemn the conduct in question
Proportional application of ethics enforcement
After review, upon conclusion of BER deliberation
Engineer A decides not to report the attribution practice to State Q's licensing board, based on the finding that State Q's rules (similar to NSPE standards) were not clearly violated by XYZ Engineers' disclosure format. The BER affirms this as the correct determination, no obligation to report exists where no clear violation is established.
Engineer A Ethical Issue — Competitor Marketing Practice Assessment
From Engineer A's initial questioning of the practice through resolution via NSPE Code and state rule analysis
Engineer A's assessment of whether XYZ Engineers' qualifications proposal practice constitutes an ethical violation
Not yet terminated — ethical assessment ongoing
Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics
Engineer A observing XYZ Engineers' qualifications proposals and questioning whether the attribution practice is misleading and unethical
Engineer A Investigates Marketing Practice
Investigation by a competitor may appear self-serving or motivated by competitive interest rather than genuine ethical concern
Initial step toward upholding public trust in engineering representations
Professional vigilance regarding unethical conduct in the profession
NSPE Code of Ethics obligation to report unethical conduct
Public protection through honest qualification submissions
Determine whether XYZ Engineers' proposal formatting violates professional ethics standards or licensing board rules
Ability to identify potentially misleading professional representations
Upon noticing XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals, Engineer A makes a deliberate decision to investigate whether the attribution practice constitutes a misleading or unethical representation. This is a proactive professional judgment to scrutinize a competitor's conduct rather than ignore it.
Engineer A Investigates Marketing Practice (Action 4) → Differential State Rules Discovered (Event 5)
Upon noticing XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals, Engineer A makes a deliberate decision to investigate the attribution practice, which leads to a jurisdiction-specific review that reveals differing rules between States Q and Z
Engineer A Investigates Marketing Practice (Action 4)
Without Engineer A's deliberate investigation, the differential state rules would not have been discovered in this context, and no report to State Z would have followed from this chain of events
Differential State Rules Discovered (Event 5)
Engineer A's awareness of XYZ's marketing materials
Engineer A's decision to actively investigate rather than ignore the practice
Existence of genuinely different rules between States Q and Z
Engineer A's investigative decision + access to NSPE Code and state licensing board rules + actual regulatory divergence between the two states
Engineer A Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment Multi-Jurisdiction
Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment Capability
Engineer A demonstrated capability to assess whether the identified potential violations by XYZ Engineers rose to the level requiring written reporting to the licensing boards of both State Q and State Z, evaluating the reporting obligation independently for each jurisdiction based on each state's specific rules.
Engineer A evaluated the mandatory reporting obligations triggered by knowledge or reason to believe that XYZ Engineers violated licensing board rules in State Q and State Z
Consideration of whether Engineer A had an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions after reviewing the rules of both states and identifying potential violations
Engineer A Misrepresentation Threshold Assessment State Q
Solicitation Misrepresentation Recognition Capability
Engineer A exercised the capability to assess whether XYZ Engineers' State Q proposal attribution deficiencies rose to the level of actionable misrepresentation under State Q's rules, correctly concluding that the proposal could have been clearer but did not constitute misrepresentation triggering a reporting obligation
Engineer A reviewed XYZ Engineers' State Q qualification proposal and assessed whether the attribution practices constituted misrepresentation under State Q's rules patterned after NSPE Code provisions
Evaluation of XYZ Engineers' State Q proposal against State Q's licensing board rules and conclusion that no reporting obligation arose in State Q
Did Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' presentation 'misrepresent facts concerning…past accomplishments'?
The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation, and that Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q.
the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'?
Engineer A Misrepresentation Threshold Assessment State Z
Engineer A exercised the capability to assess whether XYZ Engineers' State Z proposal attribution deficiencies rose to the level of actionable misconduct under State Z's specific rules, correctly concluding that the proposal violated State Z's explicit project-level attribution requirements and triggered a mandatory reporting obligation
Engineer A reviewed XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal and assessed whether the attribution practices constituted misconduct under State Z's more specific rules requiring project-level attribution
Evaluation of XYZ Engineers' State Z proposal against State Z's specific licensing board rules and conclusion that a mandatory reporting obligation arose in State Z
State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Review State Q State Z Capability
Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability
Engineer A exercised the capability to identify, retrieve, and compare the specific licensing board rules of both State Q and State Z, recognizing that State Z's rules imposed more specific attribution requirements than State Q's rules patterned after NSPE Code provisions, and applying each jurisdiction's rules independently to reach differentiated conclusions about reporting obligations
Engineer A conducted a jurisdiction-specific review of both State Q and State Z licensing board rules before forming conclusions about whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals constituted misconduct in each state
Independent analysis of State Q and State Z licensing board rules leading to different conclusions about reporting obligations in each jurisdiction
engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction.
With respect to the obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q, the language presented in the case regarding State Q's Rules appears very similar to the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification
Engineer A demonstrated advanced capability to identify, retrieve, and compare the licensing board rules of State Q and State Z — recognizing that State Q's rules were patterned after NCEES Model Rules while State Z's rules had a unique legislative history imposing more specific per-project attribution requirements — and applying each jurisdiction's standard independently to evaluate XYZ Engineers' proposal practices.
Engineer A conducted a multi-jurisdiction review of licensing board rules to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices violated professional ethics and state licensing requirements in State Q and State Z
Systematic review of NSPE Code of Ethics and licensing board rules in both states, identification of the material difference between State Q's general misrepresentation prohibition and State Z's specific per-project attribution requirement, and application of each standard to the competitor's proposals
Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that 'presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments'
Engineer A Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Qualification Proposals
Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
Engineer A demonstrated capability to apply NSPE Code of Ethics provisions and state licensing board rules as normative precedents to analyze whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices constituted an ethical violation, drawing on the code's honesty and misrepresentation provisions to reach a justified conclusion.
Engineer A applied NSPE Code of Ethics and state licensing board rules to analyze whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices were unethical and whether reporting obligations were triggered
Systematic review of NSPE Code of Ethics alongside state licensing board rules to assess the ethical and legal propriety of XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices
Engineer A Precedent-Based Reporting Obligation Analysis BER 76-4 02-11
Engineer A (and the BER) exercised the capability to identify and apply relevant BER precedents — BER Case 76-4 on post-termination environmental reporting and BER Case 02-11 on anonymous complaint ethics — to analyze the reporting obligations arising in the current case involving qualification proposal attribution practices
The BER discussion applied BER Case 76-4 and BER Case 02-11 as precedential authority to frame the analysis of reporting obligations in the current case
Application of BER Case 76-4 and BER Case 02-11 precedents to establish the framework for analyzing reporting obligations in the current qualification proposal attribution case
There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority
Engineer A Qualification Proposal Attribution Accuracy Assessment
Qualification Proposal Attribution Accuracy Capability
Engineer A demonstrated capability to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals provided attribution notices consistently throughout all project descriptions or only in introductory sections, identifying the structural deficiency that notices were not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual project descriptions.
Engineer A reviewed XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z to assess whether the attribution practices complied with professional ethics and licensing board rules
Recognition that XYZ Engineers' introductory attribution notice was insufficient because it was not repeated in all paragraphs of the individual project descriptions, potentially misleading clients about the origin of Engineer B's prior work
while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
Engineer A Regulatory Compliance Assessment — State Q and State Z Rules
From Engineer A's decision to review both states' rules through completion of compliance assessment
Engineer A's determination of whether XYZ Engineers' conduct complies with State Q and State Z licensing board rules
Not yet terminated — compliance assessment in progress
a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer
presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments
Engineer A deciding to review NSPE Code of Ethics and licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states
If anonymous, may be less effective per BER 02-11 guidance
May create professional friction or legal exposure
Report may appear self-serving given competitive relationship
NSPE Code of Ethics obligation to report known violations of the Code
Obligation to protect public trust in engineering qualification representations
Obligation to uphold integrity of the licensing and procurement process
Honest representation in engineering qualifications
Fulfill a professional ethical obligation to report a clear violation of State Z's licensing rules regarding attribution of prior project experience in qualification submissions
Professional courage to report misconduct
Following the jurisdiction-specific rule review, Engineer A makes the decision to report XYZ Engineers' attribution practice to State Z's licensing board, where the rules are more specific and stringent and where a clear violation is found to have occurred. The BER concludes this reporting constitutes a clear ethical obligation, not merely a discretionary act.
Engineer A Reports to State Z Board (Action 6) → BER Precedent Applied (Event 7)
Following the jurisdiction-specific rule review, Engineer A makes the decision to report XYZ Engineers to State Z's licensing board, which triggers a formal ethical review process in which the Board of Ethical Review analyzes the case using precedent cases BER 76-4 and BER 02-11
Engineer A Reports to State Z Board (Action 6)
Without Engineer A's report to State Z, the BER would not have been engaged to apply precedent to this specific fact pattern; the ethical analysis would not have been formally institutionalized
Engineer A's formal report to State Z licensing board
Existence of applicable BER precedent cases addressing attribution in qualification proposals
State Z Violation being established as a factual and ethical conclusion
Engineer A (for initiating report); XYZ Engineers and Engineer B (for creating the conditions requiring BER review)
Formal report submission + established State Z violation + BER's jurisdiction to review + availability of directly applicable precedent cases
Findings may obligate Engineer A to report, creating professional and relational risk; findings may also exonerate XYZ Engineers in one jurisdiction
Due diligence before making an ethics complaint
Honest and evidence-based professional judgment
Respect for jurisdictional specificity of licensing rules
Respect for rule of law and licensing authority
Establish an objective, rule-based foundation for determining whether a reportable violation has occurred in either or both states
Comparative rule interpretation across jurisdictions
Engineer A conducts a deliberate, jurisdiction-specific review of the NSPE Code of Ethics and the licensing board rules in both State Q and State Z to assess whether XYZ Engineers' disclosure practice constitutes a violation. This analytical decision produces differentiated findings across the two jurisdictions.
Engineer A Reviews Applicable Rules (Action 5) → State Z Violation Established (Event 6) and Engineer A Declines State Q Report (Action 7)
Engineer A conducts a deliberate, jurisdiction-specific review of the NSPE Code of Ethics and the licensing board rules of States Q and Z, which reveals that State Z has explicit provisions violated by XYZ's practice while State Q does not, leading to differentiated reporting decisions
Engineer A Reviews Applicable Rules (Action 5)
Without the jurisdiction-specific review, Engineer A would not have identified the State Z violation with sufficient specificity to justify a report, and would not have had a principled basis for declining to report to State Q
State Z Violation Established (Event 6) and Engineer A Declines State Q Report (Action 7)
Actual existence of differing rules between the two states
Engineer A's capacity to correctly interpret and apply the discovered rules
Jurisdiction-specific review methodology distinguishing State Q from State Z
Thorough rule review + genuine regulatory divergence + Engineer A's correct legal interpretation = differentiated violation findings for each state
Engineer A Solicitation Misrepresentation Recognition
Engineer A demonstrated capability to recognize that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals, while containing introductory attribution notices, were structured in a manner that could mislead clients — because the attribution was not repeated throughout the lengthy individual project descriptions — and to correctly classify this structural feature as a potential misrepresentation of facts in solicitation materials.
Engineer A reviewed XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals and identified that the structural placement of attribution notices — only at the beginning of sections rather than throughout individual project descriptions — created a potentially misleading impression for clients
Identification that the introductory-only attribution notice created a misleading impression in the body of the proposal, and assessment that this practice potentially violated State Q's prohibition on misrepresentation in solicitation presentations and State Z's specific per-project attribution requirements
Engineer A reviewing NSPE Code of Ethics and licensing board rules before Engineer A's decision on reporting obligation
Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states...Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical
Engineer A reviewing NSPE Code of Ethics and licensing board rules
Engineer A's decision on reporting obligation
Work product becomes portable professional credential that future employers may leverage
Avoidance of misappropriating proprietary design concepts
Respect for prior employer's intellectual property
Build professional competence and a verifiable record of project experience
Project execution under supervision or licensure
Engineer B completes a body of bridge and culvert design work at a previous firm, establishing a professional portfolio without involving proprietary design concepts. This creates the experiential record that will later be used in XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals.
Engineer B Completes Prior Projects (Action 1) → Engineer B Gains Experience (Event 1)
Engineer B accumulates professional experience and project history at a prior firm, creating a record of completed bridge and culvert design work that becomes the basis for future marketing claims
Engineer B Completes Prior Projects (Action 1)
Without completing prior projects, Engineer B would have no experiential record to reference, and XYZ's subsequent marketing claims would have no factual basis whatsoever
Completion of substantive bridge and culvert design projects
Engineer B's active employment at prior firm
Institutional attribution of that work to Engineer B's professional record
Completion of a body of work at prior firm + professional documentation of that work + Engineer B's personal involvement in design decisions
Engineer B Cross-Employer Project Credit Attribution in State Q and State Z
From Engineer B joining XYZ Engineers and beginning to market services using prior project experience through resolution of attribution compliance
Engineer B's projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts
Cross-Employer Project Credit Attribution State
Engineer B's presentation of prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' qualifications proposals
Not yet terminated — attribution practice ongoing and under scrutiny
at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B's areas of expertise
Engineer B transitioning from prior employer to XYZ Engineers and XYZ Engineers including Engineer B's prior projects in qualifications proposals
Engineer B now holds a portfolio of prior projects; this record exists independently and can be referenced in future qualification proposals, but only with accurate attribution
Any firm employing Engineer B must attribute projects correctly
Engineer B must accurately represent project history
Prior to XYZ Engineers employment (indeterminate past)
Engineer B accumulates professional experience and project history at a prior firm, creating a record of completed projects that becomes a marketable credential. This experience record becomes the foundation for future qualification proposals.
Engineer B Jurisdiction-Specific Attribution Rule Compliance State Z
Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to identify and comply with State Z's specific licensing board rules requiring project-level attribution next to each specific project listing, naming the prior firm and describing Engineer B's specific role
Engineer B prepared qualification proposals for XYZ Engineers in State Z that did not meet State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting misconduct under State Z rules
Failure to include project-level attribution in State Z proposals as required by State Z's specific rules, resulting in a finding of misconduct
Engineer B Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Compliance Deficiency
Engineer B demonstrated insufficient capability to identify and apply the jurisdiction-specific licensing rules of State Z — which imposed more specific per-project attribution requirements than the NCEES Model Rules — resulting in qualification proposals that may have complied with a general misrepresentation standard but failed to meet State Z's specific per-project listing requirements.
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in both State Q and State Z without identifying and applying State Z's more specific attribution requirements
Submission of qualification proposals in State Z that included introductory attribution notices but lacked the per-project detailed attribution required by State Z's unique licensing board rules
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by licensing board jurisdiction)', 'employer': 'XYZ Engineers', 'prior_employer': 'Previous unnamed firm', 'specialty': 'Bridge and culvert design project management', 'jurisdictions': ['State Q', 'State Z'], 'prior_projects': 'Non-proprietary bridge and culvert projects in responsible charge'}
Newly hired project manager at XYZ Engineers who includes prior-employer bridge and culvert project experience in qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z, with attribution notice at the section level but not consistently throughout all paragraphs of individual project descriptions
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'XYZ Engineers'}
{'type': 'prior_employer', 'target': 'Previous Engineering Firm (unnamed)'}
{'type': 'subject_of_review', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer'}
Multi-State Project Manager Marketing Engineer
XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region
this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
Engineer B Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Calibration
Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Calibration Capability
Engineer B demonstrated partial capability to calibrate prior-employer project credit — identifying the prior employer and client in introductory sections — but failed to fully calibrate the scope of permissible credit by not including per-project attribution in all project descriptions and potentially implying unconditional credit for projects contracted in the name of the prior employer.
Engineer B, transitioning from a prior employer to XYZ Engineers, included prior-employer bridge and culvert projects in qualification proposals without fully meeting the per-project attribution requirements of State Z
Inclusion of prior-employer identification at the section level but omission of specific role and firm attribution next to each individual project listing, as required by State Z's licensing board rules
Engineer B's projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B's areas of expertise
Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
Engineer B Proposal Clarity Self-Assessment State Q
Engineer B possessed but inadequately exercised the capability to self-assess whether the single introductory qualifier 'in previous employment' was sufficiently prominent and clear throughout the State Q proposal to prevent misleading impressions about project origin
Engineer B prepared qualification proposals for XYZ Engineers in State Q listing prior-employer bridge and culvert projects with only an introductory attribution qualifier
Inclusion of a general introductory qualifier that was not repeated at the project-description level, resulting in a proposal that could have been clearer though did not rise to misrepresentation under State Q rules
XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm.
Ethical practice would guide Engineer B to be as clear as possible in the differentiation of the two firms' project responsibilities.
That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects.
Engineer B Qualification Proposal Attribution Accuracy Deficiency
Engineer B demonstrated partial but insufficient capability to ensure attribution accuracy in qualification proposals — providing introductory attribution notices but failing to include required attribution in all paragraphs of individual project descriptions, falling short of State Z's specific per-project listing requirement.
Engineer B, newly hired at XYZ Engineers, included prior-employer bridge and culvert projects in qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z without meeting State Z's specific per-project attribution requirements
Inclusion of prior-employer identification at the beginning of the individual qualification section but omission of that notice from all paragraphs of the lengthy individual project descriptions
Engineer B's prior employment before XYZ Engineers marketing bridge and culvert designs
XYZ Engineers hired a new project manager, Engineer B...and began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states
XYZ Engineers marketing bridge and culvert designs
Engineer B's projects at previous firm before Engineer B hired by XYZ Engineers
XYZ Engineers hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region
Engineer B's work at previous firm before XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals listing those projects
XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals listing those projects
Engineer Doe Post-Termination Environmental Reporting Persistence
Discharged Engineer Post-Termination Reporting Persistence Capability
Engineer Doe was obligated to exercise the capability to recognize that termination of the client contract and client instructions not to write a report did not extinguish the professional obligation to report findings regarding the manufacturing process change's failure to meet minimum water quality standards to the applicable regulatory authority
Engineer Doe was retained to evaluate a manufacturing process change, concluded it would not meet minimum water quality standards, was terminated by the client and instructed not to write a report, while a subsequent engineer testified at a public hearing that the industry would meet minimum standards
BER Case 76-4 conclusion that Doe had an obligation to report observations to the applicable regulatory authority despite contract termination and client instructions to the contrary
Subsequently, another engineer unaware of factors that Doe had recognized, presented the view at a public hearing that the industry would meet minimum standards.
The client terminated Doe's contract and asked Doe not to write a report.
Industry Manufacturing Process Client Stakeholder
{'entity_type': 'Industrial firm', 'context': 'BER Case 76-4 reference'}
The industry client retained Engineer Doe to evaluate a manufacturing process change, received an unfavorable conclusion, terminated Doe's contract, and instructed Doe not to write a report, thereby triggering Doe's overriding public reporting obligation.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer Doe Industry Manufacturing Process Client Reporter'}
Engineer Doe was retained by an industry to evaluate whether a proposed change in their manufacturing process
The client terminated Doe's contract and asked Doe not to write a report
Jurisdiction-Specific Attribution Rule Compliance Constraint Engineer B XYZ Engineers State Z
Engineer B joined XYZ Engineers after prior employment at another firm; XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal listed Engineer B's prior-employer projects with a general prefatory attribution notice but did not include the prior firm's name or Engineer B's specific role next to each individual project listing as required by State Z's specific rules
Multi-Jurisdiction Solicitation Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were constrained by State Z's specific licensing board rules to include, next to each individual prior-employer project listing, the name of the previous firm and a clear description of Engineer B's specific role on that project — a requirement that their qualification proposal did not satisfy, constituting misconduct under State Z's rules.
State Z Rules of Professional Conduct (specific attribution requirements for prior-employer project listings)
At the time of submission of the State Z qualification proposal
Jurisdiction-Specific Reporting Threshold Constraint Engineer A State Q vs State Z
Engineer A reviewed qualification proposals submitted by XYZ Engineers in both State Q and State Z; the two states had materially different licensing board rules regarding attribution of prior-employer projects, requiring Engineer A to conduct separate jurisdiction-specific analyses rather than applying a single uniform standard
Jurisdiction-Specific Attribution Rule Compliance Constraint
Engineer A was constrained to evaluate XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal conduct against the specific rules of each individual jurisdiction — State Q and State Z — rather than applying a uniform standard, because the applicable rules varied materially between jurisdictions: State Q's rules (similar to NSPE Code) did not support a misrepresentation finding, while State Z's more specific rules clearly required per-project attribution and were violated, triggering different reporting obligations in each jurisdiction.
State Q Rules of Professional Conduct; State Z Rules of Professional Conduct; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; NCEES Model Rules
a key message from this case is that, when considering reporting the unethical practices of others vis-à-vis state licensure law, engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction
At the time Engineer A evaluated XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals and determined reporting obligations
The situation in State Z is different. State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
Jurisdictional Constraint Engineer A Dual-State Reporting Obligation Assessment
Engineer A operated in a metropolitan area bordering two states with materially different licensing board rules, requiring separate jurisdictional analysis of whether XYZ Engineers' proposal practices violated each state's specific standards — with State Z's rules being more specific and clearly violated, while State Q's rules presented a closer question.
Engineer A was constrained to assess and fulfill separate reporting obligations under the distinct licensing board rules of both State Q and State Z — which had materially different standards for solicitation accuracy and attribution — prohibiting Engineer A from treating a single report to one state's board as a discharge of the independent reporting obligation to the other state's board, and requiring jurisdiction-specific analysis of whether XYZ Engineers' conduct violated each state's particular rules.
State Q Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct; State Z Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states
At the time Engineer A assessed the reporting obligation
The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules
Multi-Jurisdiction Solicitation Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint XYZ Engineers Both States
XYZ Engineers operated across a metropolitan area bordering two states with materially different licensing board rules on solicitation accuracy, creating a multi-jurisdiction compliance obligation that required jurisdiction-specific proposal formats rather than a uniform approach.
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were constrained from applying a uniform qualification proposal format across both State Q and State Z without calibrating the attribution and project description practices to the more specific requirements of each jurisdiction — particularly State Z's requirement for project-level attribution next to each listing — prohibiting the use of a single proposal template that satisfied only the less specific State Q standard when submitting proposals in State Z.
State Q Licensing Board Rules; State Z Licensing Board Rules; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a
Throughout the period of marketing engineering services in both states
NCEES Model Rules (as comparative reference for State Q and State Z rules)
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying
NCEES Model Rules of Professional Conduct
BER in comparative analysis of state licensing board rules
Implicitly referenced as the template against which State Q's rules (found similar to NSPE Code) and State Z's rules (found more specific) are compared, underscoring jurisdictional variation in professional conduct standards
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES)
NCEES Model Rules of Professional Conduct for Engineers
State Q Licensing Board (as template); Engineer A (indirectly through State Q rules)
Referenced as the template upon which State Q's licensing board rules are patterned, providing the baseline standard for the prohibition on misrepresentation in employment solicitation presentations
NSPE Code of Ethics - Professional Obligation III.9 (Credit for Proprietary Interests)
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Professional Obligation III.9
With respect to giving credit to proprietary interests as referenced in Professional Obligation III.9, Engineer B's previous projects were not technically proprietary and Engineer B gave credit to both the previous firm and the clients.
BER in evaluating Engineer B's conduct regarding attribution of prior projects
Referenced in evaluating whether Engineer B gave appropriate credit to the previous firm and clients for projects completed under prior employment
NSPE Code of Ethics - Reporting Obligation for Unethical or Illegal Practice
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers (reporting obligation provision)
BER in determining Engineer A's reporting obligations
Referenced as establishing the obligation to report engineers believed to be guilty of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority
NSPE Code of Ethics - Section II.5.a (Misrepresentation of Qualifications)
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Rule of Practice II.5.a
Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, did this constitute 'misrepresentation…of qualifications' as referenced in II.5.a?
BER in evaluating Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' conduct
Referenced as the standard governing whether Engineer B's proposal constituted misrepresentation of qualifications by failing to consistently attribute prior projects to previous employment
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
Engineer A reviews the NSPE Code of Ethics to evaluate whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal/marketing practice is misleading and unethical, and to determine professional obligations
Non-Deception Constraint XYZ Engineers Engineer B Qualification Proposals
Engineer A questioned whether XYZ Engineers' proposal format — which included attribution only in a prefatory notice rather than throughout all project description paragraphs — was misleading to clients evaluating the firm's qualifications, implicating the non-deception obligation of the NSPE Code.
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were constrained by the non-deception provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics from presenting Engineer B's prior-employer projects in qualification proposals in a manner that created a misleading impression — through selective attribution placement — that those projects were XYZ Engineers' own firm work or that Engineer B held unconditional credit for them, even if the prefatory attribution notice reflected an intent to provide transparency.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Non-Deception provisions; NSPE Code Section II.5.a
At the time of submission of qualification proposals in State Q and State Z
XYZ Engineers' qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal
Partial Attribution Disclosure in Proposals
Reviewers may not connect the prior employer attribution to each individual project description, creating a misleading impression that projects were performed under XYZ Engineers
Partial disclosure of prior employer affiliation at section level
Honest disclosure of experience provenance
Transparency in professional representations
Present Engineer B's prior project experience as supporting qualifications while reducing repetitive language throughout the proposal document
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5(a) – prohibition on false statements or omission of material facts
Obligation of full and honest representation in qualification submissions
Ethical judgment regarding disclosure standards
Knowledge of state licensing board submission requirements
State Z licensing board rules requiring explicit per-project attribution
XYZ Engineers and Engineer B decide to disclose Engineer B's prior employer affiliation only once at the beginning of the individual qualification section, rather than repeating the attribution within each specific project description. This structural choice in proposal formatting creates the central ethical ambiguity of the case.
Partial Attribution Disclosure in Proposals (Action 3) → Attribution Ambiguity Created (Event 3)
XYZ Engineers and Engineer B decide to disclose Engineer B's prior employer affiliation only once at the beginning of the proposal, creating an ambiguous representation of project ownership that obscures the institutional origin of the referenced work
Partial Attribution Disclosure in Proposals (Action 3)
Had XYZ disclosed prior employer affiliation prominently and repeatedly for each referenced project, the ambiguity would not have arisen and the ethical violation would likely not have occurred
Absence of per-project prior-employer identification
Decision to limit disclosure to a single, non-repeated reference
Structural formatting of proposals that lists multiple projects without repeated attribution
Single-instance disclosure format + multi-project listing without repeated attribution + reviewer tendency to associate listed projects with the submitting firm
Prior-Employer Attribution Completeness Constraint XYZ Engineers Engineer B State Q Proposals
XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Q listing Engineer B's prior-employer projects with a prefatory attribution notice but without consistent attribution throughout all project description paragraphs, raising questions about whether the format misrepresented facts concerning prior employers in solicitation materials.
Prior-Employer Project Attribution Completeness Constraint
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were constrained from presenting Engineer B's prior-employer bridge and culvert projects in State Q qualification proposals in a format where attribution to the prior employer appeared only in a prefatory notice at the beginning of the individual qualification section but was absent from the body paragraphs of the lengthy individual project descriptions, as such selective placement risked misrepresenting facts concerning prior employers in solicitation materials in violation of State Q's licensing board rules patterned after the NCEES Model Rules.
State Q Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct (NCEES Model Rules pattern); NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a
At the time of submission of each qualification proposal in State Q
Prior-Employer Attribution Completeness Constraint XYZ Engineers Engineer B State Z Proposals
State Z's licensing board rules, with a long and unique legislative history, imposed specific requirements that prior-employer project listings include the previous firm's name and the licensee's specific role next to each project listing — requirements that XYZ Engineers' proposal format did not satisfy.
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were constrained from listing Engineer B's prior-employer bridge and culvert projects in State Z qualification proposals without including, next to each specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and Engineer B's specific involvement in the project — as required by State Z's more specific licensing board rules — and were prohibited from claiming unconditional credit for projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer.
State Z Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct (unique legislative history); NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.9
At the time of submission of each qualification proposal in State Z
Proportionate Misrepresentation Threshold Assessment Constraint Engineer A State Q No Reporting
Engineer A reviewed XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals in both State Q and State Z; BER concluded that the State Q presentation did not rise to misrepresentation and Engineer A had no reporting obligation in State Q, while the State Z presentation violated specific rules and Engineer A had a clear reporting obligation in State Z
Proportionate Misrepresentation Threshold Assessment Constraint
Engineer A was constrained to apply a proportionate threshold analysis when evaluating XYZ Engineers' State Q proposal — distinguishing between presentation that was insufficiently clear but did not rise to misrepresentation under State Q's rules (which did not trigger a reporting obligation) and presentation that affirmatively violated State Z's specific rules (which did trigger a mandatory reporting obligation) — prohibiting Engineer A from treating the State Q ambiguity as equivalent to the State Z rule violation for reporting purposes.
NSPE Code of Ethics reporting obligation provisions; State Q Rules of Professional Conduct; BER Case 02-11
At the time Engineer A evaluated XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals in both states
engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction
Qualification Proposal Misrepresentation Non-Commission Constraint XYZ Engineers Engineer B Both States
The central ethical and regulatory question in the case was whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal format — listing Engineer B's prior-employer projects with attribution only in a prefatory notice — constituted misrepresentation of facts concerning prior employers in solicitation materials under both states' licensing board rules.
XYZ Engineers and Engineer B were constrained from submitting qualification proposals in State Q and State Z that misrepresented facts concerning prior employers, employees, associates, or past accomplishments — including through selective attribution placement that created a misleading impression of unconditional firm ownership of prior-employer projects — as established by both states' licensing board rules and the NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions.
State Q Licensing Board Rules; State Z Licensing Board Rules; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; NSPE Code Section III.9
At the time of submission of qualification proposals in both states
Qualification Representation Standard - Engineering Proposals
Professional engineering community / NSPE / State licensing boards
Professional norms governing accurate representation of qualifications in engineering proposals
Engineer A (in evaluating XYZ Engineers' conduct); Engineer B (as obligation bearer)
The case centers on whether XYZ Engineers' qualification statements and Engineer B's project descriptions in proposals accurately and transparently represent that listed projects were completed under prior employment, implicating professional norms against misrepresentation of qualifications
Are the proposal techniques of Engineer B ethical with respect to the NSPE Code of Ethics?
Does Engineer A's status as a direct competitor of XYZ Engineers create a conflict of interest that should have been disclosed or weighed before initiating any reporting action, and does that competitive motivation undermine the legitimacy or objectivity of the reporting obligation?
To what extent does XYZ Engineers bear institutional ethical responsibility for Engineer B's attribution practices in qualification proposals, and should the Board's analysis have separately evaluated the firm's culpability distinct from Engineer B's individual conduct?
Does the prefatory notice of prior-employer attribution placed only at the beginning of Engineer B's individual qualification section — but not repeated within each project description — satisfy the spirit of honesty and transparency required by the NSPE Code of Ethics, even if it technically avoids outright falsification?
What standard of client sophistication should be assumed when evaluating whether a proposal practice is misleading — are government procurement clients expected to read prefatory attribution notices carefully, and does that assumption affect the ethical analysis of Engineer B's disclosure approach?
Does Engineer A have an obligation to report a violation to the Engineering Licensing Board in State Q?
Does the Transparency Principle invoked by XYZ Engineers' prefatory notice conflict with the Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity principle, given that a single prefatory disclosure may create an appearance of transparency while still allowing individual project descriptions to function as misleading representations of Engineer B's independent authorship?
Does the Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation conflict with the Fairness in Professional Competition principle when the engineer initiating the report stands to gain a competitive advantage from the investigation, and how should the ethics framework resolve the risk that a legitimate reporting duty becomes an instrument of competitive harm?
Does the Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation conflict with the Honesty in Professional Representations principle when conduct that is insufficiently transparent to satisfy a stricter state rule (State Z) is simultaneously deemed not unethical under the NSPE Code — and does this divergence suggest that the NSPE Code's honesty standard is inadequately calibrated to multi-jurisdictional practice?
Does the Intellectual Integrity in Authorship principle — which would favor granular, project-level attribution of Engineer B's prior-employer work — conflict with the Proportionality Analysis applied to the State Q proposal, where the Board found the partial disclosure sufficient to avoid an ethical violation, and does this tension reveal an unresolved gap between aspirational professional norms and minimum compliance thresholds?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B fulfill a categorical duty of honesty in professional representations by disclosing prior-employer attribution only in prefatory sections of qualifications proposals rather than at the project-description level, regardless of whether clients were actually misled?
From a consequentialist perspective, did the partial attribution disclosure practice adopted by XYZ Engineers produce net harm to clients, competing firms, and the profession — even if it technically avoided outright misrepresentation under State Q rules — when weighed against the competitive advantage gained?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer B demonstrate the professional integrity and intellectual honesty expected of a licensed engineer when structuring qualifications proposals in a way that was technically transparent at the document level but potentially obscure at the project-description level where clients are most likely to focus their evaluation?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's status as a direct competitor of XYZ Engineers create a conflicting duty — between the obligation to report known or suspected licensing violations and the duty to avoid using the reporting mechanism as an instrument of competitive self-interest — and how should that tension be resolved when the underlying violation is genuine?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the mandatory reporting obligation imposed on Engineer A by both states' licensing rules produce better aggregate outcomes for the profession and the public when enforced even in cases where the reporting engineer is a direct commercial competitor, or does it risk weaponizing the licensing system against legitimate competitive behavior?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does a licensing regime that requires engineers to report competitors' violations cultivate or undermine the virtue of professional solidarity, and did Engineer A act with the appropriate motivational integrity — concern for public protection rather than competitive advantage — when deciding to report to the State Z board?
If XYZ Engineers had included the prior-employer attribution notice not only in the prefatory individual qualification section but also immediately adjacent to each project description throughout the proposal body, would the Board have reached the same conclusion that no NSPE Code violation occurred, or would that level of disclosure have been required to satisfy the honesty standard under Section II.5.a?
What if Engineer B's prior projects had involved proprietary design concepts owned by the previous employer — would the Board's analysis under NSPE Code Section III.9 have shifted, and would XYZ Engineers' proposal practice have been found unethical even under the more permissive State Q standard?
If State Q's licensing rules had been as specific as State Z's — requiring attribution information to appear next to each individual project listing rather than only in a prefatory section — would Engineer A have had a clear obligation to report XYZ Engineers' conduct to the State Q board as well, and would the Board's conclusion on Question 2 have been reversed?
What if Engineer A had filed the report to the State Z board anonymously rather than under their own name — would the mandatory reporting obligation still be considered fulfilled, and would the competitive-interest neutrality concern be mitigated or exacerbated by anonymous filing?
If Engineer A had chosen not to review the specific licensing board rules of either state and had relied solely on the NSPE Code of Ethics to assess XYZ Engineers' conduct, would Engineer A have correctly identified the State Z violation, and does this scenario reveal a gap in the NSPE Code's ability to capture jurisdiction-specific professional misconduct?
State Q Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
{'type': 'State professional licensing regulatory body', 'jurisdiction': 'State Q', 'applicable_rules': 'NCEES Model Rules pattern — prohibits misrepresentation in solicitation presentations'}
State licensing board in State Q whose rules (patterned after NCEES Model Rules) prohibit misrepresentation of facts in solicitation presentations and require licensees to report known or believed violations in writing; potential recipient of Engineer A's mandatory report
{'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Engineer A Competing Engineering Firm Employee'}
{'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Engineer B Multi-State Project Manager'}
{'type': 'report_recipient_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer'}
State Q Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
State Q Engineering Licensing Board (patterned after NCEES Model Rules)
State Q Engineering Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
Engineer A reviews State Q rules to evaluate whether XYZ Engineers' marketing practice violates the prohibition on misrepresenting facts in solicitation presentations, and to determine reporting obligations
BER in evaluating Engineer A's reporting obligation in State Q
Evaluated to determine whether Engineer B's proposal constituted misrepresentation under State Q's rules; BER found the language similar to NSPE Code and concluded no misrepresentation occurred, so no reporting obligation arose
State Z Licensing Board Regulatory Authority
{'type': 'State professional licensing regulatory body', 'jurisdiction': 'State Z', 'applicable_rules': 'Unique legislative history — prohibits unconditional credit for prior-employer projects; requires detailed attribution next to each specific project listing'}
State licensing board in State Z whose rules have a unique legislative history and impose more specific attribution requirements, prohibiting unconditional credit claims for prior-employer projects and requiring detailed attribution next to each specific project listing; potential recipient of Engineer A's mandatory report
Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that 'a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer'
State Z Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
State Z Engineering Licensing Board (unique legislative history)
State Z Engineering Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
Engineer A reviews State Z rules, which are more specific than State Q rules, to evaluate whether XYZ Engineers' practice of not including prior-employer attribution in every paragraph of project descriptions violates the requirement for detailed attribution next to each specific project listing
Current at time of case (with long and unique legislative history)
BER in evaluating Engineer A's reporting obligation in State Z
Cited as imposing specific, clear requirements that next to each project listing the previous firm be named and Engineer B's specific role described; Engineer B and XYZ Engineers failed to meet these requirements, constituting misconduct and triggering Engineer A's reporting obligation
A confirmed ethical and regulatory violation now exists on record; Engineer A's reporting obligation is activated; XYZ/Engineer B's regulatory exposure in State Z is concrete and imminent
Engineer A has a clear, non-discretionary obligation to report to State Z board
State Z board has obligation to investigate upon receipt of complaint
XYZ Engineers and Engineer B face potential disciplinary proceedings in State Z
Upon completion of Engineer A's rules review
As a result of Engineer A's review, it becomes an established factual and ethical conclusion that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals violated State Z's specific and stringent attribution rules. This outcome transforms the situation from a suspected irregularity into a confirmed violation with clear reporting implications.
XYZ Engineers Jurisdiction-Specific Attribution Rule Compliance State Z
XYZ Engineers lacked or failed to exercise the capability to identify and apply State Z's specific project-level attribution requirements before submitting qualification proposals in State Z, resulting in a finding of misconduct against the firm
XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Z that failed to meet State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting firm-level misconduct
Submission of State Z qualification proposals that did not include project-level attribution of prior-employer projects as required by State Z's specific licensing board rules
{'entity_type': 'Engineering firm', 'violation_finding': 'Misconduct under State Z rules'}
XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Q and State Z that included prior-firm projects of Engineer B without meeting State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting misconduct by the firm under State Z's licensing board rules.
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
{'type': 'subject_of_report', 'target': 'State Z Engineering Licensing Board'}
Preferred AE Firm with Incumbent Advantage
XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects
constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm
XYZ Engineers' proposal submission before Engineer A's review and analysis
Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical. Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics
Attribution of prior employer's projects in proposals may create disclosure complexity
Acquiring qualified personnel for new service areas
Building legitimate professional capacity
Honest representation of firm capabilities
Expand competitive market presence in States Q and Z by acquiring a project manager with a relevant project portfolio
XYZ Engineers makes a deliberate hiring decision to bring Engineer B on as a project manager, specifically to support expansion of bridge and culvert design services into States Q and Z. This decision is predicated on leveraging Engineer B's prior project experience as a qualification asset.
XYZ Hires Engineer B (Action 2) → XYZ Market Entry Occurs (Event 2)
XYZ Engineers makes a deliberate hiring decision to bring Engineer B on as a project manager, specifically to leverage Engineer B's prior project history to qualify for bridge and culvert contracts in new jurisdictions
Without hiring Engineer B, XYZ would lack the project history necessary to credibly market bridge and culvert services in States Q and Z, making market entry significantly less viable or requiring a different qualification strategy
Engineer B's possession of relevant prior project credentials
XYZ's decision to use Engineer B's history as a qualification basis
XYZ's strategic intent to enter bridge and culvert markets
XYZ Engineers (organizational decision-makers)
Deliberate hiring of Engineer B for credential leverage + XYZ's existing organizational capacity + availability of target markets in States Q and Z
XYZ Engineers is now a market participant in States Q and Z; qualification proposals are being submitted; the firm and Engineer B are now subject to both states' professional conduct rules
Engineer B must ensure accurate representation of prior work
Proposals must not create false impressions about project authorship
XYZ must comply with each state's qualification disclosure rules
After Engineer B is hired by XYZ Engineers
XYZ Engineers begins actively marketing bridge and culvert design services in States Q and Z, entering a competitive marketplace where qualification-based selection processes govern contract awards. This market entry triggers the submission of qualification proposals that become the subject of ethical scrutiny.
attribution notice at beginning of qualification section before individual project descriptions
at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified...However, while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
attribution notice at beginning of qualification section
client termination of Doe's contract before another engineer's public hearing presentation
The client terminated Doe's contract and asked Doe not to write a report. Subsequently, another engineer unaware of factors that Doe had recognized, presented the view at a public hearing
another engineer's public hearing presentation
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
The clear violation of State Z's specific rules and the existence of a mandatory reporting obligation under the NSPE Code resolved the tension between reporting duty and competitive interest in favor of reporting
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
Proportionality analysis resolved the tension by finding the conduct fell below the misrepresentation threshold, eliminating the reporting obligation in State Q
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
The jurisdiction-specific threshold analysis resolved the tension by finding that State Q's rules did not impose a reporting obligation on Engineer A for this conduct
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
The BER resolved the tension between ideal transparent reporting and practical reporting barriers by establishing that anonymous reporting satisfies the minimum ethical obligation, with signed reporting remaining the preferred approach
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
The mandatory reporting obligation imposed by licensing rules resolves the tension between competitive self-interest and professional accountability in favor of reporting; the obligation is not discretionary
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
The mandatory reporting obligation imposed by licensing board rules overrides any reluctance to report a competitor; the obligation runs to the profession and the public, not to competitive neutrality
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
The jurisdiction-specific analysis resolved the apparent inconsistency by recognizing that different rules in different jurisdictions legitimately produce different reporting obligations for the same conduct
The clear violation of State Z's specific rules resolved any tension in favor of a mandatory reporting obligation
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
The professional obligation of truthful representation in solicitation materials overrides the firm's competitive marketing interest in presenting prior-employer projects as broadly as possible
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.83
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were constrained by the NSPE Code of Ethics and State Q's licensing board rules — which parallel the NSPE Code — to present attribution of prior-employer projects with maximum clarity throughout the qualification proposal, ensuring that the 'in previous employment' qualifier was sufficiently prominent and consistently placed to prevent any misleading impression of unconditional firm ownership of prior-employer work, even though the BER concluded the presentation did not rise to misrepresentation under State Q's rules.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
State Z's specific rule leaves little interpretive room; project-level attribution is required and a prefatory notice is insufficient
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
State Z's specific rules resolved the question by requiring proximate attribution; Engineer B's general qualifier was insufficient to satisfy the attribution integrity obligation in that jurisdiction
Public welfare in maintaining licensure system integrity overrides any competitive reluctance to report a rival firm's misconduct
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
Engineer Doe was constrained from remaining silent after learning that another engineer, unaware of Doe's professional findings, testified at a public hearing that the industry would meet minimum water quality standards — when Doe's own professional analysis had concluded the proposed manufacturing process change would not meet minimum standards — requiring Doe to report those findings to the applicable regulatory authority despite the client's contract termination and instruction not to write a report.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.7
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.75
Each jurisdiction's rules govern professional conduct within that jurisdiction; compliance with the less demanding jurisdiction's rules does not satisfy the more demanding jurisdiction's requirements
The honesty obligation required Engineer B to provide sufficiently prominent and specific attribution to avoid misleading prospective clients, with State Z's rules providing a concrete specification of what that obligation required
The obligation of honest representation overrides competitive marketing interests; the engineer's duty to present qualifications truthfully applies to the overall impression created by the proposal, not merely to isolated disclosures
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.81
Engineer A's concern that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices are misleading reflects the principle that fair professional competition requires that all competing firms represent their qualifications accurately, so that clients
Engineer B's inclusion of prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals without consistent project-level attribution raises questions of intellectual integrity in professional authorship — specifically whether the propos
XYZ Engineers' inclusion of a prefatory notice identifying Engineer B's prior-employer projects represents a partial attempt at transparency that is insufficient under State Z's specific rules and potentially insufficient under State Q's ge
Engineer B's obligation to be honest in qualification proposals required clear and complete attribution of prior-employer projects, including the prior firm's name and Engineer B's specific role, so that prospective clients could accurately
Engineer B's inclusion of prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' State Z proposals without naming the prior firm and describing Engineer B's specific role adjacent to each project listing violated State Z's specific attribution requireme
XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals represented prior-employer projects of Engineer B in a manner that may have misled prospective clients into believing those projects reflected XYZ Engineers' independent firm experience rather than an
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers included prior-employer projects in qualification proposals submitted in State Q with a prefatory attribution notice but without consistent attribution throughout all individual project descriptions, potentially
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers failed to include, next to each specific prior-employer project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and Engineer B's specific involvement, as required by State Z's more specific licensing rule
Engineer A undertook a systematic review of both the NSPE Code of Ethics and the specific licensing board rules of State Q and State Z to assess whether XYZ Engineers' practices violated the applicable standards in each jurisdiction, recogn
Engineer A's analysis required reviewing and applying the specific rules of both State Q and State Z independently, recognizing that the same conduct could be permissible under one jurisdiction's rules and constitute clear misconduct under
The BER distinguished between XYZ Engineers' presentation being less clear than ideal and the presentation constituting affirmative misrepresentation, finding that the general qualifying language — though not repeated in each project descri
Engineer A evaluated XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals under State Q's rules and concluded that, while the presentation could have been clearer, it did not rise to misrepresentation under State Q's NSPE-patterned language, and therefor
Engineer A evaluated XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals under State Z's more specific attribution rules and concluded that the failure to name the previous firm and describe Engineer B's specific role next to each project listing consti
Engineer A, having identified potential violations of licensing board rules by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers in both State Q and State Z, faces a mandatory obligation under both states' rules to report that knowledge or belief in writing to
Engineer A's deliberation about whether to report XYZ Engineers' practices to the licensing boards of both states reflects the professional accountability obligation to take responsibility for maintaining ethical standards in the profession
The obligation to report misconduct to the engineering licensing board — even when the reporter is a competitor — is grounded in the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the licensure system, which serves as the primary mechanism
Engineer A, having identified that XYZ Engineers and Engineer B violated State Z's specific attribution rules in their qualification proposals, had a clear obligation to report that misconduct to the State Z licensing board, notwithstanding
The BER referenced BER Case 02-11 to establish that anonymous complaints to licensing boards, while less preferable than signed complaints, are ethically permissible and superior to no report at all — providing background context for Engine
Engineer A was obligated to review and apply the specific licensing board rules of both State Q and State Z independently when evaluating XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices, recognizing that compliance with one jurisdiction's r
Engineer A fulfilled the obligation to conduct a jurisdiction-specific review of both State Q's and State Z's licensing board rules before forming a judgment about whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices were ethically and l
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were obligated, when listing Engineer B's prior-employer bridge and culvert projects in qualification proposals submitted in State Z, to include next to each specific project listing detailed information naming
Engineer B was obligated to present attribution of prior-employer projects with maximum clarity in the State Q qualification proposal, ensuring that the differentiation between XYZ Engineers' independent experience and Engineer B's prior-em
Engineer B was obligated to limit claims of credit for prior-employer projects to their specific personal contributions and roles on those projects, and to ensure that any such claims were accompanied by clear disclosure of the prior employ
Engineer B was obligated, under State Z's specific licensing board rules, to include next to each specific prior-employer project listing the name of the previous firm and a clear description of Engineer B's specific role on that project —
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were obligated to identify and comply with the specific attribution and misrepresentation rules of both State Q and State Z when preparing qualification proposals for submission in those jurisdictions, including
XYZ Engineers and Engineer B were obligated to ensure that qualification proposals submitted in both State Q and State Z honestly and accurately represented the provenance of the referenced project experience, including clear and consistent
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were obligated to ensure that qualification proposals submitted in State Q did not misrepresent facts concerning past accomplishments by presenting Engineer B's prior-employer projects in a manner that could mis
XYZ Engineers was obligated to ensure that its State Z qualification proposal did not misrepresent facts concerning past accomplishments by including prior-employer projects of Engineer B without the project-level attribution required by St
Engineer A was obligated to apply proportionate and accurate characterization when evaluating XYZ Engineers' State Q proposal, distinguishing between a presentation that was less clear than ideal and one that affirmatively misrepresented fa
Engineer Doe was obligated to report their findings regarding the manufacturing process change's failure to meet minimum water quality standards to the applicable regulatory authority, notwithstanding the client's termination of the contrac
Engineer A, having knowledge or reason to believe that Engineer B and XYZ Engineers violated State Z's specific licensing board rules requiring project-level attribution of prior-employer projects in qualification proposals, was obligated t
Engineer A was obligated to evaluate XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal against State Z's specific licensing board rules and, having concluded that the presentation violated those rules' specific attribution requirements, was obl
Engineer A was obligated to evaluate XYZ Engineers' State Q qualification proposal against State Q's specific licensing board rules and, having concluded that the presentation did not rise to misrepresentation under those rules, was not obl
Engineer A had a clear obligation to report information on misconduct by Engineer B to the engineering licensing board, and fulfilling that obligation through an anonymous complaint — while less preferable than a signed complaint — was ethi
Engineer A, having knowledge or reason to believe that Engineer B and XYZ Engineers violated State Q's licensing board rules prohibiting misrepresentation of facts in solicitation presentations, was obligated to report that knowledge or bel
Engineer A had a clear obligation to report the misconduct of Engineer B and XYZ Engineers to the engineering licensing board in State Z, where the specific attribution rules were violated, notwithstanding that Engineer A's firm is a commerc
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were obligated to refrain from claiming unconditional credit for bridge and culvert projects contracted for in the name of Engineer B's prior employer, and to limit any credit claimed to Engineer B's specific pe
Engineer A Competing Engineering Firm Employee
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by licensing board review obligations)', 'employer': 'ABC Consultants', 'specialty': 'Bridge and culvert design', 'jurisdictions': ['State Q', 'State Z']}
Employee of ABC Consultants designing bridges and culverts in two states who questions the ethical and legal propriety of competitor XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices and considers reporting obligations under both state licensing boards
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'ABC Consultants'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
{'type': 'reporting_authority', 'target': 'State Q Licensing Board'}
{'type': 'reporting_authority', 'target': 'State Z Licensing Board'}
Competing Engineering Firm Employee Engineer
Engineer Doe Industry Manufacturing Process Client Reporter
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'context': 'BER Case 76-4 reference', 'reporting_obligation': 'Report to applicable regulatory authority'}
Engineer Doe was retained to evaluate a manufacturing process change, concluded it would not meet minimum water quality standards, was terminated by the client and asked not to write a report, but bore an obligation to report findings to the applicable regulatory authority regardless of client instructions.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Industry Client'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Applicable Regulatory Authority'}
Engineer Doe was retained by an industry to evaluate whether a proposed change in their manufacturing process would result in meeting minimum water quality standards
Doe concluded that the change would not meet minimum standards and apprised the client of that decision
the BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report Doe's observations to the applicable regulatory authority
Maximum Clarity Attribution Constraint Engineer B XYZ Engineers State Q
XYZ Engineers' State Q proposal indicated Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in previous employment of another firm, but that qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects; BER found this did not rise to misrepresentation under State Q's rules but noted the information could have been clearer
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a; State Q Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on NSPE Code and NCEES Model Rules)
XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm. That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects.
At the time of submission of the State Q qualification proposal
Based on the information presented in the case, the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'? The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation.
Doe Post-Termination Contradicted Testimony Reporting Obligation
From termination of Doe's contract through the public hearing at which the uninformed engineer testified, persisting until Doe reported findings to the regulatory authority
Public affected by water quality standards
Contradicted Public Testimony by Uninformed Peer State
Engineer Doe's post-termination obligation following uninformed peer testimony at public hearing
Doe's report of observations to the applicable regulatory authority (as concluded by BER)
Subsequently, another engineer unaware of factors that Doe had recognized, presented the view at a public hearing that the industry would meet minimum standards
The BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report Doe's observations to the applicable regulatory authority
Client terminated Doe's contract, instructed Doe not to write a report, and a subsequent engineer unaware of Doe's findings testified at a public hearing that the industry would meet minimum water quality standards
From Engineer A's decision to file anonymously through BER evaluation of the complaint's ethical adequacy
Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B
Engineer A's anonymous complaint to engineering licensing board regarding Engineer B's misconduct
BER conclusion that anonymous complaint was ethically permissible and satisfied the reporting obligation
The BER was tasked with evaluating whether filing the complaint anonymously was unethical
a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, and fairer to the complainant, but concluded in this case that an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical
Engineer A identified misconduct by Engineer B and filed an anonymous complaint with the engineering licensing board
Engineer A Peer Competitor Reporting Obligation — State Q and State Z
From Engineer A's identification of the potentially violating practice through submission of reports to both boards or determination that no violation exists
Peer Competitor Conduct Reporting Obligation State
Engineer A's obligation to assess and potentially report XYZ Engineers' marketing practices to both licensing boards
Not yet terminated — Engineer A still deliberating on reporting obligation
Engineer A reviewing XYZ Engineers' qualifications proposals and identifying potential violations of both states' licensing board rules regarding attribution of prior-employer projects
From Engineer A's identification of the State Z rule violation through the filing of a report with the State Z licensing board
There is an obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics to report others who 'are believed to be guilty' of unethical or illegal practice to the appropriate authority, in this case, the engineering licensing board in the applicable state
Engineer A's obligation to report Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' misconduct to the State Z licensing board
Engineer A's report to the State Z engineering licensing board
The BER concludes that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z
Engineer A identified that Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' proposal failed to meet State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting misconduct under State Z rules
Engineer Doe Client Termination with Non-Reporting Instruction
From termination of Doe's contract through Doe's report to the regulatory authority
Post-Discharge Continuing Safety Obligation State
Engineer Doe's continuing obligation after contract termination and client instruction not to report
Doe's report of observations to the applicable regulatory authority
Client terminated Doe's contract and explicitly instructed Doe not to write a report after Doe concluded the manufacturing process change would not meet minimum water quality standards
Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked By Engineer A ABC Consultants
Public client procurement decisions in State Q and State Z
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity
Engineer A's concern that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices are misleading reflects the principle that fair professional competition requires that all competing firms represent their qualifications accurately, so that clients can make informed selections based on genuine comparative qualifications
Fairness in professional competition is undermined when one firm's proposals create a misleading impression of experience that gives it an unfair advantage in qualification-based selection; accurate attribution is a precondition for fair competition
Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical.
Fair competition requires truthful qualification representations; the competitive disadvantage suffered by firms that accurately represent their qualifications is not a justification for permitting misleading representations by competitors
ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z.
ABC's competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states.
Post-Termination Contradicted Testimony Reporting Constraint Engineer Doe Regulatory Authority
Engineer Doe was retained to evaluate whether a proposed manufacturing process change would meet minimum water quality standards; Doe concluded it would not; the client terminated Doe's contract and instructed Doe not to write a report; subsequently another engineer unaware of Doe's findings testified at a public hearing that minimum standards would be met; BER Case 76-4 established Doe's obligation to report to the regulatory authority
Post-Termination Contradicted Testimony Reporting Constraint
BER Case 76-4; NSPE Code of Ethics public safety paramount obligation
Engineer Doe was retained by an industry to evaluate whether a proposed change in their manufacturing process would result in meeting minimum water quality standards.
Following contract termination and upon learning of the contradictory uninformed peer testimony at the public hearing
Doe concluded that the change would not meet minimum standards and apprised the client of that decision.
XYZ Engineers Partial Attribution Disclosure in Qualifications Proposals
From the time XYZ Engineers began marketing bridge and culvert designs using Engineer B's prior project experience through resolution of the attribution practice
Prospective clients in State Q and State Z
XYZ Engineers' qualifications proposals featuring Engineer B's prior-employer projects
Not yet terminated — ongoing marketing practice under review
XYZ Engineers including Engineer B's prior-employer projects in qualifications proposals with attribution notice only in introductory section, not in all paragraphs of detailed project descriptions
Competing engineering firm that hired Engineer B and submitted qualification proposals in State Q and State Z that are the subject of Engineer A's ethics review, whose marketing practices are assessed for compliance with NSPE Code and state licensing board rules
{'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'ABC Consultants'}
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer B Multi-State Project Manager'}
began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states
Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Review State Q State Z
Engineer A undertook a systematic review of both the NSPE Code of Ethics and the specific licensing board rules of State Q and State Z to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices violated applicable rules in each jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction-Specific Licensing Rule Compliance in Qualification Proposals Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to review and apply the specific licensing board rules of both State Q and State Z independently when evaluating XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices, recognizing that compliance with one jurisdiction's rules does not ensure compliance with another jurisdiction's more specific requirements.
A key message from this case is that, when considering reporting the unethical practices of others vis-à-vis state licensure law, engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction.
Upon identifying XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices and before determining whether a reporting obligation existed
Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Limitation Obligation Engineer B XYZ Engineers State Z
Engineer B, now employed at XYZ Engineers, included projects completed under a prior employer in qualification proposals submitted in State Z. State Z's rules specifically prohibit unconditional credit claims for prior-employer projects and require project-level attribution. The proposals included a prefatory notice but did not provide the required project-level attribution throughout the individual project descriptions.
Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Limitation Obligation
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were obligated to refrain from claiming unconditional credit for bridge and culvert projects contracted for in the name of Engineer B's prior employer, and to limit any credit claimed to Engineer B's specific personal contributions and involvement in those projects, with explicit disclosure of the prior employer's role adjacent to each project listing in State Z qualification proposals.
At the time of preparation and submission of qualification proposals in State Z
Transparency Principle Invoked By XYZ Engineers Prefatory Notice
XYZ Engineers qualification proposals in State Q and State Z
XYZ Engineers' inclusion of a prefatory notice identifying Engineer B's prior-employer projects represents a partial attempt at transparency that is insufficient under State Z's specific rules and potentially insufficient under State Q's general misrepresentation prohibition, because transparency requires that material information be conveyed in a manner that actually informs rather than merely technically discloses
Transparency is not satisfied by a formal disclosure that is structurally positioned to be overlooked or that does not accompany the specific information it is meant to qualify; effective transparency requires that attribution appear where a reasonable reader would encounter it in context
Engineer B Prior-Firm Project Credit Engineer
The intent to provide transparency expressed through a prefatory notice does not satisfy the transparency obligation when the notice is absent from the individual project descriptions that clients will evaluate; substance of disclosure, not mere form, determines whether transparency is achieved
Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project.
this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects
Engineer Doe Post-Termination Environmental Regulatory Reporting
Engineer Doe was retained to evaluate a manufacturing process change, concluded it would not meet minimum water quality standards, had their contract terminated, was asked not to report, and subsequently learned that another engineer unaware of Doe's findings presented a contrary view at a public hearing.
Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
Engineer Doe was obligated to report their findings regarding the manufacturing process change's failure to meet minimum water quality standards to the applicable regulatory authority, notwithstanding the client's termination of the contract and instruction not to write a report, particularly after another engineer presented contradictory information at a public hearing.
Upon learning that another engineer had presented contradictory information at the public hearing, and continuing until the regulatory authority had been informed of Doe's findings
Jurisdiction-Specific Reporting Threshold Applied by Engineer A in State Q
XYZ Engineers qualification proposal in State Q
Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
Engineer A evaluated XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals under State Q's rules and concluded that, while the presentation could have been clearer, it did not rise to misrepresentation under State Q's NSPE-patterned language, and therefore no reporting obligation existed in State Q
The reporting obligation threshold in State Q was not met because the general qualifying language in the proposal, while imperfect, did not constitute misrepresentation under rules similar to the NSPE Code
Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter
Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold
The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation, and that Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q
With respect to the obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q, the language presented in the case regarding State Q's Rules appears very similar to the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics
Jurisdiction-Specific Reporting Threshold Applied by Engineer A in State Z
XYZ Engineers qualification proposal in State Z
Engineer A evaluated XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals under State Z's more specific attribution rules and concluded that the failure to name the previous firm and describe Engineer B's specific role next to each project listing constituted clear misconduct under State Z's rules, triggering a mandatory reporting obligation
State Z's specific legislative requirements — requiring prior firm identification and role description adjacent to each project listing — were not met, making the conduct clearly reportable misconduct in that jurisdiction even though the same conduct did not rise to misconduct in State Q
State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described
The presentation by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers did not meet the specifics of this Rule and, accordingly, under that Rule, constituted misconduct on the part of both the individual and the firm
Professional Accountability Invoked By Engineer A Reporting Consideration
Engineer A's deliberation about whether to report XYZ Engineers' practices to the licensing boards of both states reflects the professional accountability obligation to take responsibility for maintaining ethical standards in the profession, including by reporting known or reasonably believed violations rather than remaining passive
Professional accountability extends beyond the individual engineer's own conduct to include responsibility for the integrity of the profession as a whole; the mandatory reporting rules of both states operationalize this accountability obligation by requiring affirmative action when violations are known or reasonably believed
Engineer Q considers whether this proposal/marketing practice is unethical in accordance with the NSPE Code of Ethics and whether Engineer A has an obligation to report to the two licensing jurisdictions.
The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing.
Project-Level Attribution Obligation XYZ Engineers Engineer B State Z Proposals
XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Z that included Engineer B's prior-employer projects with a prefatory attribution notice at the section level but without project-level attribution adjacent to each individual project description in the lengthy individual descriptions.
Project-Level Attribution in Qualification Proposals Obligation
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were obligated, when listing Engineer B's prior-employer bridge and culvert projects in qualification proposals submitted in State Z, to include next to each specific project listing detailed information naming the prior employer and Engineer B's specific involvement in the project — not merely a prefatory notice at the beginning of the individual qualification section.
XYZ Engineers Qualification Proposal Misrepresentation State Z
XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Z that included Engineer B's prior-employer projects without meeting State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting misconduct on the part of the firm.
Qualification Proposal Misrepresentation Non-Commission Obligation
XYZ Engineers was obligated to ensure that its State Z qualification proposal did not misrepresent facts concerning past accomplishments by including prior-employer projects of Engineer B without the project-level attribution required by State Z's specific licensing board rules, including naming the prior firm and describing Engineer B's specific role next to each project listing.
At the time of preparing and submitting the State Z qualification proposal
Engineer B State Q Attribution Ambiguity
From submission of the qualifications proposal through BER evaluation of whether the presentation constituted misrepresentation under State Q rules
Prospective clients reviewing the proposal
XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm
Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' qualifications proposal presentation of projects completed under prior employment in State Q
BER conclusion that the presentation did not rise to misrepresentation under State Q's rules and Engineer A had no obligation to report in State Q
That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects
XYZ Engineers submitted a proposal indicating Engineer B was in responsible charge of listed projects while in previous employment, but did not repeat that qualifier within each specific project description
Intellectual Integrity in Authorship Invoked By Engineer B Prior Employer Projects
Prior-employer bridge and culvert projects included in XYZ Engineers proposals
Engineer B's inclusion of prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals without consistent project-level attribution raises questions of intellectual integrity in professional authorship — specifically whether the proposals accurately represent the intellectual and professional origins of the claimed project experience
Intellectual integrity in authorship requires that the professional origins of claimed work be accurately represented; while Engineer B legitimately possesses the experience from prior projects, presenting that experience in a firm context without consistent attribution may misrepresent the firm's — as opposed to the individual's — intellectual and professional contribution
Engineer B's projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B's areas of expertise.
The engineer's personal experience is legitimately claimable, but the firm's claim to that experience must be qualified by accurate attribution of the prior employer; intellectual integrity requires the distinction to be maintained throughout the proposal
Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Review Obligation Engineer A Both States
Engineer A, working in a metropolitan area bordering two states, undertook a systematic review of both the NSPE Code of Ethics and the specific licensing board rules of State Q and State Z to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices were compliant — correctly identifying that State Z's rules were more specific and imposed stricter attribution requirements than State Q's NCEES Model Rules-based provisions.
Engineer A fulfilled the obligation to conduct a jurisdiction-specific review of both State Q's and State Z's licensing board rules before forming a judgment about whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices were ethically and legally compliant, recognizing that the two jurisdictions imposed different and non-identical requirements.
Upon identifying the potential ethical concern about XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices
Engineer A Proportionate Characterization State Q Proposal Analysis
Engineer A evaluated whether XYZ Engineers' State Q qualification proposal — which included a prefatory attribution notice but did not repeat the prior-employer qualifier in each project description — constituted misrepresentation under State Q's rules, and applied a proportionality analysis to conclude it did not.
Proportionate Misrepresentation Characterization Before Reporting Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to apply proportionate and accurate characterization when evaluating XYZ Engineers' State Q proposal, distinguishing between a presentation that was less clear than ideal and one that affirmatively misrepresented facts — and correctly concluded that the State Q presentation did not rise to reportable misrepresentation.
During Engineer A's evaluation of XYZ Engineers' State Q qualification proposal
Based on the information presented in the case, the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'?
Engineer B Prior Employer Credit Scope Limitation State Q State Z
Engineer B, now employed at XYZ Engineers, included projects completed under a prior employer in qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z, with varying degrees of attribution specificity.
Engineer B was obligated to limit claims of credit for prior-employer projects to their specific personal contributions and roles on those projects, and to ensure that any such claims were accompanied by clear disclosure of the prior employer's role and Engineer B's specific involvement — an obligation partially met in State Q through a prefatory notice but not met in State Z where project-level attribution was required.
At the time of preparing and submitting qualification proposals in both State Q and State Z
Engineer B Project-Level Attribution State Z Proposal
Engineer B included prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal without naming the prior firm or describing Engineer B's specific role next to each project listing, in violation of State Z's specific attribution rules.
Engineer B was obligated, under State Z's specific licensing board rules, to include next to each specific prior-employer project listing the name of the previous firm and a clear description of Engineer B's specific role on that project — an obligation that was not met in the State Z qualification proposal.
Honesty in Professional Representations Applied to Engineer B Attribution
Engineer B's obligation to be honest in qualification proposals required clear and complete attribution of prior-employer projects, including the prior firm's name and Engineer B's specific role, so that prospective clients could accurately assess the qualifications being represented
Honesty in professional representations extends to the completeness and prominence of attribution in qualification proposals, not merely the technical accuracy of the information provided
Ethical practice would guide Engineer B to be as clear as possible in the differentiation of the two firms' project responsibilities
XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm. That qualifier was not repeated within the specific descriptions of each of those projects
XYZ Engineers qualification proposal practices
Engineer A, having identified potential violations of licensing board rules by Engineer B and XYZ Engineers in both State Q and State Z, faces a mandatory obligation under both states' rules to report that knowledge or belief in writing to the respective Boards of Licensure, notwithstanding Engineer A's competitive interest in the outcome
The mandatory reporting obligation imposed by both states' licensing rules is triggered by knowledge or reasonable belief of a violation; Engineer A's competitive relationship with XYZ Engineers does not exempt Engineer A from the obligation, though it requires careful assessment of whether the belief is genuinely reasonable rather than competitively motivated
Engineering Procurement Whistleblower Obligation
Public Welfare Paramount Through Licensing Board Reporting
The obligation to report misconduct to the engineering licensing board — even when the reporter is a competitor — is grounded in the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the licensure system, which serves as the primary mechanism for protecting the public from unqualified or misrepresenting engineering practitioners
Reporting obligations to licensing boards serve the public welfare by maintaining the integrity of the qualification and selection process for engineering services, ensuring that public clients and the public at large can rely on the accuracy of engineering firm representations
Anonymous Reporting Precedent Invoked from BER Case 02-11
The BER referenced BER Case 02-11 to establish that anonymous complaints to licensing boards, while less preferable than signed complaints, are ethically permissible and superior to no report at all — providing background context for Engineer A's reporting obligation in the current case
The anonymous reporting precedent from BER Case 02-11 establishes the minimum ethical floor for reporting obligations, confirming that the form of the complaint (signed vs. anonymous) does not eliminate the underlying duty to report
an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical
In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B
the BER considered that a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, and fairer to the complainant, but concluded in this case that an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical
Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Threshold Analysis State Z Reporting Required
Engineer A reviewed State Z's specific licensing board rules requiring project-level attribution including naming the prior firm and describing the engineer's specific role, concluded that XYZ Engineers' proposal violated those requirements, and faced a mandatory reporting obligation to the State Z licensing board.
Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to evaluate XYZ Engineers' State Z qualification proposal against State Z's specific licensing board rules and, having concluded that the presentation violated those rules' specific attribution requirements, was obligated to report the misconduct to the State Z licensing board.
Upon identifying that XYZ Engineers' State Z proposal violated State Z's specific attribution rules
Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Rule Stringency Differential
From Engineer A's decision to review both states' rules through resolution of the reporting question
Jurisdiction-Specific Rule Stringency Differential State
Engineer A's assessment of XYZ Engineers' conduct under State Q and State Z licensing rules
Not yet terminated — Engineer A still assessing obligations under each jurisdiction
The Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific
Engineer A discovering that State Q applies general NCEES model rules while State Z applies more specific and restrictive attribution requirements with unique legislative history
Engineer B Maximum Clarity Attribution State Q Proposal
Engineer B included prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' State Q qualification proposal with a prefatory attribution notice but without repeating the prior-employer qualifier within each individual project description.
Maximum Clarity Attribution in Qualification Proposals Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to present attribution of prior-employer projects with maximum clarity in the State Q qualification proposal, ensuring that the differentiation between XYZ Engineers' independent experience and Engineer B's prior-employer project experience was sufficiently clear throughout the proposal — including within individual project descriptions — even though the prefatory notice may have satisfied the minimum threshold under State Q's rules.
At the time of preparing and submitting the State Q qualification proposal
The overall ethical question posed in this case is whether or not that credit necessarily needs to be specifically stated in each paragraph where such a project is mentioned.
Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Applied by Engineer A in State Z
Engineer A, having identified that XYZ Engineers and Engineer B violated State Z's specific attribution rules in their qualification proposals, had a clear obligation to report that misconduct to the State Z licensing board, notwithstanding Engineer A's competitive interest in the outcome as an employee of a competing firm
The reporting obligation in State Z was mandatory once the clear rule violation was identified; the competitive relationship between ABC Consultants and XYZ Engineers did not create an exemption from the reporting duty
Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity Invoked By Engineer B XYZ Engineers State Q
XYZ Engineers qualification proposals submitted in State Q
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers included prior-employer projects in qualification proposals submitted in State Q with a prefatory attribution notice but without consistent attribution throughout all individual project descriptions, potentially misleading clients about XYZ Engineers' independent accomplishments
In State Q, the NCEES-patterned rule prohibiting misrepresentation of facts in solicitation presentations requires that the overall impression created by the proposal not mislead clients about prior accomplishments; a prefatory notice that is absent from individual project descriptions may be insufficient to prevent misrepresentation
Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Reviewer
Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project. However, while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects.
Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity Invoked By Engineer B XYZ Engineers State Z
XYZ Engineers qualification proposals submitted in State Z
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers failed to include, next to each specific prior-employer project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and Engineer B's specific involvement, as required by State Z's more specific licensing rules, by relying instead on a general prefatory notice
State Z's unique legislative history produces a more specific rule that requires project-level attribution adjacent to each listing; a general prefatory notice does not satisfy this requirement, making the proposals potentially non-compliant regardless of the intent to provide transparency
Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific, indicating in part that 'a licensee who has been an employee of another design firm may not claim unconditional credit for design projects contracted for in the name of a previous employer', and that 'any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project'.
Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation Engineer A State Z
Engineer A reviewed State Z's licensing board rules and identified that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals failed to include, next to each specific prior-employer project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and Engineer B's specific involvement — a clear violation of State Z's explicit attribution requirements. State Z's rules expressly require licensees with such knowledge to report to the Board in writing.
Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation
Engineer A, having knowledge or reason to believe that Engineer B and XYZ Engineers violated State Z's specific licensing board rules requiring project-level attribution of prior-employer projects in qualification proposals, was obligated to report that knowledge or belief to the State Z Board of Licensure in writing.
Upon forming knowledge or reasonable belief that a violation of State Z's rules had occurred
Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Threshold Analysis State Q No Reporting
Engineer A reviewed State Q's licensing board rules — which are similar to NSPE Code language — and evaluated whether XYZ Engineers' prefatory attribution notice satisfied those rules, concluding that while the presentation could have been clearer, it did not constitute misrepresentation under State Q's standards.
Engineer A was obligated to evaluate XYZ Engineers' State Q qualification proposal against State Q's specific licensing board rules and, having concluded that the presentation did not rise to misrepresentation under those rules, was not obligated to report to the State Q licensing board.
Upon identifying XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices and evaluating them against State Q's specific rules
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'jurisdictions_reviewed': ['State Q', 'State Z'], 'rules_consulted': ['NSPE Code of Ethics', 'State Q Licensing Board Rules (NCEES Model Rules)', 'State Z Licensing Board Rules']}
Reviews NSPE Code and state licensing board rules of both State Q and State Z to assess whether XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices are unethical and whether a mandatory written reporting obligation to both licensing boards has been triggered
{'type': 'reviewing_conduct_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Multi-State Project Manager'}
Multi-Jurisdiction Engineering Ethics Reviewer
Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By XYZ Engineers Qualification Proposals
Prospective public clients evaluating bridge and culvert design firms
XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals represented prior-employer projects of Engineer B in a manner that may have misled prospective clients into believing those projects reflected XYZ Engineers' independent firm experience rather than an individual engineer's prior-employer experience
Honesty in professional representations requires that the overall impression conveyed by qualification proposals accurately reflect the source and nature of claimed experience; partial or front-loaded disclosure that creates a misleading overall impression violates this principle even if technically accurate in isolated sections
XYZ Engineers' qualifications statements accompanying their project proposals clearly indicate their projects in the body of the proposal.
Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Applied to Multi-State Practice
Engineer A's analysis required reviewing and applying the specific rules of both State Q and State Z independently, recognizing that the same conduct could be permissible under one jurisdiction's rules and constitute clear misconduct under another's more specific requirements
Multi-jurisdiction practice requires engineers to identify and apply the most demanding applicable standard in each jurisdiction, and to recognize that jurisdictional variation in rule specificity can produce different ethical outcomes for the same underlying conduct
Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
The situation in State Z is different. State Z's rules in this regard are very clear
XYZ Engineers marketed bridge and culvert design services in both State Q and State Z, submitting qualification proposals that included Engineer B's prior-employer projects. State Z's rules were more specific than State Q's NCEES Model Rules-based provisions, requiring project-level attribution that XYZ Engineers' proposals did not provide.
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were obligated to identify and comply with the specific attribution and misrepresentation rules of both State Q and State Z when preparing qualification proposals for submission in those jurisdictions, including State Z's more stringent requirement for project-level attribution adjacent to each prior-employer project listing.
Prior to and at the time of submission of qualification proposals in State Q and State Z
Proportionality Analysis Applied to State Q Proposal
The BER distinguished between XYZ Engineers' presentation being less clear than ideal and the presentation constituting affirmative misrepresentation, finding that the general qualifying language — though not repeated in each project description — did not cross the threshold into reportable misrepresentation under State Q's rules
Imperfect attribution that could have been clearer does not automatically constitute misrepresentation; the degree of misleading effect and the prominence of qualifying language must be assessed proportionally against the applicable standard
Based on the information presented in the case, the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'? The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation
That might be dependent upon how noticeable the 'in previous employment' description was in the body of the proposal
Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity Applied to Engineer B State Z
Engineer B's inclusion of prior-employer projects in XYZ Engineers' State Z proposals without naming the prior firm and describing Engineer B's specific role adjacent to each project listing violated State Z's specific attribution requirements, constituting misconduct by both Engineer B individually and XYZ Engineers as a firm
Attribution integrity in qualification proposals requires not merely a general prefatory disclaimer but specific, proximate attribution adjacent to each project description, as required by State Z's rules
Engineer A Anonymous Complaint Licensing Board Reporting
BER Case 02-11 context referenced in the discussion: Engineer A provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B, and the BER evaluated whether filing anonymously was unethical.
Engineer A had a clear obligation to report information on misconduct by Engineer B to the engineering licensing board, and fulfilling that obligation through an anonymous complaint — while less preferable than a signed complaint — was ethical and constituted discharge of the reporting obligation.
Upon obtaining knowledge of Engineer B's misconduct
On the matter of an anonymous complaint, the BER considered that a signed complaint would have been better to facilitate the licensing board's investigation, and fairer to the complainant, but concluded in this case that an anonymous letter was better than no letter at all and was ethical.
The BER was tasked with evaluating whether filing the complaint anonymously was unethical.
Engineer B State Z Attribution Non-Compliance
From submission of the qualifications proposal through BER conclusion that the presentation constituted misconduct under State Z's specific rules
Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' failure to meet State Z's specific attribution requirements for prior-employer project listings
BER conclusion that Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z
State Z's rules specifically required that next to each project listing the previous firm be named and Engineer B's specific role be clearly described — requirements not met by the proposal
Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Multi-State Review
XYZ Engineers qualification proposals in both states
Engineer A undertook a systematic review of both the NSPE Code of Ethics and the specific licensing board rules of State Q and State Z to assess whether XYZ Engineers' practices violated the applicable standards in each jurisdiction, recognizing that the two states impose materially different requirements
Engineers practicing across multiple jurisdictions must assess compliance with each jurisdiction's specific rules; the more stringent State Z requirements apply to proposals submitted in State Z regardless of whether they would satisfy State Q's less specific rules
Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states.
Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants, working in both State Q and State Z.
Qualification Proposal Misrepresentation Non-Commission Obligation XYZ Engineers State Q
XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Q that included Engineer B's prior-employer projects with a prefatory section-level attribution notice but without consistent attribution throughout the lengthy individual project descriptions, potentially misleading prospective clients about the provenance of the referenced experience.
Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were obligated to ensure that qualification proposals submitted in State Q did not misrepresent facts concerning past accomplishments by presenting Engineer B's prior-employer projects in a manner that could mislead prospective clients into attributing those projects unconditionally to XYZ Engineers or Engineer B without adequate contextual disclosure throughout the proposal.
At the time of preparation and submission of qualification proposals in State Q
Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation Engineer A State Q
Engineer A reviewed State Q's licensing board rules and identified that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposal practices — presenting prior-employer projects with only a prefatory attribution notice rather than consistent project-level disclosure — may constitute misrepresentation of past accomplishments in violation of State Q's rules. State Q's rules expressly require licensees with such knowledge to report to the Board in writing.
Engineer A, having knowledge or reason to believe that Engineer B and XYZ Engineers violated State Q's licensing board rules prohibiting misrepresentation of facts in solicitation presentations, was obligated to report that knowledge or belief to the State Q Board of Licensure in writing.
Upon forming knowledge or reasonable belief that a violation of State Q's rules had occurred
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'current_employer': 'XYZ Engineers', 'prior_employer': 'Previous unnamed firm', 'violation_finding': 'Misconduct under State Z rules; no misrepresentation under State Q rules'}
Engineer B, now employed at XYZ Engineers, included projects completed under a prior employer in qualification proposals submitted in State Q and State Z, providing a general qualifier about prior employment but failing to repeat the attribution adjacent to each specific project listing as required by State Z's rules, constituting misconduct under State Z's licensing board rules.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'XYZ Engineers'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
State Z's rules require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described
Engineer A Competitor Misconduct Reporting State Z Licensing Board
Engineer A, employed by ABC Consultants competing with XYZ Engineers for bridge and culvert design contracts in State Z, identified that XYZ Engineers' qualification proposals violated State Z's specific attribution rules and faced a mandatory reporting obligation to the State Z licensing board.
Engineer A had a clear obligation to report the misconduct of Engineer B and XYZ Engineers to the engineering licensing board in State Z, where the specific attribution rules were violated, notwithstanding that Engineer A's firm is a commercial competitor of XYZ Engineers.
Upon confirming that XYZ Engineers' State Z proposal violated State Z's specific licensing board attribution rules
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'reporting_channel': 'State licensing boards', 'anonymous_complaint_permissibility': 'Permissible but signed preferred'}
Engineer A identified that Engineer B and XYZ Engineers may have misrepresented qualifications in proposals submitted in State Q and State Z, evaluated the applicable rules in each jurisdiction, and bears a reporting obligation to the State Z licensing board but not to the State Q licensing board based on the specificity of each jurisdiction's rules.
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'State Z Engineering Licensing Board'}
Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter Engineer
Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z
Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q
XYZ Engineers submitted qualification proposals in State Q and State Z that included Engineer B's prior-employer projects with a prefatory attribution notice at the section level but without consistent attribution throughout the lengthy individual project descriptions, creating a risk that prospective clients would attribute the experience unconditionally to XYZ Engineers.
Qualifications Non-Falsification and Non-Misrepresentation Obligation
XYZ Engineers and Engineer B were obligated to ensure that qualification proposals submitted in both State Q and State Z honestly and accurately represented the provenance of the referenced project experience, including clear and consistent disclosure throughout each proposal that the listed projects were completed under Engineer B's prior employment rather than under XYZ Engineers' independent direction.
At the time of preparation and submission of qualification proposals in both states