Active Contract Incumbent Review Prohibition Recognition Capability Engineer C Review of Engineer B
Active Contract Incumbent Review Prohibition Recognition Capability
Engineer C failed to exercise the capability to recognize that Engineer B's active contract with the City — still in its final year — prohibited Engineer C from evaluating and criticizing Engineer B's professional decisions without Engineer B's knowledge.
Engineer B's contract with the City was active and had not been terminated when Engineer C conducted the evaluation and critique at the City Administrator's request.
Engineer B was in the final year of an active 3-year contract with the City when Engineer C agreed to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's decisions for the City Administrator, without any indication that Engineer B was notified or consented to this review.
Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
Administrator Contacts Engineer C Directly
Denying Engineer B the opportunity to explain or defend his professional decisions
Providing Engineer C with competitive intelligence about Engineer B's work
Tainting the competitive selection process with information asymmetry
Procedural integrity in public selection processes
Obtain an external evaluation of Engineer B's decisions on specific project issues, potentially to justify preference for Engineer C in the upcoming selection
Final year of contract, during selection preparation
Duty of fair dealing to Engineer B as current contractor
Duty to avoid actions that undermine the integrity of the competitive selection process
Obligation to address performance concerns directly with Engineer B before seeking external criticism
The City Administrator makes a deliberate decision to contact Engineer C, a competitor of Engineer B with whom the Administrator has a prior professional relationship, to discuss specific issues Engineer B handled, bypassing any direct engagement with Engineer B and without Engineer B's knowledge.
Administrator Contacts Engineer C Directly → Procurement Integrity Compromised
The upcoming contract selection process is rendered structurally unfair as a result of the covert communications
If the Administrator had not contacted Engineer C directly, or had conducted any such discussion through formal, disclosed procurement channels, the selection process would have retained structural integrity
Active contract still in force with Engineer B during contact
Administrator's deliberate decision to contact a competitor of Engineer B
Covert nature of the communication (outside formal procurement channels)
Engineer C's willingness to participate in the exchange
Covert competitor contact + ongoing contract relationship + Administrator's role as selection leader = structurally compromised procurement
The combination of Administrator's positional authority over selection and private engagement with a competing firm was alone sufficient to taint the process
Administrator Initiates Competitor Contact
Administrator Initiates Competitor Contact (Action 3) → Competitive Advantage Condition Created (Event 4)
Administrator Leads Next Contract Selection
Conflict of interest between role as current contract overseer and role as future contract selector
Prior dissatisfaction with Engineer B could improperly bias the selection process
Administrative duty to plan for service continuity
Separation of performance evaluation from future selection authority
Initiate and control the procurement process for the successor engineering contract
Conflict-of-interest identification and recusal judgment
Duty of impartiality when prior dissatisfaction with incumbent could improperly influence the process
Duty to avoid conflicts of interest in procurement
Obligation to ensure fair and unbiased competitive selection
The City Administrator makes the decision to take an active role in preparing and leading the selection process for the next 3-year consulting contract while simultaneously overseeing Engineer B's performance under the current active contract, creating a structural conflict of interest.
Administrator Repeatedly Questions Engineer B's Judgment
Creation of a documented record of dissatisfaction that could influence future contract selection
Erosion of professional trust with Engineer B
Client's right to raise concerns about contracted services
Fair treatment of contracted professionals
Transparency in client-engineer relationship
Express dissatisfaction with Engineer B's professional decisions and assert administrative oversight
Good faith engagement with contracted engineer
Obligation to resolve disputes through direct communication rather than accumulating grievances for future competitive use
The City Administrator makes a pattern of volitional decisions to challenge and question Engineer B's professional judgment on multiple occasions during the active contract period, rather than resolving concerns through formal channels or direct professional dialogue.
Administrator Repeatedly Questions Engineer B's Judgment (Action 2) → Engineer B's Judgment Questioned (Event 2)
Administrator Repeatedly Questions Engineer B's Judgment → Administrator Leads Next Contract Selection
The City Administrator makes a pattern of volitional decisions to challenge and question Engineer B's judgment... [and subsequently] makes the decision to take an active role in preparing and leading the selection
If the Administrator had not developed a pattern of repeatedly questioning Engineer B's judgment, there would be no basis to infer bias-motivated assumption of the selection role; alternatively, if recusal policies had been enforced, the Administrator's bias would not have infected the selection leadership
Absence of recusal requirement or conflict-of-interest review triggered by the prior pattern
Administrator's institutional authority to assume the selection leadership role
Established pattern of adversarial skepticism toward Engineer B creating a pre-existing bias
Repeated adversarial conduct toward incumbent + unchecked institutional authority + no recusal mechanism = Administrator positioned to lead a selection process with pre-formed negative bias against the incumbent
Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint City Administrator Engineer C Informal Solicitation
The City Administrator held procurement influence over the upcoming contract selection and had a prior relationship with Engineer C. By informally soliciting Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work outside any formal procurement or peer review process, the City Administrator created an appearance of impropriety and preferential treatment that compromised the integrity of the upcoming competitive selection process.
Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint
The City Administrator was constrained from informally soliciting Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B's specific professional decisions while simultaneously holding procurement influence over the next 3-year contract selection, as this informal mechanism created a reasonable appearance of preferential treatment toward Engineer C and improper disadvantaging of Engineer B in the upcoming competitive procurement process.
NSPE Code of Ethics public procurement integrity provisions; BER Cases 82-2, 15-7, and 16-3
The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
During the pre-procurement period for the next 3-year consulting contract, while Engineer B remained under active contract
The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedents on Competitor Conduct and Procurement Ethics
Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
Ethical analysis of Engineer C's conduct when responding to City Administrator inquiries
Provides analogical reasoning patterns from prior BER cases involving engineers who criticized competitors' work during procurement processes, grounding the ethical analysis of Engineer C's conduct in documented precedential decisions
In BER Case 01-1, the BER reviewed a situation where Engineer A left Firm X to start a new Firm Y.
For this reason, in the present case, using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
The BER found that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make such representations as these methods were questionable and improper.
Precedent finding it unethical for an engineer to make representations to clients that a prior firm would be 'hard-pressed' to continue services, characterizing such conduct as questionable and improper methods of obtaining work; applied analogically to Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B
In BER Case 93-3, Engineer A was retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services for a chain of stores throughout the United States.
Case 93-3 differs from the current case as Engineer C in the present case is not under contract with Client A.
The BER in this case determined that Engineer B's act of notifying Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser was not consistent with the Code stating that Engineer B had an obligation as 'faithful agent and trustee' to not to tell Engineer A of his relationship with the client.
Precedent addressing an engineer's obligation as faithful agent and trustee not to disclose a relationship with a client to a prior engineer; distinguished from the current case because Engineer C is not under contract with Client A
BER Precedent Application Capability Engineer C City A Competitive Critique
BER Precedent Application to Competitive Critique Ethics Capability
Engineer C was required to exercise the capability to identify and apply BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 — establishing that solicited competitor critique in a competitive procurement context violates NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7 — to correctly classify the City Administrator's solicitation as ethically impermissible and decline accordingly.
The factual pattern of Engineer C's situation — a competitor solicited to critique an incumbent's work by a decision-maker controlling the upcoming contract — maps directly onto the BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 precedents.
Engineer C's failure to decline the City Administrator's solicitation and subsequent critical evaluation of Engineer B's decisions reflects a failure to apply the BER precedent establishing that such conduct constitutes an ethical violation under NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7.
CausalLink_Administrator Contacts Enginee
CausalLink_Administrator Initiates Compet
CausalLink_Administrator Leads Next Contr
CausalLink_Administrator Repeatedly Quest
CausalLink_Engineer C Answers Administrat
CausalLink_Engineer C Answers Questions A
CausalLink_Engineer C Criticizes Engineer
City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client
{'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'contract_structure': '3-year term consulting contract', 'contract_status': 'Final year of active contract'}
City retaining Engineer B under a 3-year consulting contract in its final year, with concurrent contract renewal selection process underway; the City Administrator coordinates Engineer B's work and will heavily influence the next contract award.
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer'}
{'type': 'procurement_authority_over', 'target': 'Engineer C Competing Engineer Improperly Solicited for Incumbent Critique'}
{'type': 'represented_by', 'target': 'City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority'}
Client A is a city which receives consulting engineering services from a selected private firm
City Administrator Competitive Procurement Fairness Capability Instance
Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
The City Administrator lacked or failed to exercise the capability to assess whether soliciting a competitor to critique the incumbent engineer's work provided fair and open competitive opportunity consistent with QBS procurement principles and professional ethics obligations
The City Administrator coordinated both Engineer B's ongoing work and the upcoming contract renewal selection, and used the incumbent period to gather competitive intelligence from a competing firm with prior relationship
The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C — a firm with prior relationship to the Administrator — to evaluate Engineer B's work during the contract renewal period demonstrates failure to assess competitive procurement fairness
City Administrator Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint Instance
The City Administrator, who would be heavily involved in selecting the next consulting firm, informally contacted Engineer C — a competitor — to solicit critical opinions about Engineer B's work, thereby creating an informal channel that advantaged Engineer C and disadvantaged Engineer B outside any formal procurement process.
Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
The City Administrator was constrained from soliciting informal technical opinions from a competing firm about the incumbent engineer's work during the active contract period and in advance of the formal procurement process — prohibiting conduct that structurally advantaged Engineer C by providing an informal channel to influence the City Administrator's assessment of Engineer B outside any formal, documented, or competitive-process-compliant review mechanism.
Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law; NSPE Code of Ethics Public Official Conflict of Interest Provisions; Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
During the final year of Engineer B's 3-year contract and in advance of the formal procurement process for the next contract
The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
City Administrator Procurement Integrity Solicitation Constraint Instance
The City Administrator informally solicited Engineer C's technical opinions about Engineer B's work outside any formal review process, while holding significant procurement influence over the upcoming contract renewal for which Engineer C was competing.
Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
The City Administrator was constrained from soliciting Engineer C — a direct competitor for the upcoming contract renewal — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's engineering decisions while Engineer B remained under active contract, as such solicitation compromised the integrity of the procurement process and placed Engineer C in an ethically untenable position.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Public Official Conflict of Interest Provisions; Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A.
During the final year of Engineer B's active contract with Client A and the period preceding the contract renewal procurement
Competition for engineering work by private consulting firms can be quite intense. Selection of a winning proposal may be made on razor-thin margins.
Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
City Administrator Procurement Process Integrity Capability Instance
Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Capability
The City Administrator possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that soliciting Engineer C to critique Engineer B's work compromised the integrity of the upcoming contract renewal procurement process
The City Administrator, who would be heavily involved in the next contract selection, contacted a competing firm with prior relationship to evaluate the incumbent engineer's work, creating a compromised procurement process
The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C — a competitor with prior relationship to the Administrator — to evaluate Engineer B's work while simultaneously coordinating the contract renewal selection process demonstrates failure to preserve procurement process integrity
City Administrator Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Capability Instance
The City Administrator required the capability to recognize that soliciting a competitor to evaluate and criticize the incumbent engineer's work compromised the integrity and fairness of the consulting engineering contract renewal process
The City Administrator contacted Engineer C — who had a prior relationship with the Administrator and was competing for the upcoming contract — to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under active contract
Failure to preserve integrity — the City Administrator solicited Engineer C, a competitor with a prior personal relationship, to evaluate incumbent Engineer B's professional decisions
the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
City Administrator contacting Engineer C during Engineer B's active contract
Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A
City Administrator contacting Engineer C
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
City Administrator contacting Engineer C during final year of Engineer B's contract
City Administrator preparing for next contract selection overlaps Engineer B's final contract year
As the contract enters its final year, the City Administrator begins preparing for the next 3-year contract selection process.
City Administrator preparing for next contract selection
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
City Administrator questioning Engineer B's judgment before City Administrator contacting Engineer C
City Administrator questioning Engineer B's judgment during 3-year contract period
City Administrator questioning Engineer B's judgment
Potential dissatisfaction with Engineer B's judgment over contract duration
Competitive selection of qualified engineer
Establishment of formal contractual relationship
Public interest in securing competent services
Secure qualified engineering consulting services for a defined 3-year period
The City (Client A) makes a deliberate decision to enter into a 3-year consulting contract with Engineer B, establishing a formal professional relationship and attendant obligations of good faith engagement.
City Selects Engineer B (Action 1) → Consulting Contract Established (Event 1) → cascading to Selection Process Integrity Compromised (Event 6)
Client A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client
{'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'representative': 'City Administrator', 'procurement_status': 'Upcoming contract renewal competition'}
Client A (a municipality) retains Engineer B under an active contract and simultaneously contacts competitor Engineer C to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's work decisions, creating an improper procurement situation that places Engineer C in an ethically compromised position.
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract'}
{'type': 'solicits', 'target': 'Engineer C Competing Engineer Solicited for Incumbent Critique'}
Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A
{'entity_type': 'Municipal government client', 'procurement_action': 'Solicited competitor critique of incumbent engineer while contract was active'}
Client A is the city government client that holds an active contract with Engineer B and simultaneously solicited Engineer C (a competitor) to evaluate Engineer B's work, placing Engineer C in an ethically compromised position and potentially violating fair procurement obligations.
{'type': 'contracting_authority_over', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer'}
{'type': 'solicited', 'target': 'Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic'}
Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B
Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C
Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work
Collegial Non-Harm Capability Engineer C Engineer B Competitive Context
Collegial Non-Harm in Competitive Context Capability
Engineer C failed to exercise the capability to recognize and fulfill collegial obligations toward Engineer B by refraining from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's professional work in a context where those opinions would harm Engineer B's professional reputation and competitive position, particularly given that Engineer C stood to benefit competitively from the harm caused.
Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's specific professional decisions was delivered to the decision-maker controlling the upcoming contract renewal, creating direct professional and competitive harm to Engineer B.
Engineer C provided specific critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions to the City Administrator — who controlled the upcoming contract selection — while recognizing that doing so would provide a competitive pretext, directly harming Engineer B's professional standing and competitive position.
Competitive Advantage Gained by Engineer C
Selection process integrity compromised; Engineer C holds asymmetric informational advantage; Engineer B's professional reputation has been damaged in the eyes of the decision-maker without opportunity for response or rebuttal; fair competition conditions no longer exist
During final contract year, concurrent with and immediately following Administrator's contact with Engineer C
As a direct result of Engineer C answering the Administrator's questions and criticizing Engineer B's decisions, Engineer C obtains privileged insider knowledge about the City's engineering issues, Engineer B's specific decisions, and the Administrator's apparent dissatisfaction, constituting a concrete informational competitive advantage in the upcoming selection process.
Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Capability Engineer C City Administrator
Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Context Capability
Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize and disclose to the City Administrator that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting contract before providing any evaluative opinions about Engineer B's decisions.
The City Administrator, who would be heavily involved in selecting the next consulting firm, solicited Engineer C — a competitor with a prior relationship with the Administrator — to evaluate Engineer B's specific professional decisions.
Engineer C's awareness that responding would constitute a competitive pretext demonstrates the underlying recognition capability, but Engineer C failed to disclose the conflict before proceeding to criticize Engineer B.
Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Constraint Engineer C City Administrator Pre-Critique
Engineer C was a competing firm with a prior relationship with the City Administrator and was aware of the competitive conflict of interest at the time of the solicitation. Engineer C proceeded to provide specific critical opinions about Engineer B without disclosing this competitive conflict to the City Administrator.
Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
Before responding to the City Administrator's solicitation regarding Engineer B's work, Engineer C was constrained to affirmatively disclose the competitive conflict of interest — specifically that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting contract over which the City Administrator held procurement influence — prohibiting Engineer C from proceeding with any substantive response without first making this disclosure.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest provisions
At the initiation of the City Administrator's informal solicitation
Competitive Context Critique Scope Limitation Capability Engineer C City Administrator Solicitation
Competitive Context Critique Scope Limitation Capability
Engineer C failed to exercise the capability to limit any response to the City Administrator's solicitation to general engineering observations, instead providing specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular professional decisions.
Having chosen to respond rather than decline, Engineer C was obligated to limit any response to general observations about engineering practice rather than specific criticisms of Engineer B's decisions.
Rather than limiting any response to general engineering practice observations, Engineer C answered questions about specific issues Engineer B had worked on and was critical of Engineer B's specific decisions.
Competitive Context Incomplete Knowledge Critique Prohibition Engineer C Engineer B City A
Engineer C was informally solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's professional decisions while Engineer C was competing for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract and lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made those decisions.
Competitive Context Specific Critique Prohibition Constraint
Engineer C was prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator while competing for the same contract and lacking full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made those decisions, as Engineer C's belief in the truthfulness of the criticism was insufficient to render it ethically permissible.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case 93-3; BER Case 01-1
Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
During the period when Engineer C was competing for the City A consulting engineering contract and Engineer B remained under active contract with City A
Engineer C should have refrained from any criticism.
Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful.
While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues.
Competitive Context Specific Critique Prohibition Constraint Engineer C Procurement Context
Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming contract and was informally solicited by the City Administrator — who held procurement influence — to evaluate Engineer B's specific professional decisions. Engineer C's subjective belief in the accuracy of critical opinions did not render those opinions ethically permissible given the competitive context and incomplete circumstantial knowledge.
Engineer C was prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions in the context of competing for the next 3-year contract, even if Engineer C believed those opinions to be truthful, because Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances and constraints that informed Engineer B's decisions and because the competitive procurement context rendered specific critique ethically impermissible regardless of subjective truthfulness belief.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6 and III.7; BER Case 93-3
During the pre-procurement period for the next 3-year consulting contract
Competitive Self Interest Critique Prohibition Engineer C City A Contract Renewal
Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming City A consulting engineering contract when the City Administrator informally solicited Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions, creating a fundamental competitive conflict of interest that prohibited substantive critical participation.
Competitive Self-Interest Critique Prohibition Constraint
Engineer C was prohibited from providing critical evaluative opinions about Engineer B's specific professional decisions to the City Administrator — who held procurement influence over the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract — given that Engineer C was a direct competitor for that contract and was fully aware that answering in a critical perspective would serve as a pretext to gaining competitive advantage.
Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B.
During the period of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and the upcoming contract renewal process
Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A.
NSPE and professional engineering community through collective practice norms
Professional Norms Governing Engineer Conduct in Competitive Procurement Contexts
Competitor Conduct in Procurement Standard
Engineer C when deciding how to respond to City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's professional judgments
Governs the ethical limits of Engineer C's responses to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work during the contract renewal period, establishing that using such inquiries as a pretext for competitive disparagement is ethically impermissible
Competitor Critique Declination Capability Engineer C City A Contract
Competitor Critique Declination Capability
Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that the City Administrator's solicitation to critique Engineer B's decisions constituted an improper competitive advantage opportunity requiring declination, given that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting contract.
Engineer C was solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate specific decisions of incumbent Engineer B during the final year of Engineer B's 3-year contract, while Engineer C was competing for the next contract.
Engineer C's explicit recognition that answering questions 'in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition' demonstrates awareness of the declination obligation, but Engineer C proceeded to answer and criticize Engineer B anyway, failing to exercise the capability.
Competitor Critique Declination Constraint Engineer C City Administrator Solicitation
Engineer C was informally contacted by the City Administrator — who held procurement influence over the next 3-year contract — and asked to evaluate specific decisions made by Engineer B, the incumbent consultant in the final year of an active contract. Engineer C recognized that answering critically would serve as a competitive pretext but proceeded to provide specific critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions.
Competitor Critique Declination Constraint
Engineer C was prohibited from providing specific critical evaluative opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator, given that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting contract and the City Administrator held procurement influence over that award.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6 and III.7; BER Case 93-3; BER Case 01-1
At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation, during Engineer B's final year of the active 3-year contract and the pre-procurement period for the next contract
Competitor Reputation Injury Prohibition Engineer C Engineer B Procurement Context
Engineer C's critical commentary on Engineer B's professional decisions, delivered to the City Administrator who held procurement authority over the upcoming contract, created a direct risk of injuring Engineer B's professional reputation and employment prospects while simultaneously benefiting Engineer C competitively.
Covert Competitor Disparagement Prohibition Constraint
Engineer C was prohibited from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's professional work to the City Administrator in a manner that could injure Engineer B's professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment — particularly given that Engineer C stood to benefit competitively from any reputational damage caused to Engineer B — as established by NSPE Code Section III.7 and BER Case 01-1 precedent.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case 01-1
Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
During the period when Engineer C was competing for the City A consulting engineering contract and the City Administrator held procurement influence
using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
In answering the City Administrator’s specific questions and by criticizing the work of Engineer B, Engineer C’s action were unethical.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B was unethical, the case reveals a compounding ethical violation rooted in Engineer C's conscious awareness of the competitive dynamic. The facts explicitly state that Engineer C 'fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.' This awareness transforms Engineer C's conduct from a mere procedural misstep into a deliberate ethical choice. Engineer C possessed the conflict-of-interest recognition capability and the competitor critique declination capability, yet exercised neither. The Board's conclusion that the conduct was unethical is therefore understated in one respect: Engineer C did not stumble into an ethical violation through ignorance or ambiguity — he consciously chose competitive self-interest over professional obligation. This deliberateness aggravates the violation beyond what the Board's language alone conveys and suggests that Engineer C's conduct implicates not only the prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique but also the non-self-serving advisory obligation and the prohibition on obtaining professional engagements through improper means.
The Board's conclusion focuses exclusively on Engineer C's conduct, but the case facts implicate the City Administrator as an independent ethical actor whose conduct materially enabled Engineer C's violation. The City Administrator, who holds procurement authority and will be 'heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract,' initiated the informal consultation with Engineer C — a known competitor — about Engineer B's active work. This solicitation bypassed any formal peer review process, denied Engineer B notice or opportunity to respond, and created the competitive advantage condition that the Board found objectionable. The City Administrator's conduct violated the client procurement process integrity obligation and the competitive procurement fairness constraint. By not addressing the Administrator's role, the Board left unresolved whether the solicitation itself — independent of Engineer C's response — constituted a breach of the procurement process integrity that municipal engineering clients owe to incumbent contractors. A complete ethical analysis would recognize that Engineer C's violation was made possible by, and in part attributable to, the City Administrator's structurally improper initiation of the informal review.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer C's conduct was unethical leaves open a critical boundary question: whether Engineer C could have ethically answered any portion of the City Administrator's inquiry. A more granular analysis suggests that the ethical violation was not triggered merely by Engineer C's engagement with the City Administrator, but specifically by two compounding elements — the specificity of the critique directed at Engineer B's identified decisions, and Engineer C's failure to disclose his competitive conflict of interest before responding. Had Engineer C declined to address Engineer B's specific decisions, confined his responses to general technical principles without reference to Engineer B's particular choices, and proactively disclosed his status as a competing firm, his conduct would have been substantially more defensible under the applicable code provisions. The incomplete circumstantial knowledge critique prohibition reinforces this boundary: Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the constraints, client directives, and technical context Engineer B faced, making specific criticism not only competitively improper but epistemically unjustified. The ethical line therefore runs between general technical commentary offered with conflict disclosure on one side, and specific incumbent critique offered without disclosure on the other — and Engineer C crossed that line on both dimensions simultaneously.
From a deontological perspective, the Board's conclusion can be extended to identify a categorical duty that Engineer C violated independent of the accuracy of his criticism: the duty to refrain from reviewing or criticizing a fellow engineer's work for the same client without proper authorization, as codified in the peer review provision. This duty is categorical in the sense that it does not yield to the factual accuracy of the criticism, the sincerity of Engineer C's technical opinions, or the legitimacy of the City Administrator's authority to ask questions. Even if every critical observation Engineer C offered about Engineer B's decisions was technically correct, the ethical violation was complete at the moment Engineer C chose to deliver specific criticism in a context where he lacked authorization, lacked complete situational knowledge, and held an undisclosed competitive interest. The honesty principle, while a genuine professional obligation, is insufficient alone to justify Engineer C's critique — truthfulness does not override the structural prohibition on competitor-driven incumbent review. This analysis also implies a separate deontological violation: Engineer C's failure to disclose his conflict of interest before responding constitutes an independent breach of the conflict of interest disclosure obligation, distinct from and in addition to the act of criticism itself.
The Board's conclusion has important implications for Engineer B's professional dignity and procedural rights that the Board did not explicitly address. Engineer B was in the final year of an active contract, performing under a professional relationship with Client A, when a competitor was informally consulted about the quality of his specific decisions — without his knowledge, without notice, and without any opportunity to provide context or respond to the critique. The professional dignity of Engineer B was implicated by this covert competitive review in a manner that the applicable code provisions were designed to prevent. Beyond the reputational harm that resulted, the case implies that Engineer B had a legitimate expectation that any review of his work for the same client would occur through a formal, authorized process with appropriate procedural safeguards. The case further implies — though the Board did not state it — that both Engineer C and the City Administrator bore some obligation to notify Engineer B that such an informal review had occurred, particularly given that the review's findings could influence the upcoming contract selection process in which Engineer B presumably intended to compete. The absence of any such notification mechanism in the informal consultation process is itself a structural feature that rendered the entire proceeding ethically deficient.
The Board's conclusion would have been strengthened by explicit recognition that Engineer B suffered a distinct and serious professional harm that the ethical framework is designed to prevent: he was subjected to a covert competitive evaluation of his active contract work, conducted without his knowledge, without any opportunity to provide context for his decisions, and by a party with a direct financial interest in undermining confidence in his performance. This structural exclusion of Engineer B from the evaluation process — what the case facts describe as Engineer B being excluded from defense — is not merely an incidental consequence of Engineer C's conduct but is itself a violation of the professional dignity and fairness norms that underpin the prohibition on competitor critique in procurement contexts. The ethical harm to Engineer B is not contingent on whether Engineer C's criticism was accurate or whether it ultimately influenced the contract award; the harm lies in the covert, adversarial, and procedurally unfair nature of the evaluation itself. A formal peer review process with notice and opportunity to respond would have been the only ethically permissible mechanism for raising concerns about Engineer B's professional judgments.
The City Administrator bears independent ethical responsibility for initiating the informal solicitation of Engineer C's critique of Engineer B outside any formal review process. By leveraging a prior professional relationship with Engineer C to obtain informal technical opinions about the incumbent engineer during the final year of an active contract — and while simultaneously holding authority over the next selection process — the City Administrator compromised the integrity of the procurement process. The Board's analysis focused exclusively on Engineer C's conduct, but the Administrator's action of creating the very conditions that enabled Engineer C's ethical violation represents a separate and cognizable breach of procurement process integrity. The Board should have addressed the Administrator's conduct as a parallel ethical failure, because the solicitation itself — not merely the response — corrupted the competitive fairness of the upcoming selection.
Engineer C's conduct would likely have been ethical — or at least substantially less problematic — had he confined his responses to general technical principles without referencing Engineer B's specific decisions, and had he proactively disclosed his status as a competing firm to the City Administrator before answering any questions. The ethical line between permissible general commentary and impermissible specific critique is crossed when the commentary is sufficiently particularized to Engineer B's identifiable professional judgments that it functions as an informal peer review of a competitor's active work. General statements about engineering best practices, applicable standards, or common approaches to the type of problem at issue would not constitute a review of Engineer B's work within the meaning of Code Section III.7.a. However, once Engineer C answered questions about the specific issues Engineer B had worked on and rendered critical judgments about Engineer B's decisions, he crossed into prohibited territory regardless of the accuracy of those judgments. Disclosure of competitive status alone would not have been sufficient to render the specific critique ethical, because the prohibition in III.7.a. is structural — it bars the review itself, not merely undisclosed reviews.
Engineer C was obligated to proactively disclose his conflict of interest as a competing firm to the City Administrator before answering any questions about Engineer B's work. This disclosure obligation arises independently from — and in addition to — the obligation to decline the specific critique. The failure to disclose the competitive conflict before engaging with the Administrator's questions constitutes a separate ethical violation from the act of criticism itself, because it denied the City Administrator the information necessary to evaluate the reliability and motivation of Engineer C's responses. However, disclosure alone would not have been sufficient to render Engineer C's participation ethical. Even a fully disclosed, conflict-acknowledged critique of Engineer B's specific decisions would still violate Code Section III.7.a., which prohibits the review of another engineer's work for the same client without proper authorization, irrespective of whether the reviewing engineer's competitive interest is known to the client. The disclosure obligation and the declination obligation are cumulative, not alternative.
Engineer B has a legitimate professional grievance upon learning that a competitor was informally consulted about his active work during the final year of his contract. While the NSPE Code does not explicitly enumerate a formal recourse mechanism for Engineer B in this scenario, the case implies at minimum a moral obligation on the part of the City Administrator to notify Engineer B that such an informal review occurred, particularly given that the Administrator holds authority over the upcoming selection process and the informal consultation directly bears on Engineer B's competitive standing. Engineer C's obligation to notify Engineer B is less direct but flows from the collegial non-harm principle: having participated in a process that foreseeably harmed Engineer B's professional reputation and competitive position, Engineer C bears some responsibility for the consequences of that participation. The absence of a formal notification requirement in the Code does not eliminate the ethical weight of the transparency deficit created by the covert nature of the consultation.
When Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B are factually accurate, a genuine tension arises between the Honesty Principle — which generally obligates engineers to be truthful — and the Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique. However, this tension is resolved in favor of the prohibition, because the Honesty Principle does not create an affirmative duty to volunteer accurate critical opinions about a competitor's work in a context that confers improper competitive advantage. Honesty is a constraint on how engineers communicate, not a license to communicate in any manner or context. The ethical wrong in Engineer C's conduct is not that he was dishonest, but that he deployed truthful technical opinions in a structurally corrupted context — one in which the delivery of those opinions served his competitive self-interest and bypassed the procedural protections that formal peer review processes are designed to provide. Accuracy of content does not sanitize impropriety of context.
The solicited nature of Engineer C's critique does not mitigate or eliminate his ethical responsibility to decline. The Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition operates independently of whether the critique was volunteered or requested. Code Section III.7.a. bars the review of another engineer's work for the same client without proper authorization; it does not carve out an exception for solicited reviews. The City Administrator's invitation to Engineer C to share his professional opinion does not constitute the 'proper authorization' contemplated by the Code, because proper authorization in this context requires a formal, structured process with notice to Engineer B and transparent competitive safeguards — not an informal contact initiated by a procurement official with a prior relationship with the competing firm. The Fairness in Professional Competition principle reinforces rather than undermines this conclusion: a competitive process is only fair if all participants are subject to the same procedural constraints, and those constraints cannot be waived unilaterally by a procurement official through informal solicitation.
The tension between Engineer C's Objectivity Obligation and his Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation is irresolvable in the circumstances presented. Even if Engineer C were capable of providing a genuinely objective technical assessment of Engineer B's decisions, the structural conflict of interest created by his status as a competing firm means that the very act of providing that assessment — however objectively rendered — simultaneously advances his competitive self-interest. This creates an ethical paradox: the more objectively accurate Engineer C's critique, the more damaging it is to Engineer B's competitive standing and the more it benefits Engineer C in the upcoming selection. The Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation therefore functions not merely as a constraint on the content of Engineer C's opinions but as a constraint on his participation in the advisory role itself. The only way to honor both obligations simultaneously was for Engineer C to decline to participate in the informal consultation.
From a deontological perspective, Engineer C violated a categorical duty to refrain from reviewing or criticizing a fellow engineer's work for the same client without proper authorization, regardless of the factual accuracy of his criticism. Code Section III.7.a. establishes this duty as a rule-based prohibition, not a balancing test. The deontological analysis is therefore straightforward: the duty exists, Engineer C was aware of the circumstances that triggered it, he had the capability to decline, and he chose not to. The accuracy of his technical opinions is irrelevant to the deontological assessment because the prohibition is not contingent on whether the critique is correct — it is contingent on the structural relationship between the reviewing engineer, the incumbent engineer, and the client. A categorical duty violated with accurate information is still a violated categorical duty.
From a consequentialist perspective, the harms generated by Engineer C's conduct substantially outweigh any benefit Client A may have received from his informal technical opinions. The identifiable harms include: injury to Engineer B's professional reputation through a covert competitive critique; compromise of the integrity of the municipal procurement process by introducing a competitor's self-interested opinions into the pre-selection evaluation; erosion of public trust in the fairness of qualification-based selection processes; and harm to the broader engineering profession by normalizing informal competitor disparagement as a procurement tactic. The putative benefit — that Client A received additional technical perspective on Engineer B's decisions — is undermined by the fact that Engineer C's opinions were delivered from a position of incomplete circumstantial knowledge of Engineer B's constraints and client directives, and were motivated by competitive self-interest, making them an unreliable basis for procurement decisions. A consequentialist calculus therefore supports the Board's conclusion of unethical conduct.
From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer C failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and collegial character expected of an honorable engineer. A virtuous engineer in Engineer C's position would have recognized that the City Administrator's informal solicitation placed him in a structurally compromised position, would have disclosed his competitive conflict of interest immediately, and would have declined to offer specific criticism of Engineer B's decisions — not because a rule required it, but because a person of professional integrity would recognize that participating in such a process is incompatible with the character of an honorable competitor. The fact that Engineer C 'fully realized' that answering the questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining competitive advantage — and answered them anyway — is particularly damning from a virtue ethics standpoint. It demonstrates not a failure of knowledge but a failure of character: Engineer C understood the ethical stakes and chose competitive advantage over collegial integrity.
Engineer C's conduct would very likely have been ethical if he had declined to offer specific criticism of Engineer B's decisions, responded only in general technical terms without reference to Engineer B's particular choices, and proactively disclosed his status as a competing firm to the City Administrator before answering any questions. This combination of actions would have honored the Competitor Critique Declination Obligation, the Competitive Conflict Disclosure Obligation, and the General Only Response Limitation simultaneously. The critical distinction is between Engineer C serving as a general technical resource — which a knowledgeable engineer may permissibly do — and Engineer C serving as an informal peer reviewer of a specific competitor's active work — which Code Section III.7.a. prohibits. The ethical path was available to Engineer C; he chose not to take it.
Complete and accurate knowledge of all the circumstances surrounding Engineer B's decisions — including the constraints, client directives, and technical context Engineer B faced — would not have rendered Engineer C's conduct ethical, though it would have altered the epistemic character of the violation. The Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint adds an additional layer of ethical concern to Engineer C's conduct, because he rendered specific critical judgments without access to the full context of Engineer B's decision-making. However, even if Engineer C had possessed complete knowledge, the structural prohibition in Code Section III.7.a. would still apply: the bar on reviewing another engineer's work for the same client without proper authorization is not contingent on the reviewer's epistemic completeness. Full knowledge would have made Engineer C's critique more reliable as a technical matter, but it would not have eliminated the conflict of interest, the absence of proper authorization, or the competitive advantage conferred by the informal consultation.
Engineer C's participation in a formal, structured peer review process — with proper notice to Engineer B, transparent competitive safeguards, and explicit authorization from Client A — would have been ethically permissible under Code Section III.7.a., which expressly contemplates authorized reviews as an exception to the general prohibition. The ethical problem in the present case is not that Engineer C reviewed Engineer B's work per se, but that he did so informally, without authorization, without notice to Engineer B, and in a context that directly served his competitive self-interest in the upcoming selection. A properly constituted peer review process would have neutralized the conflict of interest concern by making the review transparent and subject to procedural safeguards, would have satisfied the authorization requirement of III.7.a., and would have given Engineer B the opportunity to provide context for his decisions. The case therefore implies that the ethical wrong is procedural and contextual, not categorical.
Engineer C's ethical obligations would have been meaningfully different — though not entirely eliminated — if the City Administrator had approached him after Engineer B's contract had already expired and the formal competitive selection process for the new contract had officially commenced. Once Engineer B's active contract relationship with Client A had ended, the primary rationale for Code Section III.7.a.'s prohibition — protecting the incumbent engineer's professional relationship and reputation during an active engagement — would have diminished substantially. However, the conflict of interest concern would persist into the formal selection period: Engineer C would still be a competing firm offering opinions about a former competitor's work in a process where those opinions could influence the selection outcome. The ethical obligations in that scenario would shift from a categorical prohibition on review to a heightened disclosure obligation and a duty to ensure that any technical commentary was confined to matters of objective professional standards rather than competitive disparagement. The timing of the contract expiration is therefore ethically relevant but not dispositive.
The Honesty Principle and the Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique are not genuinely in conflict in this case — they operate on different planes. Honesty governs the content of Engineer C's statements, while the Prohibition on Reputation Injury governs the context and competitive purpose of those statements. The Board's implicit resolution is that factual accuracy does not sanitize an ethically impermissible act: a technically truthful critique delivered in a self-serving competitive context, without full knowledge of the incumbent's circumstances, remains an ethical violation. This case teaches that honesty is a necessary but insufficient condition for ethical conduct — it cannot override structural prohibitions against using truthful criticism as a competitive weapon. The Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique therefore prevails not because honesty is unimportant, but because the competitive context transforms an otherwise permissible professional opinion into an instrument of improper advantage.
The Fairness in Professional Competition principle and the Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition interact in a way that firmly rejects the 'solicited critique' defense. Engineer C's awareness that answering the City Administrator's questions would confer a competitive advantage is the decisive ethical fact. The solicited nature of the critique — the fact that the City Administrator initiated the contact — does not transfer or dilute Engineer C's independent ethical obligation to decline. This case establishes that the ethical duty to refuse an improper competitive critique is not contingent on who initiates the conversation; it is triggered by Engineer C's own recognition of the conflict of interest and the competitive advantage at stake. Fairness in Professional Competition is therefore not merely a passive principle that prohibits Engineer C from initiating disparagement — it is an active obligation requiring Engineer C to decline participation even when invited. The solicited nature of the critique mitigates nothing.
The Objectivity Obligation and the Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation are structurally irreconcilable in this case, and the Board's conclusion implicitly acknowledges that irreconcilability by finding Engineer C's conduct unethical without requiring proof of bad faith or factual inaccuracy. Even if Engineer C had strived for maximum objectivity, the very act of providing a technical critique of a competitor's active work — in a context where that critique directly serves Engineer C's competitive self-interest — makes genuine non-self-serving objectivity impossible to achieve or verify. The Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint compounds this irreconcilability: Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the constraints, client directives, and technical context Engineer B faced, meaning that even a sincerely objective critique would be structurally compromised by epistemic incompleteness. This case teaches that when objectivity and self-interest are structurally entangled, the ethical resolution is not to attempt objectivity anyway — it is to withdraw from the advisory role entirely. The Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation reinforces this conclusion by establishing that the integrity of the municipal selection process is a value that supersedes any individual engineer's capacity to self-certify objectivity in a conflicted context.
Conflict of Interest Avoidance Constraint Engineer C Competitive Advisory Role
Engineer C held a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the City Administrator's evaluation of Engineer B's performance, as the City Administrator would be heavily involved in selecting the next consulting firm. Engineer C's participation in informal critique of Engineer B while competing for the same contract created an unmitigated conflict of interest.
Engineer C was constrained by the obligation to avoid conflicts of interest — including the conflict between Engineer C's personal competitive interest in securing the next 3-year contract and the professional obligation to provide honest, unbiased technical evaluation — prohibiting Engineer C from serving in an informal advisory capacity to the City Administrator regarding Engineer B's work while simultaneously competing for the contract that Engineer B's performance would influence.
At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and throughout the pre-procurement period
Professional relationship formally active; Engineer B assumes full ethical and contractual obligations to the City; City assumes obligations to Engineer B including fair dealing and transparency
Contract start date (Year 1, beginning of 3-year period)
A formal 3-year consulting contract between City (Client A) and Engineer B comes into legal effect, creating binding professional obligations and ethical duties for all parties. This contract establishes the baseline professional relationship from which all subsequent events flow.
Engineer B enters a period of professional vulnerability as an incumbent whose continuation is uncertain; competitive landscape opens; Engineer C and other firms become legitimate prospective competitors; Administrator's role shifts to include selection process management
Year 3 of 3-year contract (final contract year begins)
The consulting engagement between the City and Engineer B enters its third and final year, automatically triggering the procurement conditions under which a new contract selection process becomes institutionally appropriate. This temporal threshold transforms the professional landscape and creates the conditions for competitive vulnerability.
Covert Competitor Disparagement Prohibition Constraint Engineer C Engineer B Reputation
Engineer C's critical responses to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's specific decisions occurred in a context where the City Administrator had already questioned Engineer B's judgment on multiple occasions and held authority over the upcoming contract selection. Engineer C's critique, delivered with awareness of its pretextual competitive purpose, was structured to disadvantage Engineer B in the procurement process.
Engineer C was prohibited from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's specific professional decisions to the City Administrator in a manner structured — whether explicitly or implicitly — to damage Engineer B's professional reputation and competitive prospects for contract renewal, particularly given that Engineer C stood to benefit directly from any damage caused to Engineer B's standing with the City Administrator.
During the informal solicitation by the City Administrator in the pre-procurement period for the next 3-year contract
Covert Peer Review Prohibition Constraint Engineer C Review of Engineer B Without Notification
Engineer B was in the final year of an active 3-year consulting contract with City A and was unaware that the City Administrator had solicited Engineer C to evaluate and critique Engineer B's specific professional decisions. Engineer C proceeded with the evaluation without notifying Engineer B, violating the prohibition on covert peer review of an engineer under active contract.
Covert Peer Review Prohibition Constraint
Engineer C was prohibited from evaluating and criticizing Engineer B's professional decisions for the City Administrator without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active contract with City A and had not been formally notified that a review of their work was being conducted.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7.a; NSPE Code of Ethics Private Practice Peer Review Provision; BER Case 93-3
During Engineer B's final year of the active 3-year contract
Should Engineer C answer the City Administrator's specific questions about Engineer B's work and render critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions, given that Engineer C is a direct competitor for the upcoming contract renewal and lacks full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made those decisions?
Engineer C, a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal with Client A, is solicited by the City Administrator to answer specific questions about Engineer B's engineering decisions during Engineer B's active contract period. Engineer C fully realizes that answering in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining a competitive advantage. The core question is whether Engineer C should answer the Administrator's specific questions and criticize Engineer B's decisions.
Answer the City Administrator's specific questions about Engineer B's work and render critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions
Decline to answer specific questions about Engineer B's decisions and refrain from rendering critical opinions about Engineer B's work as a competitor for the same contract
Was Engineer C obligated to proactively disclose his competitive conflict of interest to the City Administrator before answering any questions about Engineer B's work, and would such disclosure alone have been sufficient to render his participation in the critique ethical?
Before answering any of the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work, Engineer C faces an independent obligation to affirmatively disclose his direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the Client A contract renewal. This disclosure obligation is analytically distinct from — and cumulative with — the obligation to decline specific critique. The question is whether Engineer C should disclose his conflict of interest, and whether such disclosure alone would render his subsequent participation ethical.
Disclose competitive conflict of interest to the City Administrator before answering any questions, then decline to provide specific critique of Engineer B's decisions
Disclose competitive conflict of interest to the City Administrator and then proceed to answer specific questions and criticize Engineer B's decisions
Answer the City Administrator's questions and criticize Engineer B's decisions without disclosing competitive conflict of interest
Should Engineer C limit any response to the City Administrator to general technical observations only, refraining from specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular decisions, methods, and professional judgment — and where exactly does the ethical line between permissible general commentary and impermissible specific critique fall?
Engineer C faces a choice between providing specific critical opinions about Engineer B's identified professional decisions versus limiting any response to general technical observations only. This decision point addresses the precise ethical boundary between permissible general commentary — which a knowledgeable engineer may offer — and impermissible specific incumbent critique, which Code Section III.7.a. prohibits. The Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint compounds this boundary by establishing that Engineer C lacks the full contextual knowledge necessary to render accurate specific judgments.
Limit response to general technical observations about engineering principles applicable to the type of work at issue, without referencing Engineer B's specific decisions or professional judgment
Answer the City Administrator's specific questions and render critical opinions about Engineer B's particular engineering decisions and professional judgment
Did the City Administrator bear independent ethical responsibility for soliciting Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's active work outside any formal review process, and does the solicitation itself — independent of Engineer C's response — constitute a breach of procurement process integrity?
The City Administrator, who holds procurement authority and will be heavily involved in selecting the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract, initiates informal contact with Engineer C — a known competitor — to obtain critical opinions about Engineer B's active work, bypassing any formal peer review process and denying Engineer B notice or opportunity to respond. This decision point addresses whether the City Administrator's solicitation itself constitutes an independent ethical violation separate from Engineer C's response, and whether the Board should have addressed the Administrator's conduct.
Initiate informal contact with Engineer C to solicit critical opinions about Engineer B's specific work outside any formal review process and without notice to Engineer B
Refrain from soliciting a competitor to evaluate the incumbent engineer's work and instead initiate a formal, structured peer review process with proper notice to Engineer B and transparent competitive safeguards
Did Engineer C's participation in the covert informal review of Engineer B's active work violate Engineer C's collegial non-harm obligation toward Engineer B as a professional peer, and do Engineer C and the City Administrator bear any obligation to notify Engineer B that such a review occurred?
Engineer B remains under an active, non-terminated contract with Client A while a competitor is informally consulted about the quality of his specific engineering decisions — without his knowledge, without notice, and without any opportunity to provide context or respond to the critique. This decision point addresses Engineer B's professional dignity and procedural rights, the collegial non-harm obligations owed to him by Engineer C, and whether Engineer C or the City Administrator bore any obligation to notify Engineer B that such an informal review occurred.
Participate in the covert informal review of Engineer B's active work without notifying Engineer B and without disclosing to the City Administrator that Engineer B should be given notice and opportunity to respond
Decline to participate in the informal review and advise the City Administrator that Engineer B should be notified of any review of his work and given an opportunity to provide context for his professional decisions
When Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B are factually accurate but delivered in a context that confers an improper competitive advantage, does the Honesty Principle override the Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique — and can Engineer C simultaneously satisfy both the Objectivity Obligation and the Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation in this structurally conflicted context?
Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B may be factually accurate as far as Engineer C is aware, creating an apparent tension between the Honesty Principle — which generally obligates engineers to be truthful — and the Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique. Simultaneously, even if Engineer C strived for maximum objectivity, the structural conflict of interest created by his status as a competing firm means that the very act of providing an objective technical critique simultaneously advances his competitive self-interest, rendering the Objectivity Obligation and the Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation structurally irreconcilable.
Provide technically accurate and objective critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions, relying on the Honesty Principle to justify participation in the informal review despite the competitive conflict of interest
Withdraw from the advisory role entirely, recognizing that the structural entanglement of objectivity and competitive self-interest makes genuine non-self-serving participation impossible and that truthfulness alone does not override the prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique
NSPE and state licensing boards through codified professional conduct rules
Professional Standards Governing Engineer Solicitation and Competitive Conduct
Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
Engineer C and the City Administrator in the context of the contract renewal procurement process
Establishes the prohibition on injuring the professional reputation of Engineer B through critical commentary made in the context of competing for the successor contract, grounding the ethical analysis of Engineer C's conduct
Engineer A contacting Engineer C (BER 01-1) before Engineer A contacting clients of Firm X (BER 01-1)
Engineer A leaving Firm X (Case 01-1) before Engineer A contacting Firm X clients (Case 01-1)
Engineer A left Firm X to start a new Firm Y... Thereafter, Engineer A contacted clients of Firm X to convince them to contract with the new firm
Engineer A contacting Firm X clients (Case 01-1)
Engineer A leaving Firm X and starting Firm Y (BER 01-1) before Engineer A contacting Engineer C to join Firm Y (BER 01-1)
Engineer B's professional standing is damaged in a one-sided, non-transparent proceeding; the integrity of any subsequent evaluation of Engineer B's work is compromised; Engineer B's ability to compete fairly for contract renewal is structurally undermined
Concurrent with and following Administrator's contact with Engineer C (final contract year)
By virtue of the covert nature of the Administrator-Engineer C communications, Engineer B is denied any knowledge of, or opportunity to respond to, criticisms of their professional decisions made to the very decision-maker who controls their contract renewal. This exclusion is an outcome of the secrecy surrounding the communications.
Engineer B Faithful Performance Under Competitive Scrutiny Capability Instance
Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Under Competitive Scrutiny Capability
Engineer B was required to maintain faithful, competent performance of all consulting engineering services for City A throughout the final year of the contract, despite repeated questioning of professional judgment by the City Administrator and the improper solicitation of competitor critique
Engineer B served as incumbent consulting engineer in the final year of a 3-year contract, with the City Administrator repeatedly questioning professional judgment and simultaneously soliciting a competitor to critique Engineer B's work
Engineer B's continued service as incumbent consulting engineer during the final contract year while subject to repeated professional judgment challenges from the City Administrator
Engineer B Incumbent Faithful Performance Capability Instance
Engineer B possessed and was required to exercise the capability to continue performing all contracted services faithfully, competently, and in City A's best interest throughout the final year of the contract, even while being subjected to repeated questioning of professional judgment and covert competitive scrutiny
Engineer B was in the final year of a 3-year consulting contract with City A, subject to repeated questioning by the City Administrator, while unaware that the City Administrator was simultaneously soliciting a competitor to evaluate Engineer B's work
Engineer B's continued performance of consulting engineering services for City A during the final year of the 3-year contract despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of professional judgment and the covert solicitation of Engineer C to evaluate Engineer B's work
Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.
Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
Engineer B's Judgment Questioned Repeatedly
Professional relationship becomes strained; trust between Engineer B and City Administrator erodes; groundwork laid for Administrator's later decision to seek outside opinion; Engineer B's professional standing with the client is implicitly undermined
During active contract period (Years 1–3, recurring)
A pattern of professional skepticism emerges as the City Administrator repeatedly challenges Engineer B's technical and professional decisions across multiple occasions during the contract period. This recurring friction creates a deteriorating professional relationship and signals institutional distrust.
Engineer B's contract with Client A overlaps City Administrator's contact with Engineer C
Engineer B's contract (years 1–2) before final year of Engineer B's contract
Engineer B's current contract before next 3-year contract selection process
Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Review Prohibition Recognition Capability Instance
Peer Review Notification Protocol Capability
Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that Engineer B's active contract with City A triggered the professional ethics prohibition on reviewing Engineer B's work without Engineer B's knowledge
Engineer C evaluated Engineer B's work for City A without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B was still under an active contract with City A that had not been terminated
Engineer C's failure to recognize that Engineer B's active contract status and lack of knowledge of the conversation with the City Administrator rendered Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work a violation of professional ethics codes
Engineer C Answers Administrator's Questions
Engineer C Answers Questions About Engineer B
Potential damage to Engineer B's professional reputation based on incomplete information
Unfair competitive advantage over Engineer B
Violation of NSPE Code of Ethics obligations regarding criticism of fellow engineers
Avoidance of conflicts of interest in client engagement
Professional loyalty to fellow engineers
Respond to a prospective client's questions in a manner that demonstrates Engineer C's competence and positions Engineer C favorably for the upcoming contract competition
Duty to ensure statements about another engineer's work are accurate and contextually informed
NSPE Code of Ethics obligation not to maliciously or falsely injure the professional reputation of a fellow engineer
Obligation to avoid actions that constitute improper competitive conduct
Obligation to refrain from improperly soliciting or accepting work by criticizing other engineers
Recognition of improper solicitation scenarios
Final year of Engineer B's contract, during contact from City Administrator
Engineer C makes a deliberate decision to respond to the City Administrator's questions about specific issues Engineer B handled, despite recognizing that doing so would provide a competitive advantage in the upcoming contract selection and constitute criticism of a fellow engineer without full contextual knowledge.
Engineer C Answers Questions About Engineer B → Engineer B Excluded from Defense
By virtue of the covert nature of the Administrator-Engineer C communications, Engineer B is denied [the opportunity to defend]
If Engineer C had declined to participate, or had insisted the conversation be disclosed and conducted formally, Engineer B would not have been excluded, the exclusion is entirely a product of the covert character of the exchange
Engineer B's lack of independent knowledge that the exchange was occurring
Engineer C's decision to participate in the covert exchange rather than redirect to formal channels
The exchange remaining undisclosed to Engineer B
Engineer C (primary); City Administrator (shared)
Covert participation by Engineer C + non-disclosure to Engineer B = Engineer B structurally excluded from any opportunity to contextualize, rebut, or even know about the characterizations being made
Engineer C BER Precedent Application Capability Instance
Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to identify and apply BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 to recognize that engaging with the City Administrator's solicitation to critique Engineer B's work constituted improper conduct under NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7
The BER applied BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 as precedents to analyze Engineer C's conduct, finding that Engineer C's behavior was analogous to the conduct found improper in BER Case 01-1
Engineer C's failure to apply the reasoning from BER Case 01-1 — which found that making representations about a competitor's inability to perform services was improper and questionable — to the analogous situation of providing critical opinions about an incumbent engineer's work while competing for the same contract
In BER Case 01-1, the BER reviewed a situation where Engineer A left Firm X to start a new Firm Y... The BER found that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make such representations as these methods were questionable and improper.
Engineer C BER Precedent Application Competitive Critique Capability Instance
Engineer C required the capability to identify and apply BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 to recognize that criticizing a competitor's work in a competitive procurement context constitutes an ethical violation under NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7
BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 provided directly applicable precedent for the ethical obligations arising when an engineer is solicited to critique a competitor's work in a competitive procurement context
Failure to apply relevant precedent — Engineer C did not recognize or apply the ethical guidance from BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 before engaging in the critique of Engineer B's work
In BER Case 93-3, Engineer A was retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services...
Engineer C Collegial Non-Harm Capability Instance
Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize and fulfill collegial obligations toward Engineer B by refraining from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's professional work in a context where those opinions would harm Engineer B's competitive position and benefit Engineer C's own competitive standing
Engineer C provided critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions to the City Administrator — who controlled the upcoming contract renewal — while competing for that same contract, causing potential collegial harm to Engineer B's professional reputation and competitive position
Engineer C's decision to be 'critical of Engineer B's decisions' in response to the City Administrator's solicitation, despite awareness of the competitive pretext, demonstrates failure to fulfill collegial non-harm obligations
Engineer C Collegial Non-Harm Competitive Context Capability Instance
Engineer C required the capability to recognize and fulfill collegial obligations toward Engineer B by refraining from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's professional work in a context where those opinions would harm Engineer B's professional reputation and competitive position, particularly given that Engineer C stood to benefit competitively from the harm caused
Engineer C criticized Engineer B's specific professional decisions to the City Administrator who held significant authority over the upcoming contract selection, while Engineer C was competing for that same contract
Failure to fulfill collegial obligations — Engineer C provided specific criticisms of Engineer B's work to the City Administrator, potentially harming Engineer B's professional reputation and prospects for contract renewal
Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way
Engineer C Competitive Conflict Disclosure Before Critique Constraint Instance
Engineer C held a direct competitive conflict of interest — being a competitor for the contract Engineer B currently held — which required disclosure before any evaluative opinions were offered to the procurement-influencing City Administrator.
Engineer C was constrained, prior to providing any critical opinions about Engineer B's work, to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming contract renewal — and that this competitive relationship created a conflict of interest that precluded objective evaluation — prohibiting Engineer C from providing critique without first making this disclosure and ideally declining the solicitation entirely on conflict grounds.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4; NSPE Code Section III.6; Conflict of Interest Avoidance provisions
At the moment of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and before any substantive response was provided
Engineer C Competitive Conflict Disclosure Capability Instance
Advisory Self-Interest Conflict Identification and Disclosure Capability
Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to identify and disclose the competitive conflict of interest to the City Administrator before providing any critical opinions about Engineer B's work
Engineer C, a competitor for the upcoming contract renewal, was solicited by the City Administrator who would be heavily involved in the selection process, creating a direct competitive conflict of interest in the advisory context
Engineer C's recognition that answering questions would provide competitive advantage demonstrates awareness of the conflict, but no disclosure of this conflict to the City Administrator is indicated before providing critical opinions
Engineer C Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Capability Instance
Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to proactively disclose to the City Administrator his direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the City A contract renewal before providing any critical opinions about Engineer B's work
Engineer C engaged in evaluative conversation about Engineer B's work with the City Administrator who held significant authority over the upcoming contract renewal, without disclosing Engineer C's competitive interest in that renewal
Engineer C's failure to disclose the competitive conflict of interest before engaging in conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's engineering decisions
Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable
Engineer C Competitive Context Critique Scope Limitation Capability Instance
Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to limit any response to the City Administrator's questions to general engineering observations, refraining from specific criticism of Engineer B's decisions given incomplete knowledge and competitive conflict
Engineer C engaged in conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's specific engineering decisions while competing for the same contract and lacking full knowledge of Engineer B's circumstances
Engineer C's failure to limit responses to general observations, instead providing specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work that the BER found to be improper and potentially inaccurate
Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Capability Instance
Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that the City Administrator's solicitation to critique Engineer B's work constituted an improper competitive advantage opportunity requiring declination
Engineer C was contacted by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work during the final year of Engineer B's contract, while Engineer C was competing for the next contract renewal
Engineer C's awareness that answering questions 'in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition' demonstrates recognition of the impropriety, but Engineer C proceeded to answer and criticize Engineer B despite this awareness
Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Constraint Instance
Engineer C was contacted informally by the City Administrator — who would be heavily involved in selecting the next consulting firm — to provide opinions on specific issues Engineer B had worked on, while Engineer C was simultaneously competing for the contract Engineer B currently held.
Engineer C was prohibited from providing evaluative or critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions to the City Administrator, given that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal and the City Administrator held significant procurement influence over that award — the competitive conflict of interest precluded Engineer C from serving in any informal advisory or evaluative role regarding the incumbent's work.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; NSPE Code Section III.7; BER Case 01-1
Throughout the period of competition for the next 3-year consulting engineering contract, and specifically at the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation
Engineer C Conflict of Interest Recognition Capability Instance
Conflict of Interest Recognition and Recusal Capability
Engineer C demonstrated awareness of the conflict of interest embedded in the City Administrator's solicitation but failed to act on that recognition by recusing from the critique or disclosing the conflict
Engineer C recognized the competitive conflict of interest created by being solicited to critique an incumbent competitor's work by the administrator controlling the upcoming contract renewal, but proceeded to provide critical opinions without recusal or disclosure
Engineer C's recognition that answering questions 'in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage' demonstrates conflict of interest awareness, but no recusal or disclosure action followed
Engineer C Covert Competitor Disparagement Prohibition Instance
Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B were provided to the City Administrator — who held significant procurement influence — during the final year of Engineer B's contract, in the context of active competition for the next contract award, creating a situation where the critique was structured to serve Engineer C's competitive self-interest at Engineer B's professional expense.
Engineer C was prohibited from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator in a manner structured to damage Engineer B's professional reputation and contract prospects, particularly given that Engineer C stood to benefit competitively from any diminishment of the City Administrator's confidence in Engineer B — establishing that Engineer C's critique, offered in the context of active procurement competition, constituted an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional prospects through means other than legitimate merit-based competition.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case 01-1; NSPE Code Section III.6
At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and Engineer C's critical response
Engineer C Covert Peer Review Prohibition Constraint Instance
Engineer C provided critical technical opinions about Engineer B's work to City A (the shared client) without Engineer B's knowledge, in a manner functionally equivalent to an undisclosed peer review — violating the professional norm that engineers may not review another engineer's work for the same client without that engineer's knowledge.
Engineer C was constrained from reviewing and critiquing Engineer B's work for the same client (City A) without Engineer B's knowledge — establishing that the informal solicitation by the City Administrator did not constitute a legitimate peer review process and that Engineer C's participation in covert evaluation of Engineer B's work for the client violated the professional norm requiring that an engineer not review another engineer's work for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer.
NSPE Code Section III.7.a (Peer Review Provision); NSPE_Code_Peer_Review_Provision
At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and Engineer C's response
Engineer C Criticizes Engineer B's Decisions
Corruption of the competitive selection process through information asymmetry
Reputational harm to Engineer B based on potentially incomplete or decontextualized information
Violation of the professional norm that engineers should not exploit a fellow engineer's inability to respond or defend their decisions
Avoidance of conduct that brings discredit to the engineering profession
Integrity and honesty requiring contextual accuracy not merely subjective sincerity
Professional solidarity and fair treatment of fellow engineers
Undermine confidence in Engineer B's professional judgment to improve Engineer C's competitive position in the upcoming contract selection
Recognition of improper competitive conduct
During conversation with City Administrator, final year of Engineer B's contract
Duty of accuracy, criticism rendered without full contextual knowledge of Engineer B's decisions may be factually misleading even if subjectively sincere
NSPE Code of Ethics, prohibition on malicious or injurious criticism of fellow engineers
Obligation to avoid improper competitive conduct that exploits a fellow engineer's absence from the conversation
Professional duty to protect the integrity of the engineering profession's competitive processes
Beyond merely answering questions, Engineer C makes the distinct volitional decision to affirmatively criticize Engineer B's specific professional decisions, going further than general technical commentary and directing negative professional judgment at Engineer B without Engineer B's knowledge, without full context, and for competitive gain.
Engineer C Criticizes Engineer B's Decisions (Action 5) → Engineer B Reputation Harmed (Event 5)
Engineer C Criticizes Engineer B's Decisions → Competitive Advantage Gained by Engineer C
As a direct result of Engineer C answering the Administrator's questions and criticizing Engineer B, Engineer C gains a competitive advantage
If Engineer C had refused to criticize Engineer B, or if Engineer B had been present to provide context, the informational asymmetry would not have arisen and no improper competitive advantage would have been conferred
Administrator's receptivity and positional authority over the selection outcome
Engineer B's exclusion from the conversation, preventing rebuttal or context
Engineer C's affirmative decision to criticize, not merely describe, Engineer B's professional decisions
The covert nature of the exchange shielding it from scrutiny
Affirmative criticism of competitor + selection authority as audience + no opportunity for incumbent to respond = sufficient to generate unfair competitive advantage
Even without explicit favoritism by the Administrator, the informational asymmetry created by the criticism alone was sufficient to distort comparative evaluation
Engineer C Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint Instance
Engineer C offered critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions based on the City Administrator's informal characterization of specific issues, without access to the complete technical documentation, client directives, and professional context that would be necessary to form a factually grounded professional opinion.
Engineer C was constrained from expressing critical technical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions without those opinions being founded upon established facts and completed analysis — prohibiting Engineer C from characterizing Engineer B's decisions as deficient based solely on the City Administrator's informal description of specific issues, without access to the complete technical record, project documentation, and professional context underlying those decisions.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint; NSPE Code Section III.7
Engineer C General Only Response Boundary Constraint Instance
The BER analysis concluded that while Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, Engineer C should have avoided commenting on specific issues and should have refrained from any criticism.
Engineer C, having been solicited by the City Administrator to comment on Engineer B's work while competing for future work with Client A, was constrained to limit any response to general engineering observations and was prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular decisions, methods, or professional judgment.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6 and III.7; BER Case analysis in present case
At the time of and following the City Administrator's informal consultation with Engineer C
Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A. Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
Engineer C Honorable Procurement Conduct Capability Instance
Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to self-regulate competitive procurement conduct in accordance with professional ethics obligations, recognizing that participating in the critique solicitation violated the spirit of honorable competitive conduct
Engineer C, competing for the City A contract renewal, was solicited to critique the incumbent engineer's work and proceeded to do so despite recognizing the competitive advantage pretext
Engineer C's awareness of the competitive pretext combined with proceeding to provide critical opinions demonstrates failure to apply honorable procurement conduct self-regulation despite recognizing the ethical problem
Engineer C Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability Instance
Engineer C required the capability to recognize and fulfill the obligation to conduct themselves honorably and fairly in the procurement process — including refraining from exploiting the City Administrator's improper solicitation as a competitive intelligence opportunity
Engineer C was presented with an opportunity to gain competitive advantage through the City Administrator's improper solicitation and failed to decline on ethical grounds
Failure to self-regulate — Engineer C participated in the critique of Engineer B's work rather than declining the improper solicitation and competing solely on the basis of demonstrated qualifications
The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration.
Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.
Engineer C Improper Competitive Advantage Prohibition Constraint Instance
Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B's work was provided to the City Administrator — who held significant procurement influence — while Engineer C was competing for the contract Engineer B currently held, creating a structural incentive for Engineer C's critique to serve competitive rather than objective professional purposes.
Engineer C was prohibited from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's professional work to the City Administrator in a manner structured — whether explicitly or implicitly — to damage Engineer B's professional reputation and prospects with Client A, particularly given that Engineer C stood to benefit competitively from any damage caused to Engineer B's standing with Client A.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case 01-1 precedent
Throughout the contract renewal procurement period for Client A's consulting engineering contract
Engineer C Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition Capability Instance
Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition Capability
Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that the City Administrator's solicitation created an improper competitive advantage opportunity and that engaging with it constituted improper or questionable conduct under NSPE Code III.6
Engineer C was solicited by the City Administrator — who held significant authority over the upcoming contract renewal — to evaluate Engineer B's work, creating a direct competitive advantage opportunity
Engineer C's failure to recognize that providing critical opinions about Engineer B's work while competing for the same contract constituted an attempt to obtain professional engagements by improper or questionable methods, analogous to BER Case 01-1
Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Instance
Engineer C was asked to opine on specific issues Engineer B had worked on, but Engineer C had access only to the City Administrator's characterization of those issues — not to Engineer B's full project documentation, client directives, technical analyses, or the complete professional context in which Engineer B's decisions were made.
Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint
Engineer C was constrained from offering critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions without full knowledge of the circumstances, client directives, technical constraints, and professional judgment factors that informed those decisions — prohibiting Engineer C from characterizing Engineer B's decisions as deficient based solely on the City Administrator's informal description of specific issues, without access to complete project documentation and context.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint; NSPE Code Section II.3
Engineer C Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Capability Instance
Incomplete Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique Capability
Engineer C possessed — but failed to adequately exercise — the capability to recognize that his incomplete knowledge of Engineer B's decision-making circumstances rendered his specific critical opinions potentially inaccurate, and to restrain from offering those opinions on that basis
Engineer C was solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's engineering decisions while Engineer B was still under active contract with City A and Engineer C was competing for the same contract
Engineer C's failure to recognize that not having been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process meant his critique could be inaccurate even if subjectively truthful — as identified in the BER's analysis that Engineer C 'was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation'
Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process.
Engineer C Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Before Review Constraint Instance
Engineer C was informally consulted by the City Administrator about Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under a 3-year consulting contract with Client A in its final year, without Engineer B's knowledge.
Engineer C was prohibited from reviewing or evaluating Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under active contract with Client A and had not been notified of the City Administrator's consultation with Engineer C.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Peer Review Provision (Section III.7.a); BER Case analysis in present case
Throughout the period of Engineer B's active contract with Client A
Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.
Engineer C Informal Solicitation by Client A
From Client A's conversation with Engineer C through Engineer C's response
Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
Informal Solicitation with Formal Service Obligation State
Engineer C's receipt of informal request from Client A to evaluate Engineer B's work
Engineer C's decision to respond or decline
Client A (City Administrator) informally asked Engineer C to evaluate Engineer B's work decisions
Engineer C Non-Deception in Competitive Context Constraint Instance
Engineer C's provision of critical opinions about Engineer B without disclosing the competitive conflict of interest created a misleading impression that the critique was objective professional evaluation rather than competitively motivated commentary.
Engineer C was constrained from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's work to the City Administrator in a manner that created a false or misleading impression of objectivity — prohibiting Engineer C from presenting competitive self-interest-motivated critique as if it were disinterested professional evaluation, and requiring that any opinions offered be accompanied by full disclosure of the competitive conflict that colored their formation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Non-Deception provisions; NSPE Code Section II.5.a; Non-Deception (Constraint) ethics code provisions
Engineer C Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint Instance
Engineer C's response to the City Administrator's informal solicitation — providing critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions while competing for the same contract — constituted a departure from honorable competitive conduct by exploiting an informal procurement-influencing relationship rather than competing on merit.
Engineer C was constrained to conduct all activities related to the City A contract renewal procurement honorably, responsibly, and fairly — prohibiting Engineer C from exploiting the informal relationship with the City Administrator to gain competitive advantage through critique of Engineer B's work, and requiring that Engineer C compete solely on the basis of demonstrated qualifications and merit through legitimate procurement channels.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6, III.7; Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
Throughout the period of competition for the next 3-year consulting engineering contract
Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Capability Instance
Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Maintenance Capability
Engineer C required the capability to provide only objective, technically grounded, and factually accurate assessments if responding at all to the City Administrator's solicitation — refraining from criticism motivated by competitive advantage
Engineer C agreed to evaluate Engineer B's work for the City Administrator while holding a competitive conflict of interest and lacking full knowledge of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions
Failure to maintain objectivity — Engineer C provided specific criticisms of Engineer B's decisions without full knowledge of the circumstances, in a context where competitive motivations were present
Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Capability Instance
Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to maintain objectivity in evaluating Engineer B's work, instead providing criticism motivated by competitive advantage rather than objective technical assessment
Engineer C provided critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions to the City Administrator while competing for Engineer B's contract, with awareness that the criticism would serve competitive rather than purely technical purposes
Engineer C's awareness that answering 'in a certain perspective' would serve as competitive pretext, combined with proceeding to be 'critical of Engineer B's decisions,' demonstrates failure to maintain competitive-bias-free objectivity
Engineer C Specific Critique Prohibition Under Incomplete Knowledge Constraint Instance
Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B performed work for Client A, yet provided critical opinions about Engineer B's specific engineering decisions.
Engineer C was prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions because Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances, client directives, technical constraints, and professional judgment factors that informed Engineer B's decisions — establishing that Engineer C's subjective belief in the truthfulness of the critique was insufficient to render specific criticism ethically permissible.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6 and III.7; BER Case 01-1 precedent
At the time of the City Administrator's informal consultation with Engineer C
Engineer C Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition Constraint Instance
The BER analysis specifically noted that Engineer C could be truthful as far as C is aware, but that Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances — establishing that subjective truthfulness belief is insufficient to render the critique ethically permissible.
Engineer C was constrained from treating subjective belief in the truthfulness of critique as a sufficient ethical justification for providing specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work in a competitive procurement context, establishing that truthfulness as perceived by the critiquing engineer does not render criticism ethically permissible when the critiquing engineer lacks full circumstantial knowledge.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; BER Case analysis in present case
As such, Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.
Engineer C answering and criticizing Engineer B during Engineer B's active contract with Client A
Engineer C answering questions and criticizing Engineer B during Engineer B's active contract
Engineer C answering questions and criticizing Engineer B
Engineer C's conversation with City Administrator before next 3-year contract award
Engineer C's conversation with City Administrator
Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B before Engineer B's knowledge of the conversation
Engineer B's knowledge of the conversation
Faithful Agent Obligation Distinguished in Engineer C Context
Engineer C's relationship with Client A and obligations regarding the review of Engineer B's work
Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition
Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer Review
Unlike NSPE BER Case 93-3 where Engineer B was under contract with the franchiser and owed a faithful agent obligation, Engineer C in the present case was not under contract with Client A and therefore did not owe the same faithful agent obligation that would have required confidentiality about the review
In this context, the absence of a contractual relationship between Engineer C and Client A meant that Engineer C's obligations were governed by the Code's competitive critique prohibitions rather than the faithful agent obligation that applied in Case 93-3
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Without a contractual relationship, Engineer C's obligations ran to the Code's competitive critique prohibitions rather than to a faithful agent duty of confidentiality
the BER in this case determined that Engineer B's act of notifying Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser was not consistent with the Code stating that Engineer B had an obligation as 'faithful agent and trustee' to not to tell Engineer A of his relationship with the client.
General Only Competitor Response Boundary Constraint Engineer C City Administrator Response
Engineer C, having been solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's specific professional decisions, was constrained to respond only in general terms if responding at all. Instead, Engineer C provided specific critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions, exceeding the permissible scope of any response given the competitive conflict of interest.
General-Only Competitor Response Boundary Constraint
If Engineer C chose to respond at all to the City Administrator's solicitation regarding Engineer B's work, Engineer C was strictly constrained to limit any response to general engineering principles, general observations about the type of work involved, or general professional standards — and was affirmatively prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular decisions, methods, or professional judgment.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6 and III.7; BER case precedent on competitor conduct in procurement
At the time of and throughout the City Administrator's informal solicitation
General Only Response Boundary Constraint Engineer C City Administrator
The City Administrator solicited Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's specific professional decisions. Engineer C was constrained to respond only in general terms — if at all — and was prohibited from providing the specific critique that was solicited.
To the extent Engineer C chose to respond at all to the City Administrator's solicitation, Engineer C was constrained to limit any response strictly to general engineering principles and general observations, and was prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular professional decisions, methods, or judgment.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7
At the time of and following the City Administrator's informal solicitation of Engineer C's opinions on Engineer B's work
Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability Engineer C City Administrator Procurement
Engineer C failed to exercise the capability to conduct himself honorably in the procurement competition by refraining from exploiting the improper competitive intelligence opportunity created by the City Administrator's solicitation, instead choosing to provide critical opinions that Engineer C recognized would serve as a competitive pretext.
Engineer C was competing for the next 3-year consulting contract with the City when the City Administrator — who would be heavily involved in the selection — solicited Engineer C to evaluate the incumbent's work.
Despite recognizing that answering the City Administrator's questions 'in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage,' Engineer C proceeded to answer and criticize Engineer B — demonstrating a failure of honorable procurement conduct self-regulation.
Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition Capability Engineer C Critique of Engineer B
Engineer C demonstrated partial exercise of the capability to recognize that responding to the City Administrator's solicitation would create an improper competitive advantage, but failed to act on that recognition by declining or disclosing the conflict.
Engineer C recognized the improper competitive advantage opportunity created by the City Administrator's solicitation but chose to exploit it rather than decline or disclose.
Engineer C explicitly recognized that answering questions 'in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition' — demonstrating awareness — but proceeded to answer and criticize Engineer B anyway, failing to translate recognition into appropriate action.
Improper Competitive Method Prohibition Engineer C City Administrator Solicitation
Engineer C was approached by the City Administrator — who held procurement influence over the upcoming contract — and provided critical commentary on Engineer B's professional decisions, creating an improper competitive advantage through means other than merit-based competition.
Engineer C was prohibited from exploiting the City Administrator's informal solicitation to critique Engineer B's work as a means of obtaining competitive advantage in the upcoming contract renewal, as such conduct constituted an improper and questionable method of seeking professional engagements in violation of NSPE Code Section III.6.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; BER Case 01-1
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 states that Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.
During the period of informal solicitation by the City Administrator and the upcoming contract renewal process for City A consulting engineering services
Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.
Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint Engineer C Engineer B Decisions
Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's work for City A and had no access to the full circumstances under which Engineer B made the specific professional decisions being questioned. Despite this lack of complete contextual knowledge, Engineer C provided specific critical opinions about those decisions to the City Administrator.
Engineer C was prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions because Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances, constraints, client directives, technical context, and professional judgment factors that informed those decisions — rendering Engineer C's critique inherently unreliable and potentially misleading regardless of Engineer C's subjective belief in its accuracy.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3
At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation
Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Engineer C Engineer B Decisions
Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B performed work for City A, yet provided specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator.
Engineer C was prohibited from offering critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions because Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances, constraints, client directives, and professional judgment factors that informed those decisions — establishing that Engineer C's subjective belief in the truthfulness of the criticism was insufficient to render it ethically permissible when the underlying factual basis was incomplete.
At the time of Engineer C's critical commentary to the City Administrator, when Engineer C had not been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Capability Engineer C Engineer B Decisions
Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that, lacking full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made specific professional decisions, Engineer C was not in a position to render fair specific critical opinions about those decisions.
Engineer C was asked to evaluate specific professional decisions made by Engineer B in the context of Engineer B's active consulting contract with the City, without having been party to the circumstances, constraints, or reasoning underlying those decisions.
Engineer C had not been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and lacked access to the full project record, yet proceeded to offer specific critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions to the City Administrator.
Incumbent Engineer Active Contract Covert Review Prohibition Engineer C Engineer B City A
The City Administrator solicited Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B was still under active contract with City A. Engineer C proceeded to criticize Engineer B's decisions without notifying Engineer B, in violation of the peer review notification requirement.
Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Before Peer Review Constraint
Engineer C was prohibited from reviewing or evaluating Engineer B's work for City A without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active, non-terminated contract with City A at the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Private Practice Peer Review Provision (Section III.7.a); BER Case 93-3
The Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
Throughout the period when Engineer B's contract with City A remained active and unterminated
Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Capability Engineer B City A Final Year
Engineer B was required to exercise the capability to continue performing all contracted engineering services faithfully and competently for the City through the final year of the contract, despite repeated questioning of professional judgment by the City Administrator and the improper competitive scrutiny being conducted by Engineer C.
Engineer B served as incumbent consulting engineer in the final year of a 3-year contract while the City Administrator repeatedly questioned Engineer B's judgment and simultaneously solicited a competitor to evaluate Engineer B's work.
Engineer B's obligation to maintain faithful performance persisted through the final contract year despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of Engineer B's judgment and the improper solicitation of competitor Engineer C to critique Engineer B's decisions.
Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Before Review Constraint Engineer C Engineer B Active Contract
Engineer B held an active consulting contract with City A and was in the final year of that contract. Engineer C evaluated and criticized Engineer B's specific professional decisions for the City Administrator without Engineer B's knowledge or notification, violating the requirement that an engineer not review another engineer's work for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer while the incumbent remains under active contract.
Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Before Review Constraint
Engineer C was prohibited from reviewing and evaluating Engineer B's work for City A without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active contract with City A and Engineer B's connection with the work had not been formally terminated.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7.a; BER Case 93-3
During Engineer B's final year of the active 3-year contract with City A
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer C in evaluating ethical obligations when responding to City Administrator inquiries about Engineer B's work
Primary normative authority governing Engineer C's obligations when approached by the City Administrator during an active procurement process, particularly provisions prohibiting injury to the professional reputation of other engineers and prohibiting use of procurement contacts for self-interested disparagement
NSPE BER Precedents on Competitor Disparagement in Procurement
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Cases on Engineer Conduct in Competitive Procurement Contexts
Ethical analysis of Engineer C's conduct
Provides analogical reasoning patterns for evaluating whether Engineer C's conduct — criticizing Engineer B's decisions when approached by a prospective client during a contract renewal — constitutes an ethical violation under professional norms governing fair competition and professional reputation
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Provision on Review of Another Engineer's Work
Further, the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C. Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
Establishes that engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client except with the knowledge of such engineer or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated; applied to Engineer C's review of Engineer B's work without Engineer B's knowledge while Engineer B remained under contract
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section III.6
Prohibits engineers from attempting to obtain employment or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers or by improper or questionable methods; applied to Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B during an active contract
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section III.7
Prohibits engineers from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers; applied to Engineer C's conduct toward Engineer B
NSPE Code of Ethics - Private Practice Peer Review Provision
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Provision on Review of Another Engineer's Work
the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated
BER in determining that Engineer C should not have reviewed Engineer B's work while Engineer B was still under contract and without Engineer B's knowledge
Cited as the specific prohibition on engineers in private practice reviewing the work of another engineer for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer or unless the prior engineer's connection has been terminated
NSPE Code of Ethics - Professional Obligations on Competitor Conduct
Engineer C in evaluating whether to answer the City Administrator's questions critically about Engineer B's work
Governs Engineer C's ethical obligations when approached by the City Administrator during the contract renewal process, particularly regarding the prohibition on injuring the professional reputation of Engineer B and the duty to avoid exploiting procurement contexts for competitive advantage
NSPE Code of Ethics - Public Official Conflict of Interest Provisions
Analysis of the City Administrator's role in the procurement process and Engineer C's decision to engage
Provides normative grounding for evaluating the City Administrator's conduct in contacting a competing firm during the contract period of Engineer B, and the ethical implications of the procurement process integrity
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section III.6
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 states that Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods
BER in evaluating Engineer C's conduct toward Engineer B during conversation with Client A
Cited as the primary normative prohibition against obtaining employment or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers or by improper or questionable methods
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section III.7
Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers
BER in evaluating whether Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B constituted an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional practice
Cited as the normative prohibition against maliciously or falsely injuring the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers
Non-Deception Constraint Engineer C Pretextual Critique City Administrator
Engineer C was aware that answering the City Administrator's questions critically would serve as a pretext for competitive advantage. By proceeding with specific critical opinions without disclosing this pretextual purpose or the competitive conflict of interest, Engineer C's conduct created a misleading impression that the critique was disinterested professional evaluation.
Engineer C was constrained by the non-deception obligation from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions in a manner that functioned as a pretext for competitive advantage while presenting those opinions as objective professional evaluation — prohibiting Engineer C from using the guise of technical advisory response to advance competitive self-interest in a manner that deceived the City Administrator about the true nature and motivation of the critique.
NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6
Pretext Aware Competitive Critique Self Restraint Engineer C City Administrator
Engineer C was aware that the City Administrator's solicitation placed Engineer C in a position where critical responses would serve as a pretext for competitive advantage, creating an independent constraint on substantive participation beyond the general prohibition on competitor disparagement.
Pretext-Aware Competitive Critique Self-Restraint Constraint
Engineer C, being aware that providing critical answers to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work would function as a pretext for competitive advantage in the upcoming contract renewal, was independently and additionally constrained from proceeding with substantive critique — beyond the general prohibition on competitor disparagement — by the self-awareness of the pretextual competitive purpose of the solicitation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case 01-1
At the time Engineer C recognized the competitive implications of the City Administrator's solicitation
Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint Engineer C City A Contract Competition
Engineer C leveraged a prior relationship with the City Administrator and responded to an informal solicitation with specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work, using the informal advisory interaction as a mechanism to gain competitive advantage in the upcoming procurement rather than competing solely on the basis of demonstrated merit and qualifications.
Engineer C was constrained to conduct all competitive activities for the next 3-year contract honorably, responsibly, and fairly — prohibiting the use of informal client relationships with the City Administrator, unsolicited or solicited critique of Engineer B's specific decisions, or exploitation of the City Administrator's procurement-influencing authority to gain competitive advantage through means other than demonstrated merit and qualifications.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6, and III.7
Throughout the pre-procurement period for the next 3-year consulting contract
The selection process loses its integrity as a fair competition; any outcome, whether Engineer B is retained or Engineer C is selected, is tainted by the improper pre-process communications; public interest in merit-based procurement is harmed regardless of ultimate selection outcome
Final contract year: before formal selection process launches, as a consequence of Administrator-Engineer C contact
The upcoming contract selection process is rendered structurally unfair as a result of the covert communications between the Administrator and Engineer C, creating conditions under which the selection outcome cannot be considered a genuine merit-based evaluation. The process is corrupted before it formally begins.
Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Capability City Administrator City A
The City Administrator failed to exercise the capability to recognize that soliciting Engineer C — a competitor with a prior relationship with the Administrator — to evaluate and criticize incumbent Engineer B's work during the final year of Engineer B's contract compromised the integrity of the upcoming contract renewal process.
The City Administrator coordinated Engineer B's work and would be heavily involved in selecting the next consulting firm, yet solicited a competitor to evaluate the incumbent's specific professional decisions.
The City Administrator contacted Engineer C to question specific issues Engineer B had worked on, despite being heavily involved in the upcoming contract selection process and having a prior relationship with Engineer C — creating an improper competitive dynamic that undermined procurement integrity.
Professional engineering community and public procurement regulatory frameworks
Professional Norms Governing Equitable Treatment in Public Engineering Procurement
City Administrator in coordinating the contract renewal selection process
Governs the City Administrator's conduct in the procurement process, establishing obligations of impartiality and equitable treatment of competing firms, and constraining the use of one competitor's critical commentary about another as a basis for procurement decisions
Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law - Municipal Contract Renewal
State legislature and municipal government
State and Municipal Qualification-Based Selection Statutes for Engineering Services
Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
City Administrator and Engineer C in the context of the contract renewal process
Establishes the legal framework governing the procurement process for the next 3-year consulting engineering contract, within which Engineer C's conduct must be evaluated for compliance with both legal and ethical standards
Is Engineer C’s answering of the City Administrator’s questions and his criticism of Engineer B ethical?
Does the City Administrator bear independent ethical or legal responsibility for soliciting Engineer C's critique of Engineer B outside any formal review process, and should the Board have addressed the Administrator's conduct separately from Engineer C's?
Would Engineer C's conduct have been ethical if he had declined to criticize Engineer B's specific decisions but still answered the City Administrator's general technical questions, and where exactly is the ethical line between permissible general commentary and impermissible specific critique?
Was Engineer C obligated to proactively disclose his competitive conflict of interest to the City Administrator before answering any questions, and would such disclosure alone have been sufficient to render his participation ethical?
What recourse, if any, does Engineer B have upon learning that a competitor was informally consulted about his work during an active contract period, and does the case imply any obligation on Engineer C or the City Administrator to notify Engineer B that such a review occurred?
Does the Honesty Principle conflict with the Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique when Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B are factually accurate but are delivered in a context that confers an improper competitive advantage — and if so, which principle should prevail?
How does the Fairness in Professional Competition principle conflict with the Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition when Engineer C is directly invited by the client's authorized representative to share his professional opinion — does the solicited nature of the critique mitigate or eliminate Engineer C's ethical responsibility to decline?
Does the Objectivity Obligation imposed on Engineer C conflict with the Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation when the very act of providing an objective technical critique — however accurate — simultaneously serves Engineer C's competitive self-interest in winning the next contract?
Does the Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint conflict with the Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation when the City Administrator — who has legitimate authority over the procurement — specifically requests Engineer C's technical input, creating a tension between Engineer C's epistemic duty to withhold judgment and the client's apparent right to seek outside technical perspectives?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer C violate a categorical duty to refrain from reviewing or criticizing a fellow engineer's work for the same client without proper authorization, regardless of whether the criticism was factually accurate?
From a consequentialist perspective, did the harm caused to Engineer B's professional reputation, the integrity of the municipal procurement process, and the broader engineering profession outweigh any potential benefit to Client A from receiving Engineer C's informal technical opinions?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer C demonstrate the professional integrity and collegial character expected of an honorable engineer by participating in an informal critique of a competitor's active work, knowing full well that doing so served his own competitive self-interest?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer C have an independent duty to disclose his conflict of interest as a competing firm to the City Administrator before answering any questions about Engineer B's work, and does the failure to make that disclosure constitute a separate ethical violation from the act of criticism itself?
Would Engineer C's conduct have been ethical if he had declined to offer specific criticism of Engineer B's decisions and instead responded only in general technical terms, without reference to Engineer B's particular choices, while also disclosing his status as a competing firm to the City Administrator?
Would the ethical outcome have changed if Engineer C had possessed full and complete knowledge of all the circumstances surrounding Engineer B's decisions, including the constraints, client directives, and technical context Engineer B faced, rather than operating from incomplete circumstantial knowledge?
What if the City Administrator had initiated a formal, structured peer review process with proper notice to Engineer B and transparent competitive safeguards — would Engineer C's participation in that process have been ethically permissible under the same code provisions?
Would Engineer C's ethical obligations have differed if the City Administrator had approached him after Engineer B's contract had already expired and the formal competitive selection process for the new contract had officially commenced, rather than during the final year of Engineer B's active contract?
Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Maintenance Capability Engineer C Critical Evaluation
Having chosen to respond to the City Administrator's solicitation, Engineer C was obligated to exercise the capability to provide only objective, technically grounded assessments of Engineer B's decisions — but instead provided criticism that Engineer C recognized could serve as a competitive pretext.
Engineer C provided critical opinions about Engineer B's specific professional decisions to the City Administrator, who controlled the upcoming contract selection, while recognizing the competitive motivation underlying the response.
Engineer C answered the City Administrator's questions and was critical of Engineer B's decisions while simultaneously recognizing that answering 'in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage' — indicating that the critique was not purely objective.
State Licensing Board Rules - Solicitation and Competition Provisions
State engineering licensing boards, patterned after NCEES Model Rules
State Engineering Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
Engineer C in determining the ethical limits of responding to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B
Establishes the regulatory framework governing permissible competitive conduct by licensed engineers, including prohibitions on false or misleading statements about competitors and obligations to compete fairly during procurement processes
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
The loyalty obligation runs in both directions — Engineer B owes faithful service to City A, and City A owes Engineer B fair dealing during the active contract period, including refraining from covert competitive evaluation of Engineer B's work through a competitor
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides any obligation to respond to the City Administrator's requests, because the Code's prohibition is categorical when the incumbent lacks knowledge and the contract is active
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
The obligation to conduct fair procurement processes overrides any administrative convenience or personal preference the City Administrator may have for informal competitive intelligence gathering; the proper mechanism for evaluating incumbent performance is formal performance review, not solicitation of competitor critique
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
The obligation to conduct fair procurement overrides any administrative interest in obtaining additional information about the incumbent's performance through informal competitive channels
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
The client's interest in obtaining independent technical assessment does not justify using a competitor as the source of that assessment during active procurement, as the competitor's interest in the outcome renders the assessment inherently unreliable and the process unfair
The conflict of interest disclosure obligation required Engineer C to either decline to provide the critique or affirmatively disclose his competitive interest before doing so; providing the critique without disclosure compounded the ethical violation by depriving the client of information necessary to evaluate the objectivity of the advice
Disclosure of the conflict does not necessarily prohibit providing the opinion, but failure to disclose while providing self-serving critical opinions constitutes a violation of the relational principle governing advisory engagements
The prohibition on competitive critique overrides any general obligation to answer truthful questions, because the context of competitive procurement transforms truthful critique into an improper mechanism for gaining competitive advantage
Engineer B's faithful agent obligation is not compromised by the City Administrator's questioning; Engineer B retains professional authority over engineering judgments and is not obligated to defer to non-engineer administrative preferences on technical matters
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides the obligation to respond to client requests for evaluation when the incumbent is unaware and the contract is active
The prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique overrides Engineer C's interest in responding to the City Administrator's questions, because the competitive context makes participation inherently improper regardless of the content of the critique
The prohibition on competitor critique overrides any obligation Engineer C might feel to answer the City Administrator's questions honestly, because participation itself — regardless of truthfulness — constitutes improper conduct in this competitive context
The prohibitions on competitive critique and reputation injury override the engineer's interest in being forthright with the client, because the competitive and epistemic context makes the critique improper regardless of its subjective truthfulness
The prohibition on using competitor critique as competitive pretext overrides any general obligation to share professional opinions when the engineer is aware the context is inherently self-serving; only genuine misconduct rising to reportable levels would create an overriding obligation to respond
Subjective truthfulness does not satisfy the principle's requirement; accuracy requires full situational knowledge, which Engineer C lacked, so restraint from specific critique was obligatory even if Engineer C believed the critique to be true
The principle of epistemic humility and professional fairness requires that engineers refrain from rendering specific critical opinions when they lack full situational context, even if their opinions are subjectively truthful based on the limited information available to them
Fairness in competition overrides any interest Engineer C might have in responding to the City Administrator's questions, because participation — regardless of content — constitutes exploitation of an unfair competitive opportunity
The principle of fair competition takes precedence over any obligation Engineer C might have to share technical opinions, because the context of active competition renders the critique self-serving rather than professionally objective
The restraint from critique under incomplete situational knowledge overrides the general obligation to respond to client inquiries, because subjectively truthful opinions may be objectively inaccurate when situational knowledge is incomplete
Even if Engineer C's critique was technically accurate, the self-serving competitive context in which it was rendered renders it ethically impermissible under this principle, because the reputational harm to Engineer B serves Engineer C's competitive interest rather than any legitimate professional or public welfare purpose
Objectivity cannot be maintained when the engineer providing the opinion is simultaneously competing for the work being evaluated; the structural conflict of interest makes genuine objectivity impossible in this context
The requirement that incumbent engineers have knowledge of competitive evaluations of their work is a precondition for participation in any such evaluation; absent that knowledge, the evaluation is covert and inherently unfair regardless of its technical accuracy
When competitive interest compromises objectivity, the engineer must decline to render specific evaluations rather than proceeding with a compromised assessment
The self-serving nature of the advisory engagement is not cured by the technical accuracy of any individual criticism; the structural conflict of interest taints the entire advisory engagement
Subjective truthfulness does not satisfy the honesty principle when the engineer lacks sufficient situational knowledge to ensure objective accuracy; restraint from specific critique is required
franchiser discussions with replacement Engineer B (Case 93-3) before expiration of Engineer A's contract (Case 93-3)
In order to maintain continuity and before the contract expired, the franchiser began discussions with Engineer B
franchiser discussions with replacement Engineer B (Case 93-3)
expiration of Engineer A's contract (Case 93-3)
franchiser instruction to Engineer B not to disclose (BER 93-3) before Engineer B's review and notification to Engineer A (BER 93-3)
franchiser instruction to Engineer B not to disclose (Case 93-3) before Engineer B's design review (Case 93-3)
Prior to the review, franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to Engineer A, Engineer B's relationship with franchiser.
franchiser instruction to Engineer B not to disclose (Case 93-3)
franchiser's discussions with Engineer B (BER 93-3) before Engineer A's contract expiration (BER 93-3)
franchiser's notice to Engineer A of non-renewal (BER 93-3) before franchiser's discussions with Engineer B (BER 93-3)
next 3-year contract selection process after current 3-year contract period
Engineer C should have declined to provide critical evaluations of Engineer B's work when solicited by the City Administrator, recognizing that doing so during an active contract renewal process constituted using professional opinion as a p
Engineer C, a competitor for future work with Client A, was asked by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under active contract, creating a direct conflict of interest that should have caused Engine
Engineer C, a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract, provided critical evaluations of incumbent Engineer B's specific professional decisions when solicited by the City Administrator who controls the contr
Engineer C's critical evaluation of Engineer B's decisions was rendered with the knowledge that critical answers would advantage Engineer C in the upcoming contract competition, compromising the objectivity that professional engineering opi
Engineer C's competitive interest in securing the upcoming City contract compromised the objectivity of any evaluation of incumbent Engineer B's work, making it impossible for Engineer C to render an impartial professional assessment
Engineer C, having a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the City A contract renewal, was obligated to affirmatively disclose that conflict of interest to the City Administrator before providing any opinions on Engineer
Engineer C provided critical evaluations of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator without disclosing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the contract that Engineer B currently held and was seeking to renew, d
The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C for incumbent critique, combined with Engineer C's willingness to provide that critique, created an asymmetric competitive dynamic in which Engineer C gained insider knowledge of the clien
Engineer C's participation in critiquing Engineer B while competing for the same contract undermines the fairness of the professional competition for the next 3-year consulting contract with City A
Engineer C's participation in the City Administrator's solicited critique of Engineer B created an unfair competitive advantage for Engineer C in the upcoming contract renewal process, undermining the principle that engineering work should
Engineer C may have believed the criticism of Engineer B to be truthful, but because Engineer C lacked full situational knowledge, the criticism may have been objectively inaccurate. The case distinguishes between subjective truthfulness an
Engineer C's subjective belief in the truthfulness of the critique of Engineer B's work was insufficient to render the critique ethically permissible, because honesty alone does not satisfy the professional obligations that prohibit competi
Engineer C evaluated and criticized Engineer B's professional decisions at the City Administrator's request without Engineer B having any knowledge that a competitor had been engaged to critique his work under the active contract
Engineer C rendered specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions without having access to the full project record, client instructions, contractual constraints, site conditions, or other contextual factors that shape
Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made professional decisions, yet rendered specific critical opinions about those decisions. This violated the principle requiring restraint from specific critique
Engineer C's provision of critical opinions on Engineer B's work, with full awareness that doing so 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position, constitutes a self-serving advisory engagement prohibited by profession
Engineer C provided critical assessments of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator, knowing that these critical assessments could damage Engineer B's prospects for contract renewal and benefit Engineer C's competitive
Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work, rendered in a context where Engineer C stood to gain competitive advantage by diminishing Engineer B's standing with Client A, constituted an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional reputation
Any evaluation of whether Engineer C's conduct constitutes reportable misconduct must distinguish between providing technically accurate but competitively motivated critique (ethically problematic but potentially not reportable) versus affi
Engineer C's awareness that answering 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position obligated him to provide only objective, technically grounded assessments of Engineer B's work — or to decline — rather than shaping h
Engineer C rendered specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work without having been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and without knowing all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed the work, resulting in op
Engineer C reviewed and criticized Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B remained under an active contract with Client A that had not been terminated, violating the NSPE Code requirement that such r
Engineer B, as incumbent consulting engineer, is obligated to continue performing faithfully under the active 3-year contract despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of his professional judgment, retaining the right to defend
Engineer B's professional dignity was compromised by the City Administrator's solicitation of a competitor's critique of Engineer B's work without Engineer B's knowledge, denying Engineer B the opportunity to provide context for professiona
Engineer B's professional dignity was violated when Engineer C criticized Engineer B's work to the City Administrator without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B remained under active contract, depriving Engineer B of any opportunity t
Engineer B, as the incumbent consulting engineer under an active 3-year contract with City A, bears a loyalty obligation to serve the city's engineering needs faithfully during the contract period, while the city's simultaneous solicitation
The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C — a competitor — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's work during the active contract renewal process constitutes an improper use of administrative authority that undermines the integrity
The City Administrator used administrative authority to solicit Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work during an active contract and concurrent renewal process, exploiting the procurement process to obtain competitive intelligence again
The City Administrator, who holds significant authority over the next contract selection, solicited Engineer C — a competitor with whom the City Administrator had prior experience — to evaluate and criticize specific decisions of incumbent
Engineer C reviewed and criticized Engineer B's work without Engineer B having any knowledge of the review, while Engineer B remained under active contract with Client A. This violated the Code requirement that engineers not review another
Engineer B's professional dignity was compromised by Engineer C's willingness to provide self-serving critical assessments of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator in a procurement context, without Engineer B's knowl
Engineer B was obligated to continue performing all contracted services faithfully, competently, and in Client A's best interests for the duration of the active 3-year contract, notwithstanding the City Administrator's repeated questioning
Engineer B was obligated to continue performing all contracted engineering services faithfully, competently, and in City A's best interests throughout the final year of the active 3-year contract, notwithstanding the City Administrator's re
If Engineer C chose to respond at all to the City Administrator's solicitation, Engineer C was obligated to limit any response to general engineering observations, refraining from specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular dec
Engineer C was obligated to refrain from rendering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions, given that Engineer C lacked access to the full project record, client instructions, budget constraints, and decision-m
Engineer C was obligated to refrain from rendering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work because Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Eng
Having agreed to respond to the City Administrator's solicitation, Engineer C was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments of the specific issues raised, refraining from framing opinions 'in a cert
Engineer C, having engaged in conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's work despite the obligation to decline, was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments, refraining from frami
Engineer C, having agreed to respond to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work, was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments of the specific engineering issues raised, refrainin
Engineer C was obligated to recognize that any subjective belief in the truthfulness of critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions did not render those opinions ethically permissible, given Engineer C's lack of full situational knowledg
Engineer C was obligated to recognize that his subjective belief in the truthfulness of his critique of Engineer B's work was insufficient to render that critique ethically permissible, given that Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the cir
Engineer C was obligated to refrain from evaluating and criticizing Engineer B's professional decisions for the City Administrator without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active, non-terminated contract with
Engineer C was obligated to refrain from reviewing or evaluating Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active, non-terminated contract with Client A at the time of the review.
Engineer B was obligated to continue performing all consulting engineering services for City A faithfully, competently, and in the city's best interests throughout the final year of the active 3-year contract, notwithstanding the City Admin
Engineer C was obligated, as a matter of collegial duty toward Engineer B as a professional peer, to refrain from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions in a context where those opinions were solicited by a par
Engineer C was obligated to refrain from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of Engineer B through competitive critique rendered without full
Engineer C was obligated to conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all matters related to the City A contract renewal procurement, including declining to participate in a solicitation that placed Engineer C in the role of
Engineer C was obligated to decline the City Administrator's solicitation to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's professional decisions, recognizing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering cont
Engineer C was obligated to decline the City Administrator's solicitation to evaluate and critique Engineer B's engineering decisions, recognizing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal and that pro
Engineer C was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator, before providing any critical opinions about Engineer B's work, that Engineer C's firm was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal and that t
The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a direct competitor for the upcoming contract renewal — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's engineering decisions during the active contract period and pending r
The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a competitor with a prior relationship with the City Administrator who would be competing for the next 3-year contract — to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's pro
The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a competitor for the Client A contract — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's work during the active contract period and concurrent renewal process, recognizing t
The City Administrator was obligated to ensure that the process for selecting the next consulting engineering firm was conducted fairly and without exploitation of the City Administrator's prior relationship with Engineer C, refraining from
Engineer C was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator his direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the Client A contract renewal before or contemporaneously with providing any opinion about Engineer B's
Engineer C was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract — and therefore had a direct competitive financial interest in the
Engineer C, having been solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work while competing for the same contract and lacking full knowledge of Engineer B's circumstances, was obligated to limit any response to general observa
Engineer C, having been solicited by the City Administrator to comment on Engineer B's work while competing for future work with Client A, was obligated to limit any response to general observations only and to avoid commenting on specific
City Administrator Procurement-Influencing Informal Peer Solicitation
From City Administrator's contact with Engineer C through conclusion of the procurement process
Procurement-Influencing Authority Informal Peer Solicitation State
City Administrator's informal solicitation of competitor Engineer C's technical opinions on incumbent Engineer B's work while holding significant procurement influence over the upcoming contract selection
Formal procurement process with appropriate role separation, or City Administrator recusal from procurement
City Administrator, who will be heavily involved in next contract selection, contacts competing firm Engineer C to question Engineer B's specific work decisions
City Administrator Procurement-Influencing Informal Solicitation of Engineer C
During the informal conversation between City Administrator and Engineer C
City Administrator's informal solicitation of Engineer C's technical opinions about Engineer B outside any formal review process
The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration
City Administrator contacted Engineer C informally to obtain opinions on Engineer B's work while holding procurement influence over future contract selection
Engineer B Active Contract During Engineer C Solicitation
From the time Client A (City Administrator) contacted Engineer C through the point of the ethical analysis; contract not yet terminated
Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated
Incumbent Engineer Under Active Contract State
Engineer B's contractual relationship with Client A at the time of Engineer C's informal consultation
Not terminated within the case — Engineer B's contract remains active throughout
Client A solicited Engineer C's opinions about Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under active contract
Engineer B Client Relationship Final Year
Duration of the 3-year contract, currently in final year
Engineer B's active professional relationship with City (Client A) under the 3-year consulting contract in its final year
Client A is a city which receives consulting engineering services from a selected private firm.
City selected Engineer B under the 3-year consulting contract
Engineer B Incumbent Under Active Contract
Throughout the final year of the 3-year consulting contract, including at the time Engineer C is informally solicited
Engineer B's contractual relationship with City A
Expiration or termination of the 3-year contract
Engineer B's ongoing engagement under the 3-year contract with City A
Engineer C Competing Engineer Solicited for Incumbent Critique
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'competitive_status': 'Competitor for the next 3-year contract', 'prior_relationship': 'Previous experience with City Administrator', 'ethical_awareness': 'Fully realizes the competitive pretext of answering critically'}
A competing engineer with prior relationship with the City Administrator who is contacted and asked to evaluate specific decisions of the incumbent engineer, recognizes the competitive pretext, but proceeds to answer critically in a manner that constitutes an unfair competitive practice and potential injury to the incumbent's professional reputation.
{'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract'}
{'type': 'potential_client', 'target': 'City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}
{'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority'}
The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C
Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions
Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract
The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City
Engineer C Competitive Self-Interest in Evaluation Context
From Client A's informal solicitation through Engineer C's response and any subsequent procurement activity
Engineer C's position as a competing firm being informally solicited by Client A who holds procurement influence over future work
Completion of any subsequent procurement process or Engineer C's recusal
Competitive edges are sought to win work over other firms
Client A informally soliciting Engineer C's technical opinions on Engineer B's work, creating a competitive advantage opportunity
Engineer C Competitor Informal Consultation with City Administrator
During and following the City Administrator's informal conversation with Engineer C about Engineer B's work
Engineer C's position as a competing firm being informally consulted by Client A about incumbent Engineer B's work
City Administrator (Client A) contacted Engineer C to solicit opinions on Engineer B's engineering decisions
Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge of Engineer B's Decisions
From the moment Engineer C was contacted by Client A through the conversation in which Engineer C offered critical opinions
Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Criticism State
Engineer C's epistemic position relative to Engineer B's work decisions when responding to Client A
Not resolved within the case — Engineer C proceeded to comment without obtaining full contextual knowledge
Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances
Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful
Client A solicited Engineer C's specific technical opinions about Engineer B's work decisions without Engineer C having been involved in Engineer B's process
Engineer C Procurement-Influencing Authority Informal Solicitation
During and following the informal conversation between Client A and Engineer C
Client A (City Administrator) informally soliciting Engineer C's opinions on Engineer B's work outside any formal procurement or peer review process
Formal procurement process initiated with proper procedures, or matter resolved
City Administrator contacting Engineer C informally to solicit critical technical opinions on the incumbent engineer's work
Engineer C Self-Interested Delivery Method Recommendation Analog
From Engineer C's receipt of City Administrator's questions through Engineer C's critical responses
Self-Interested Delivery Method Recommendation State
Engineer C's provision of technical opinions critical of Engineer B, structured to serve Engineer C's competitive interest in winning the next contract rather than to provide objective professional assessment
Engineer C provides objective, conflict-disclosed assessment or declines to respond
Engineer C recognizes that answering questions in a particular perspective would be a pretext to gaining competitive advantage, yet proceeds to answer critically
Professional Dignity of Engineer B Implicated By Engineer C Conduct
Engineer B's professional standing and reputation in the context of the contract renewal process
Engineer B's professional dignity was compromised by Engineer C's willingness to provide self-serving critical assessments of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator in a procurement context, without Engineer B's knowledge and without Engineer B having any opportunity to contextualize or respond to the critique
In this context, the principle of professional dignity required Engineer C to refrain from providing critical evaluations of Engineer B's work in a covert, self-serving procurement context that denied Engineer B the basic professional courtesy of knowing that his decisions were being evaluated by a competitor at the client's request
Professional dignity requires that critical evaluations of an engineer's work be rendered in contexts that afford the engineer basic procedural fairness — including notice and an opportunity to respond — rather than in covert competitive contexts designed to damage the engineer's standing for the critic's benefit
Professional Dignity of Engineer B Implicated by Covert Competitive Review
Engineer B's professional standing and reputation with Client A
Engineer B's professional dignity was compromised by the City Administrator's solicitation of a competitor's critique of Engineer B's work without Engineer B's knowledge, denying Engineer B the opportunity to provide context for professional decisions and exposing Engineer B's work to potentially inaccurate criticism from a party with a competitive interest in Engineer B's diminished standing
Professional dignity requires that engineers not be subjected to covert competitive evaluation of their work while under active contract; the incumbent knowledge requirement in the NSPE Code operationalizes this dignity interest
Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer
Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C. Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
Engineer B's professional dignity interest in knowing about and having the opportunity to respond to critique of work performed under contract outweighs the City Administrator's interest in obtaining informal competitive assessments
Professional Dignity of Engineer B Violated by Covert Critique
Engineer B's professional dignity was violated when Engineer C criticized Engineer B's work to the City Administrator without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B remained under active contract, depriving Engineer B of any opportunity to respond to or contextualize the criticism
In this context, professional dignity required that Engineer B have knowledge of any review or critique of his work conducted for the same client, so that Engineer B could respond to or contextualize the criticism rather than being subject to covert competitive displacement
Professional dignity requires that incumbent engineers have knowledge of reviews of their work, overriding any client interest in conducting covert competitive evaluations
Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Violated by Engineer C and Client A
Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work for Client A
Engineer C reviewed and criticized Engineer B's work without Engineer B having any knowledge of the review, while Engineer B remained under active contract with Client A. This violated the Code requirement that engineers not review another engineer's work for the same client without the incumbent's knowledge or termination of the incumbent's contract.
In this context, the incumbent knowledge requirement prohibited Engineer C from proceeding with any evaluation of Engineer B's work without first ensuring Engineer B had knowledge of the review, because Engineer B's contract was active and had not been terminated
City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority
Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition Invoked By Engineer C
Engineer C's response to City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's decisions
Engineer C, a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract, provided critical evaluations of incumbent Engineer B's specific professional decisions when solicited by the City Administrator who controls the contract selection process, despite recognizing that doing so would give Engineer C a competitive advantage
In this context, the principle required Engineer C to decline the City Administrator's solicitation for critique of Engineer B's work, because Engineer C's competitive interest in the upcoming contract made participation in such critique an improper exploitation of a conflict of interest that undermines fair competition and the integrity of the procurement process
Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract. Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
Engineer B Client Relationship Under Strained Authority
Throughout the final year of the 3-year contract
Engineer B's active professional relationship with City A, operating under a City Administrator who has repeatedly questioned Engineer B's judgment and holds procurement authority over the next contract
Engineer B's ongoing engagement under the contract combined with the City Administrator's repeated questioning of Engineer B's judgment
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'contract_status': 'Final year of 3-year term contract', 'performance_status': 'Judgment questioned by City Administrator on multiple occasions'}
Currently performing consulting engineering services for City A in the final year of a 3-year contract; subject to repeated questioning of professional judgment by the City Administrator; subject to critical commentary provided by competitor Engineer C to the City Administrator.
{'type': 'evaluated_by', 'target': 'City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority'}
{'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}
{'type': 'subject_of_critique_by', 'target': 'Engineer C Competing Engineer Improperly Solicited for Incumbent Critique'}
Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract
Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract
The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period
Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'contract_status': 'Final year of active 3-year contract', 'professional_standing': 'Subject to judgment challenges by City Administrator'}
Currently performing consulting engineering services for the city in the final year of a 3-year contract, subject to repeated questioning of professional judgment by the City Administrator, and whose specific decisions are being solicited for critique from a competitor.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}
{'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'Engineer C Competing Engineer Solicited for Incumbent Critique'}
{'type': 'subject_of_critique', 'target': 'City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority'}
Engineer B Incumbent Faithful Performance Obligation Instance
Engineer B served as incumbent consulting engineer for Client A in the final year of a 3-year contract while the City Administrator questioned Engineer B's judgment and simultaneously solicited Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work.
Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Under Contested Contract Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to continue performing all contracted services faithfully, competently, and in Client A's best interests for the duration of the active 3-year contract, notwithstanding the City Administrator's repeated questioning of Engineer B's professional judgment and the concurrent contract renewal competition.
Engineer B was still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
Throughout the duration of the active 3-year consulting contract
Engineer B, as incumbent consulting engineer, is obligated to continue performing faithfully under the active 3-year contract despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of professional judgment.
Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
From Client A's conversation with Engineer C through any point at which Engineer B is notified
Client A's solicitation of Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work without Engineer B's knowledge
Engineer B being notified of the evaluation, or Engineer C declining to participate
Client A contacting Engineer C to evaluate Engineer B's work without notifying Engineer B
Engineer C Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Obligation Instance
Engineer C had a direct competitive financial interest in the Client A contract renewal and was simultaneously being asked to evaluate the incumbent engineer's work by the same client's administrator.
Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Before Advisory Critique Obligation
Engineer C was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator his direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the Client A contract renewal before or contemporaneously with providing any opinion about Engineer B's work, so that the City Administrator could appropriately weigh Engineer C's opinions in light of Engineer C's self-interest.
Before or contemporaneously with providing any opinion about Engineer B's work to the City Administrator
Engineer C Competitor Informal Consultation
From the moment City Administrator contacts Engineer C through Engineer C's provision of critical responses about Engineer B's decisions
Engineer C's receipt of informal technical questions from City Administrator about Engineer B's work during active procurement competition
Not yet terminated — Engineer C has responded critically without disclosed recusal or conflict acknowledgment
City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City
Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Solicitation Response
From the moment Engineer C recognizes the competitive advantage potential through the conclusion of the procurement process
Engineer C's personal competitive interest in securing the next contract conflicting with the professional obligation to provide honest, unbiased technical opinion about Engineer B's work
Conclusion of the procurement process or Engineer C's recusal from the informal solicitation
Engineer C realizing that answering questions critically about Engineer B would serve as a pretext for competitive advantage in the upcoming contract selection
Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Procurement Competition
Engineer C's simultaneous role as technical commentator on Engineer B's work and competitor for the contract Engineer B currently holds
Conclusion of procurement process or Engineer C's recusal from either the consultation or the competition
City Administrator solicits Engineer C's technical opinions while Engineer C is a competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract
Engineer C General-Only Response Limitation Obligation Instance
Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made professional decisions, yet was asked to provide specific evaluations of those decisions by the City Administrator during the active contract period.
General-Only Response Limitation When Solicited as Competitor Obligation
Engineer C, having been solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work while competing for the same contract and lacking full knowledge of Engineer B's circumstances, was obligated to limit any response to general observations only and to refrain from specific critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions, methods, or professional judgment.
During the conversation with the City Administrator in which specific evaluations of Engineer B's decisions were solicited
Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.
Engineer C General Only Response Limitation Obligation Instance
Engineer C was asked by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work during the active contract period and concurrent renewal competition, creating a conflict of interest that required Engineer C to limit any response to general terms.
Engineer C, having been solicited by the City Administrator to comment on Engineer B's work while competing for future work with Client A, was obligated to limit any response to general observations only and to avoid commenting on specific issues related to Engineer B's professional decisions and judgment.
During the conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's work
Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Criticism
At the time Engineer C responds critically to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work
Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions without involvement in or full knowledge of the circumstances under which those decisions were made
Engineer C refraining from further criticism or obtaining full context of Engineer B's decisions
Engineer C offering critical assessments of Engineer B's decisions without having been involved in the decision-making process or having full knowledge of the constraints Engineer B faced
Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge of Engineer B's Work
During Engineer C's conversation with Client A and any subsequent evaluation activity
Engineer C's lack of full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made design decisions
Engineer C obtaining full knowledge of Engineer B's circumstances, or refraining from criticism
Engineer C offering critical opinions about Engineer B's work without having been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
General Only Response Limitation Engineer C City Administrator Solicitation
Engineer C, a competitor for the upcoming contract, was solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate specific decisions made by Engineer B, and responded with specific critical opinions rather than limiting the response to general observations.
If Engineer C chose to respond at all to the City Administrator's solicitation, Engineer C was obligated to limit any response to general engineering observations, refraining from specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular decisions, methods, or professional judgment, so as to avoid improper competitive advantage and potential injury to Engineer B's professional reputation.
At the time of formulating and delivering responses to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's specific decisions
Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Engineer C Engineer B Decisions
Engineer C was asked by the City Administrator to evaluate specific decisions made by Engineer B on city engineering matters, without having access to the full project record or the circumstances under which Engineer B made those decisions.
Incomplete Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique Obligation
Engineer C was obligated to refrain from rendering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions, given that Engineer C lacked access to the full project record, client instructions, budget constraints, and decision-making context under which Engineer B performed the work, recognizing that such incomplete critique could unjustly injure Engineer B's professional reputation.
At the time of the City Administrator's solicitation and throughout any response provided
Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Engineer B City A Final Year
Engineer B is in the final year of a 3-year consulting engineering contract with City A, during which the City Administrator has questioned Engineer B's judgment on several occasions and is simultaneously involved in selecting the firm for the next 3-year contract.
Engineer B was obligated to continue performing all contracted engineering services faithfully, competently, and in City A's best interests throughout the final year of the active 3-year contract, notwithstanding the City Administrator's repeated questioning of Engineer B's professional judgment and the pending renewal competition, refraining from allowing competitive uncertainty or administrative criticism to diminish the quality or completeness of services delivered.
Throughout the final year of the active 3-year contract, until the contract period expires
Objectivity Principle Violated By Engineer C
Engineer C's professional assessment of Engineer B's specific engineering decisions
Engineer C's critical evaluation of Engineer B's decisions was rendered with the knowledge that critical answers would advantage Engineer C in the upcoming contract competition, compromising the objectivity that professional engineering opinions require
In this context, Engineer C's competitive interest in the outcome of his critique of Engineer B was sufficiently proximate and material to compromise the objectivity of his professional assessment — Engineer C could not render an objective professional opinion about a competitor's work when the content of that opinion directly affected Engineer C's competitive prospects
The objectivity principle required Engineer C to recognize that his competitive interest in the outcome of his critique disqualified him from rendering an objective professional opinion, and to decline to provide the critique on that basis
Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization Applied to Engineer C Critique
Engineer C's critical opinions on Engineer B's engineering decisions
Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
Any evaluation of whether Engineer C's conduct constitutes reportable misconduct must distinguish between providing technically accurate but competitively motivated critique (ethically problematic but potentially not reportable) versus affirmatively misrepresenting Engineer B's work to gain competitive advantage (potentially reportable misconduct)
Proportionality requires that the ethical analysis of Engineer C's conduct calibrate the severity of the violation to the nature of the critique — self-interested but technically accurate critique differs in ethical weight from fabricated or exaggerated criticism
Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
The proportionality principle does not excuse Engineer C's conduct but calibrates the appropriate response; the core ethical violation is the conflict of interest and self-serving nature of the engagement, regardless of technical accuracy
Honesty Principle Tension with Accuracy in Engineer C Critique
Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B's professional decisions
Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
Engineer C may have believed the criticism of Engineer B to be truthful, but because Engineer C lacked full situational knowledge, the criticism may have been objectively inaccurate. The case distinguishes between subjective truthfulness and objective accuracy, finding that Engineer C's subjective honesty did not excuse the impropriety of the critique.
In this context, honesty required not only subjective truthfulness but also epistemic humility about the limits of one's situational knowledge, and restraint from rendering specific opinions when that knowledge was insufficient to ensure objective accuracy
Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation.
However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Invoked By Engineer C
Engineer C's covert evaluation of Engineer B's work for the City Administrator
In this context, Engineer C's participation in a covert competitive evaluation of Engineer B's work — without Engineer B's knowledge — violated both Engineer B's professional dignity and the integrity of the procurement process, because Engineer B had no opportunity to contextualize, respond to, or even be aware of the competitive critique being rendered against his professional decisions
Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation Applied to Engineer C
Engineer C's advisory opinions provided to City Administrator about Engineer B
Engineer C's provision of critical opinions on Engineer B's work, with full awareness that doing so 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position, constitutes a self-serving advisory engagement prohibited by professional ethics
The non-self-serving advisory obligation prohibits engineers from structuring professional opinions to serve their own commercial interests; Engineer C's conscious awareness of the competitive pretext renders his critique a self-serving advisory product rather than a genuine professional assessment
Objectivity Compromised by Engineer C's Competitive Interest
Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's professional decisions for Client A
Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements
In this context, objectivity required Engineer C to recognize that a direct competitive interest in the outcome of the evaluation — securing future work from Client A — fundamentally compromised the ability to render an impartial professional opinion about the incumbent's work
Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Engineer C Critical Evaluation
Engineer C provided critical evaluations of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator, with full awareness that answering in a certain perspective would serve as a pretext for gaining competitive advantage in the upcoming contract selection.
Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation
Having agreed to respond to the City Administrator's solicitation, Engineer C was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments of the specific issues raised, refraining from framing opinions 'in a certain perspective' designed to advantage Engineer C's competitive position for the upcoming contract, and to include all relevant information pertinent to a fair evaluation of Engineer B's work.
Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition Engineer C Critique of Engineer B
Engineer C provided critical assessments of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator, knowing that critical answers would advantage Engineer C in the upcoming contract competition, without having full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made those decisions.
Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition in Competitor Critique Obligation
Engineer C was obligated to recognize that any subjective belief in the truthfulness of critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions did not render those opinions ethically permissible, given Engineer C's lack of full situational knowledge and direct competitive interest in the outcome, and to refrain from providing specific critical opinions on that basis alone.
At the time of formulating and delivering responses to the City Administrator's questions
City Administrator Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Obligation Instance
The City Administrator, who holds significant authority over the next contract selection process and has a prior relationship with Engineer C, contacted Engineer C to obtain critical opinions about Engineer B's work while Engineer B's active contract was still in force and the renewal competition was underway.
City Administrator (acting on behalf of City A)
Client Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Obligation
The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a direct competitor for the upcoming contract renewal — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's engineering decisions during the active contract period and pending renewal process, recognizing that such solicitation compromised the fairness of the competitive procurement process, created a conflict of interest for Engineer C, and undermined Engineer B's professional standing without due process.
During the active contract period and the concurrent contract renewal selection process
Client Procurement Process Integrity City Administrator City A
The City Administrator, who held significant authority over the next contract selection, contacted Engineer C — a competing firm with whom the City Administrator had prior experience — to evaluate specific decisions made by incumbent Engineer B during the active contract period.
The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a competitor with a prior relationship with the City Administrator who would be competing for the next 3-year contract — to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's professional decisions during the active contract period and pending renewal process, recognizing that such solicitation compromised the fairness of the competitive process, created conflicts of interest for Engineer C, and undermined Engineer B's professional standing without due process.
During the active contract period and pending renewal process, before the next contract selection had been completed
Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer C
Engineer C's participation in evaluation of Engineer B's work for Client A
Engineer C, a competitor for future work with Client A, was asked by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under active contract, creating a direct conflict of interest that should have caused Engineer C to decline participation
The prohibition on competitor critique solicitation applies with full force when the competing engineer is asked to evaluate specific work products of the incumbent, as Engineer C was asked to do here, because the competitive advantage gained from such participation corrupts the professional evaluation process
Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer C
Engineer C's advisory critique of Engineer B's decisions provided to City Administrator
Engineer C provided critical evaluations of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator without disclosing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the contract that Engineer B currently held and was seeking to renew, depriving the City Administrator of information necessary to assess the objectivity and reliability of Engineer C's critique
In this context, Engineer C's competitive interest in the outcome of his critique of Engineer B constituted a material conflict of interest that required affirmative disclosure to the City Administrator before any evaluation was provided, so that the City Administrator could assess whether to seek independent, unconflicted evaluation of Engineer B's performance
The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C. Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
Engineer C Collegial Non-Harm to Incumbent Reputation Obligation Instance
Engineer C provided critical opinions about Engineer B's specific engineering decisions to the City Administrator, who held significant authority over the contract renewal process, while Engineer C was simultaneously competing for that contract — creating a situation where the critique served to harm Engineer B's professional reputation for Engineer C's competitive benefit.
Engineer C was obligated, as a matter of collegial duty toward Engineer B as a professional peer, to refrain from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions in a context where those opinions were solicited by a party with authority over Engineer B's contract renewal and where Engineer C had a direct competitive interest in undermining Engineer B's professional standing.
At the time of responding to the City Administrator's solicitation for critique of Engineer B's work
Engineer C Competitive Conflict Disclosure Before Critique Obligation Instance
Engineer C was solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's engineering decisions while Engineer C was simultaneously competing for the contract renewal that Engineer B held, creating a direct competitive conflict of interest in the advisory role.
Engineer C was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator, before providing any critical opinions about Engineer B's work, that Engineer C's firm was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal and that this competitive financial interest created a conflict of interest that the City Administrator should weigh in evaluating any opinions Engineer C provided.
Before or contemporaneously with providing any evaluative opinions about Engineer B's work to the City Administrator
Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Evaluation Context
From the time Client A solicited Engineer C's opinions through the ethical analysis period
Engineer C's simultaneous role as potential evaluator of Engineer B's work and as a competing firm seeking future work from Client A
Engineer C was asked to evaluate a competitor's work by a client who controls future contract awards, creating direct tension between honest professional assessment and competitive self-interest
Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique Invoked By Engineer C
Engineer C's critical evaluation of Engineer B's decisions communicated to City Administrator
Engineer C provided critical assessments of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator, knowing that these critical assessments could damage Engineer B's prospects for contract renewal and benefit Engineer C's competitive position for the same contract
In this context, Engineer C's critique of Engineer B constitutes an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional reputation and prospects through competitive critique rendered in circumstances where Engineer C stands to benefit professionally from Engineer B's diminished standing — precisely the conduct this principle prohibits
Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Engineer C Review of Engineer B
Engineer C evaluated and criticized Engineer B's professional decisions at the City Administrator's request without Engineer B having any knowledge that their work was being reviewed and critiqued by a competitor.
Active Contract Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Before Review Obligation
Engineer C was obligated to refrain from evaluating and criticizing Engineer B's professional decisions for the City Administrator without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active, non-terminated contract with City A, recognizing that the Code of Ethics prohibits review of another engineer's work for the same client except with the knowledge of that engineer or unless the engineer's connection with the work has been terminated.
At the time of the City Administrator's solicitation and throughout any evaluation provided
City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority Individual
{'license': 'Non-engineer administrative official', 'dual_role': 'Incumbent contract coordinator and renewal selection authority', 'prior_relationship': 'Previous experience with competing firm Engineer C', 'conduct': 'Solicited competitor critique of incumbent engineer during active contract'}
Non-engineer municipal administrator who coordinates Engineer B's work, questions Engineer B's judgment, holds significant authority over the next contract selection, has prior experience with competitor Engineer C, and improperly solicited Engineer C's critical opinions on Engineer B's work during the active contract period.
{'type': 'coordinator_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer'}
{'type': 'selection_authority_for', 'target': 'City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}
{'type': 'solicited_critique_from', 'target': 'Engineer C Competing Engineer Improperly Solicited for Incumbent Critique'}
The City Administrator leads the effort for the city to coordinate the work of Engineer B
The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract
Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Applied to City Administrator
City A's consulting engineering contract renewal process
Engineer B's incumbent contract performance
The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C — a competitor — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's work during the active contract renewal process constitutes an improper use of administrative authority that undermines the integrity of the procurement process
The City Administrator's prior relationship with Engineer C and concurrent authority over the renewal selection process created an obligation to refrain from soliciting competitor opinions on the incumbent, as such solicitation corrupts the merit-based nature of the selection
Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation
Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Invoked By City Administrator
City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C for critique of Engineer B's work during the final year of Engineer B's contract
The City Administrator, who holds significant authority over the next contract selection, solicited Engineer C — a competitor with whom the City Administrator had prior experience — to evaluate and criticize specific decisions of incumbent Engineer B, using this informal competitive critique as a mechanism to build a case affecting the upcoming contract renewal decision
In this context, the City Administrator's use of administrative authority to solicit competitor critique of the incumbent engineer constitutes an improper procurement mechanism that bypasses fair, merit-based, and transparent selection procedures, creating an asymmetric competitive dynamic that compromises the integrity of the upcoming contract selection process
The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract. The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Engineer C City Administrator
Engineer C provided critical evaluations of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator, who held significant authority over the next contract selection, without disclosing that Engineer C was a competitor for that contract.
Engineer C was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract — and therefore had a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of any critical evaluation of Engineer B's work — before or contemporaneously with providing any evaluative opinions, so that the City Administrator could appropriately weigh Engineer C's advisory opinions in light of that self-interest.
Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked By Engineer C Situation
Contract renewal selection process for City A consulting engineering services
Fairness in professional competition requires that competing engineers not use solicited critique opportunities as a mechanism to gain competitive advantage over incumbents, as this corrupts the merit-based nature of engineering procurement
The principle of fairness in competition takes precedence over any obligation Engineer C might have to share technical opinions, because the context of active competition renders the critique self-serving rather than professionally objective
Loyalty Obligation of Engineer B to City A
Engineer B's ongoing service relationship with City A during the final year of the 3-year contract
Engineer B, as the incumbent consulting engineer under an active 3-year contract with City A, bears a loyalty obligation to serve the city's engineering needs faithfully during the contract period, while the city's simultaneous solicitation of competitor critique undermines the trust relationship that loyalty presupposes
In this context, the loyalty principle creates a baseline expectation of good-faith service by Engineer B and a corresponding obligation of good-faith dealing by City A — the city's covert solicitation of competitor critique of Engineer B's work during the active contract period represents a breach of the relational trust that the loyalty principle presupposes
Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract. The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Violated by City Administrator
City A's contract renewal and selection process for consulting engineering services
The City Administrator used administrative authority to solicit Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work during an active contract and concurrent renewal process, exploiting the procurement process to obtain competitive intelligence against the incumbent through improper means
The City Administrator's solicitation of a competitor's critique of the incumbent — without the incumbent's knowledge and during an active contract — constitutes an improper use of administrative procurement authority that corrupts the merit-based selection process
Engineer B Faithful Performance Under Contested Contract Obligation Instance
Engineer B is in the final year of a 3-year consulting engineering contract with City A, during which the City Administrator has questioned Engineer B's judgment on several occasions and is simultaneously coordinating the selection process for the next 3-year contract.
Engineer B was obligated to continue performing all consulting engineering services for City A faithfully, competently, and in the city's best interests throughout the final year of the active 3-year contract, notwithstanding the City Administrator's repeated questioning of Engineer B's professional judgment and the concurrent contract renewal competition in which Engineer C was participating.
Throughout the duration of the active 3-year contract, particularly during the final year when competitive and reputational pressures are heightened
Engineer C Honorable Procurement Conduct Obligation Instance
Engineer C was solicited by the City Administrator to provide critical opinions about Engineer B's work during the active contract period and pending renewal competition, and Engineer C participated in that solicitation with awareness that doing so 'in a certain perspective' would advantage Engineer C's competitive position.
Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
Engineer C was obligated to conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all matters related to the City A contract renewal procurement, including declining to participate in a solicitation that placed Engineer C in the role of competitor-critic of the incumbent engineer, and refraining from any conduct that would exploit the City Administrator's improper solicitation as a vehicle for competitive advantage.
Throughout the contract renewal procurement process, from the moment of the City Administrator's solicitation
Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked By Engineer C and City Administrator
The competitive process for the next 3-year consulting engineering contract
The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C for incumbent critique, combined with Engineer C's willingness to provide that critique, created an asymmetric competitive dynamic in which Engineer C gained insider knowledge of the client's dissatisfactions with Engineer B while Engineer B had no equivalent opportunity to respond, defend his decisions, or even know that a competitor was being consulted about his work
In this context, fairness in professional competition required both that the City Administrator conduct the contract renewal through formal, equal-access procedures and that Engineer C decline to participate in an informal competitive evaluation that gave Engineer C an unfair advantage over Engineer B
The principle of fair competition requires that competitive advantages be earned through merit demonstrated in formal evaluation processes, not through exploitation of informal relationships with procurement officials or participation in covert incumbent critique
Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Invoked Against Engineer C
Engineer C's specific criticism of Engineer B's professional decisions
Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made professional decisions, yet rendered specific critical opinions about those decisions. This violated the principle requiring restraint from specific critique when situational knowledge is incomplete.
In this context, incomplete situational knowledge required Engineer C to refrain from specific criticism of Engineer B's decisions, because Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and could not know all the circumstances that informed those decisions
Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Invoked By Engineer C
Engineer C's specific critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions on city engineering issues
Engineer C rendered specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions without having access to the full project record, client instructions, contractual constraints, site conditions, or other contextual factors that shaped Engineer B's decisions — evaluating only the specific issues raised by the City Administrator from the City Administrator's perspective
In this context, Engineer C lacked the complete situational knowledge necessary to render fair and accurate critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions, because Engineer C had access only to the City Administrator's framing of the issues rather than the full professional context in which Engineer B made those decisions
The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City. Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Violated by Engineer C
Engineer C's specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions
Engineer C rendered specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work without having been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and without knowing all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed the work, resulting in opinions that may have been inaccurate even if Engineer C believed them to be truthful
Engineer C's epistemic position — as an outsider to Engineer B's decision-making context — required restraint from specific criticism; at most, Engineer C could have answered questions in a very general sense without commenting on specific issues
Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances. As such, Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.
Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances
Engineer C should have refrained from any criticism. While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues
{'license': 'Non-engineer administrative official', 'authority': 'Coordinates incumbent work and heavily involved in next contract selection', 'prior_relationship': 'Previous experience with competing firm Engineer C'}
Non-engineer municipal administrative official who coordinates the incumbent engineer's work, holds significant authority over the next contract selection, has questioned the incumbent's judgment, and improperly solicits a competitor to critique the incumbent's specific decisions.
{'type': 'coordinator', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract'}
{'type': 'improper_solicitor', 'target': 'Engineer C Competing Engineer Solicited for Incumbent Critique'}
{'type': 'procurement_authority', 'target': 'City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}
The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions
Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition Applied to Engineer C
City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C's opinions on Engineer B's work
Engineer C should have declined to provide critical evaluations of Engineer B's work when solicited by the City Administrator, recognizing that doing so during an active contract renewal process constituted using professional opinion as a pretext for competitive advantage
Engineer C's full awareness that answering critically would provide competitive advantage obligated Engineer C to either decline the solicitation or disclose the conflict of interest before providing any opinion
Engineer C Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition Obligation Instance
Engineer C believed his critique of Engineer B was truthful but lacked full situational knowledge of Engineer B's decision-making context, making the critique potentially inaccurate despite Engineer C's subjective belief in its truthfulness.
Engineer C was obligated to recognize that his subjective belief in the truthfulness of his critique of Engineer B's work was insufficient to render that critique ethically permissible, given that Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made his professional decisions, and that accuracy — not merely subjective truthfulness — is required before rendering competitive critique.
At the time Engineer C formulated and delivered opinions about Engineer B's work to the City Administrator
Honesty Principle Insufficient Alone to Justify Engineer C Critique
Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions
Engineer C's subjective belief in the truthfulness of the critique of Engineer B's work was insufficient to render the critique ethically permissible, because honesty alone does not satisfy the professional obligations that prohibit competitive critique rendered without full situational knowledge and without the incumbent's knowledge
Honesty is a necessary but not sufficient condition for permissible professional critique; in competitive contexts with incomplete situational knowledge, subjective truthfulness does not override the prohibitions on competitor critique and reputation injury
Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique Invoked Against Engineer C
Engineer C's critical evaluation of Engineer B's professional work and decisions
Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work, rendered in a context where Engineer C stood to gain competitive advantage by diminishing Engineer B's standing with Client A, constituted an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional reputation, prospects, and practice through improper and questionable methods
The competitive benefit Engineer C could derive from the critique — securing future work with Client A at Engineer B's expense — transforms the critique from potentially permissible professional commentary into prohibited reputation injury, paralleling the BER Case 01-1 finding
Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. For this reason, in the present case, using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
City Administrator Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Instance
The City Administrator used administrative authority to contact Engineer C and solicit critical opinions about Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under an active contract and while the contract renewal selection process was underway.
The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a competitor for the Client A contract — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's work during the active contract period and concurrent renewal process, recognizing that such solicitation compromised the fairness of the competitive process, created conflicts of interest for Engineer C, and undermined Engineer B's professional standing without due process.
During the active contract period and concurrent contract renewal selection process
Competitor Critique Declination Engineer C City A Contract
Engineer C, a competing firm with a prior relationship with the City Administrator, was contacted to evaluate specific decisions made by incumbent Engineer B during the active contract period, while the renewal competition was pending.
Competitor Critique Declination Obligation
Engineer C was obligated to decline the City Administrator's solicitation to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's professional decisions, recognizing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract and that providing such critique created an inherent conflict of interest and constituted use of a competitive advantage derived from improper means.
Upon receipt of the City Administrator's solicitation, before providing any evaluative opinions about Engineer B's work
Fairness in Professional Competition Engineer C City Administrator Procurement
The City Administrator, who held significant authority over the next contract selection and had prior experience with Engineer C, solicited Engineer C to evaluate and criticize the incumbent Engineer B's work, creating an unfair competitive dynamic that undermined the integrity of the procurement process.
Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
The City Administrator was obligated to ensure that the process for selecting the next consulting engineering firm was conducted fairly and without exploitation of the City Administrator's prior relationship with Engineer C, refraining from using that relationship to obtain competitive intelligence about the incumbent Engineer B that would advantage Engineer C in the upcoming selection process.
Throughout the contract renewal and selection process for the next 3-year consulting engineering contract
Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Violated by Engineer C Review
Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work products for City Administrator
Engineer C reviewed and criticized Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B remained under an active contract with Client A that had not been terminated, violating the NSPE Code requirement that such review occur only with the incumbent's knowledge or after contract termination
The knowledge requirement is a bright-line condition: because Engineer B had no knowledge of the review and the contract was still active, Engineer C's participation was impermissible regardless of the accuracy or good faith of the critique
the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated. In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C. Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
Objectivity Obligation Applied to Engineer C Critical Opinions
Engineer C's technical opinions on Engineer B's engineering decisions
Engineer C's awareness that answering 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position obligated him to provide only objective, technically grounded assessments of Engineer B's work — or to decline — rather than shaping his critique to serve competitive ends
Objectivity as a professional principle requires that technical opinions not be colored by the engineer's personal or commercial interests in the outcome; Engineer C's self-awareness of the pretext undermines any claim to objectivity in the critique provided
Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements Applied to Engineer C
Engineer C's advisory opinions on Engineer B's professional decisions
Engineer C, having a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the City A contract renewal, was obligated to affirmatively disclose that conflict of interest to the City Administrator before providing any opinions on Engineer B's work, so that the City Administrator could assess the objectivity of the advice
The conflict of interest disclosure obligation applies with particular force when the advisory engagement is unsolicited in the formal sense and the advisor has a direct competitive stake in how the client receives the advice
Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Obligation Instance
Engineer C evaluated Engineer B's work at the City Administrator's solicitation while Engineer B was still under a 3-year consulting contract with Client A that had not been terminated.
At the time of the City Administrator's solicitation and during any evaluation of Engineer B's work
Engineer C Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Obligation Instance
Engineer C was solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under an active contract with Client A and while Engineer C was competing for future work with Client A.
Engineer C was obligated to refrain from rendering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work because Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work, making Engineer C's opinions potentially inaccurate even if subjectively believed to be truthful.
At the time of the City Administrator's solicitation and throughout any subsequent conversation about Engineer B's work
Engineer C Prohibition on Reputation Injury Obligation Instance
Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work was rendered in a context where Engineer C stood to gain competitive advantage by diminishing Engineer B's professional standing with Client A, and where Engineer C lacked full knowledge of Engineer B's decision-making circumstances.
Engineer C was obligated to refrain from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of Engineer B through competitive critique rendered without full knowledge of Engineer B's circumstances.
During and after the conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's work
Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated by Engineer C Participation
Contract renewal selection process for consulting engineering services with Client A
Engineer C's participation in the City Administrator's solicited critique of Engineer B created an unfair competitive advantage for Engineer C in the upcoming contract renewal process, undermining the principle that engineering work should be awarded on the basis of qualifications and merit rather than through exploitation of improper competitive intelligence
Fairness in professional competition requires that competing engineers not exploit opportunities created by clients' improper solicitations to gain competitive advantage; Engineer C's obligation was to decline participation rather than to benefit from the City Administrator's improper conduct
Competition for engineering work by private consulting firms can be quite intense. Selection of a winning proposal may be made on razor-thin margins. Competitive edges are sought to win work over other firms. The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration.
Competition for engineering work by private consulting firms can be quite intense. Selection of a winning proposal may be made on razor-thin margins. Competitive edges are sought to win work over other firms. The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Applied to Engineer B
Engineer B's ongoing consulting services for City A in the final year of contract
Engineer B, as incumbent consulting engineer, is obligated to continue performing faithfully under the active 3-year contract despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of his professional judgment, retaining the right to defend professional decisions through appropriate channels
The faithful agent obligation requires Engineer B to continue serving City A's interests diligently through the contract term, while the repeated questioning of his judgment by a non-engineer administrator creates a context in which his professional authority and ethical limits become relevant
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'competitive_status': "Competitor for Client A's future engineering contract", 'knowledge_limitation': "Not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process; lacked full situational awareness"}
Engineer C, a competitor for future work with Client A, was contacted by the City Administrator and asked to evaluate Engineer B's work while Engineer B was still under active contract. Engineer C provided criticism of Engineer B's work without full knowledge of the circumstances behind Engineer B's decisions, potentially gaining an unfair competitive advantage and risking injury to Engineer B's professional reputation.
{'type': 'competitor_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer'}
{'type': 'potential_client', 'target': 'Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}
Competing Engineer Improperly Solicited for Incumbent Critique
Engineer C should have refrained from any criticism
Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance
Engineer C, a competing firm with a prior relationship with the City Administrator, was contacted during the final year of Engineer B's active 3-year contract and asked to provide critical opinions on specific engineering issues Engineer B had worked on for the City, while the contract renewal selection process was underway.
Engineer C was obligated to decline the City Administrator's solicitation to evaluate and critique Engineer B's engineering decisions, recognizing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal and that providing such critique — particularly 'in a certain perspective' — would constitute use of an improper competitive advantage and would undermine the fairness of the professional competition.
Upon being contacted by the City Administrator and before providing any evaluative opinions about Engineer B's work
Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
Engineer C was aware that answering the City Administrator's questions 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position in the Client A contract renewal.
Engineer C, having engaged in conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's work despite the obligation to decline, was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments, refraining from framing opinions 'in a certain perspective' designed to advantage Engineer C's competitive position, and to include all relevant information pertinent to a fair evaluation of Engineer B's work.
Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
Engineer C provided critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions to the City Administrator while fully aware that answering 'in a certain perspective' would serve as a pretext for gaining competitive advantage in the upcoming 3-year contract renewal.
Engineer C, having agreed to respond to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work, was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments of the specific engineering issues raised, refraining from framing opinions 'in a certain perspective' designed to advantage Engineer C's competitive position in the upcoming contract renewal, and including all relevant information pertinent to a fair evaluation of Engineer B's decisions.
At the time of providing responses to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work
Engineer C Competing Engineer Improperly Solicited for Incumbent Critique
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'competitive_status': 'Competitor for next 3-year contract', 'ethical_awareness': 'Fully realized the impropriety of the solicitation and its competitive implications', 'conduct': 'Answered questions and was critical of incumbent Engineer B'}
A competing engineering firm with prior relationship with the City Administrator, contacted by the Administrator to provide opinions on Engineer B's work; fully aware that answering critically would serve as a pretext for competitive advantage in the upcoming contract renewal; chose to answer and was critical of Engineer B's decisions.
{'type': 'competing_for_contract_with', 'target': 'City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}