Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Engineer D Informal As-Built Sharing Public Projects
Engineer D informally shared as-built sprinkler system drawings with contractors on public building renovation projects, sometimes after award and sometimes in response to pre-bid requests, without formal employer authorization and outside of the standard project process.
Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint
Engineer D was constrained from sharing as-built drawings through informal mechanisms on public projects because such informal sharing creates an appearance of impropriety or favoritism among competing contractors, even when Engineer D acted without ulterior motive and with the genuine intent to improve design quality.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 82-2, 15-7, 16-3
Working through informal mechanisms on public projects can give the appearance of impropriety or favoritism.
Throughout all public procurement and project execution activities
BER Case 15-7 involves the ubiquitous Engineer A working for Firm X... A is concerned that potential discussions with B will provide an unfair advantage.
Even so, informally sharing as-built information is troubling.
The board advised that 'rather than consulting solely with Contractor B, Engineer A could have conducted a publically advertised constructability meeting, inviting all interested contractors...'
Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement — Engineer D Selective As-Built Sharing
The pattern of experienced contractors requesting as-built drawings before bid submission — while other bidders lacked knowledge of their existence — created an appearance of preferential treatment that Engineer D's informal sharing practice perpetuated.
Engineer D was constrained from engaging in informal mechanisms — including informal provision of as-built drawings to select contractors before bid submission — that created a reasonable appearance of preferential treatment among competing bidders, even when Engineer D's intent was to improve design quality or assist contractors without ulterior motive.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 82-2; BER Case 15-7; BER Case 16-3
Over time, sprinkler contractors who received as-built drawings from Engineer D in the past begin to ask for these documents when projects are advertised, before bids are turned in.
Upon emergence of the pre-bid request pattern and throughout all future procurement cycles
The bid documents made no reference to existing as-builts or drawings for the bidders' or awarded contractor's use.
Professional engineering ethics bodies and public procurement regulators
Professional Norms Governing As-Built Drawing Disclosure in Public Sector Engineering
the bid documents made no reference to existing as-builts or drawings for the bidders' or awarded contractor's use
After bids are opened and contracts are awarded, the successful sprinkler contractor asks Engineer D for as-built drawings
sprinkler contractors who received as-built drawings from Engineer D in the past begin to ask for these documents when projects are advertised, before bids are turned in
Engineer D when deciding whether to provide as-built drawings post-award and when evaluating pre-bid requests from contractors
Governs Engineer D's obligations regarding when and to whom as-built sprinkler system drawings must be disclosed — at bid advertisement versus post-award — and the equity implications of selective disclosure to previously favored contractors
As-Built Drawing Disclosure Standard - Public Project Context
Professional engineering community norms
Engineer D can advise that as-built drawings are available, but D should direct subcontractors to request them as part of the standard project process.
D should not share documents on their own initiative or without formal permission.
It would be unethical for D to share as-builts with selected contractors pre-bid.
Engineer D in determining proper disclosure conduct
Applied to evaluate Engineer D's obligations regarding when and how as-built drawings may be shared with contractors on public projects, establishing that informal selective sharing pre-bid is unethical, that formal process-based disclosure is required, and that D should initiate systemic inclusion of as-builts in standard project processes
BER Case 15-7 involves the ubiquitous Engineer A working for Firm X.
The board advised that 'rather than consulting solely with Contractor B, Engineer A could have conducted a publically (sic) advertised constructability meeting, inviting all interested contractors to provide Engineer A with the input necessary to achieve a better design and construction outcome.'
BER discussion panel analyzing Engineer D's situation
Referenced as a precedential case establishing that engineers on public projects must avoid selective information sharing with individual contractors, and should instead use publicly advertised processes (e.g., constructability meetings open to all contractors) to avoid favoritism and serve client interests
BER Case 16-3 involves Engineer A who receives a submittal by a highly qualified engineering firm (Firm B) a few hours after a well-publicized deadline.
'the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated.'
Referenced as a precedential case establishing that adherence to public procurement rules and policies is essential to professional integrity, and that allowing exceptions — even for highly qualified firms — undermines procurement fairness and reflects poorly on the profession
BER Case 82-2 is a useful starting point in this discussion.
Returning to the case at hand, Engineer D seems to be acting without what was termed in case 82-2, an ulterior motive
The BER states 'we read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive; that he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties …'
Referenced as a precedential case involving an engineer sharing a home inspection report with a real estate firm without client consent, establishing that informal sharing of client-related information without authorization is unethical even absent ulterior motive, and that confidentiality of client relationships must be respected
Bid Documents Published Without As-Builts
All bidders enter the process with incomplete project information; information asymmetry potential is created from the outset
The state agency releases bid documents for building renovation projects that omit any reference to or inclusion of as-built sprinkler drawings, leaving all bidders without critical existing-condition information.
CausalLink_Continue Informal As-Built Sha
CausalLink_Initiate Formal As-Built Distr
CausalLink_Omit As-Builts from Bid Docume
CausalLink_Provide As-Builts Post-Award I
CausalLink_Selectively Share As-Builts Pr
Competitive Procurement Fairness — Engineer D State Agency Sprinkler Contracts
The informal pattern of as-built drawing sharing created a structural advantage for contractors with prior project experience, undermining the equal competitive opportunity that public procurement processes are designed to ensure.
Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
Engineer D was constrained by the obligation to ensure all qualified sprinkler contractors had equal opportunity to compete for public renovation contracts, prohibiting informal information-sharing practices that systematically advantaged contractors with prior project relationships over those without such relationships.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Public Procurement Fairness Standards; BER Case 15-7; BER Case 16-3
Throughout all public procurement cycles for building renovation projects involving existing sprinkler systems
It is ethical for Engineer D to make it known that as-built drawings are available; but they should be readily available to contractors as part of the standard project delivery process to assure that all contractors have equal access to the information.
Beyond the Board's conclusion that making as-built drawings available is ethical when done through standard project delivery channels, Engineer D's repeated informal post-award sharing — while not explicitly prohibited — constituted a de facto policy that the state agency tacitly permitted through inaction. However, tacit permission is not the same as formal authorization, and Engineer D bore an independent obligation under the faithful agent canon to seek explicit employer guidance once the informal pattern became recurrent and systematic. The absence of a formal prohibition does not constitute implied permission sufficient to satisfy the confidentiality and faithful agent obligations under Sections I.4 and II.1.c of the NSPE Code. Engineer D's failure to escalate the recurring pattern to agency leadership for formal policy resolution transformed what began as a reasonable post-award accommodation into an ongoing structural breach of the faithful agent relationship.
The Board's conclusion that as-built drawings should be part of the standard project delivery process implicitly assigns institutional responsibility to the state agency, not solely to Engineer D. The agency's persistent omission of as-built drawings from bid solicitation materials constitutes an independent institutional failure that created the conditions for Engineer D's ethical dilemma. While this institutional failure does not exculpate Engineer D from the ethical violations the Board identified, it substantially shifts the moral architecture of the situation: Engineer D was placed in a recurring double bind where faithful adherence to formal procurement channels meant withholding safety-critical information, while providing that information informally violated confidentiality and procurement fairness norms. A complete ethical analysis must therefore assign co-responsibility to the agency for failing to establish adequate bid document completeness standards, particularly given the safety-critical nature of fire protection systems.
The Board's finding that selective pre-bid sharing is unethical is correct but understates the structural dimension of the violation. The ethical harm is not merely that some contractors received information others did not — it is that the selective sharing arose from an informal network of prior project relationships, meaning that contractors with no prior experience with Engineer D were systematically excluded not by deliberate discrimination but by structural information asymmetry. This is a more insidious form of procurement unfairness than overt favoritism because it is self-reinforcing: contractors who received as-builts once were better positioned to win future bids, further entrenching the informational advantage. Engineer D's good intent in responding to individual requests does not cure this structural distortion, consistent with the principle that good intention does not exculpate procedural impropriety. The Board's remedy — universal availability through standard project delivery — is therefore not merely a procedural fix but a structural correction required to neutralize the compounding competitive distortion Engineer D's informal practice had created over time.
The Board's conclusions, taken together, reveal an unaddressed temporal ethics problem: at what point did Engineer D's continued inaction on formalizing the as-built disclosure process itself become an independent ethical violation, distinct from the sharing violations already identified? The first post-award disclosure might be analyzed as a reasonable, good-faith response to a contractor's legitimate safety-related need. But by the time a recognizable pattern of pre-bid requests had emerged — indicating that multiple contractors across multiple project cycles were operating with structurally unequal information — Engineer D had acquired sufficient knowledge to trigger an affirmative obligation under the proactive systemic remedy principle. Continued informal sharing at that stage was no longer a neutral accommodation but an active perpetuation of a known inequity. The virtue ethics framework reinforces this conclusion: practical wisdom and professional courage required Engineer D to escalate the systemic gap to agency leadership and propose a formal policy remedy, and the failure to do so represents a deficiency in professional integrity that the Board's conclusions do not fully capture.
The safety-critical nature of fire protection systems introduces a dimension the Board acknowledged implicitly but did not resolve explicitly: whether Engineer D's obligation to protect public welfare under Section I.1 of the NSPE Code created a heightened duty to ensure contractors had accurate as-built information, even if formal procurement channels were unavailable or unresponsive. This tension is not resolved by the Board's procedural remedy alone. If the state agency had refused to incorporate as-built drawings into bid documents even after Engineer D formally escalated the issue, Engineer D would have faced a genuine conflict between the faithful agent obligation and the public welfare paramount principle. The correct resolution in that scenario — consistent with the hierarchy of obligations in the NSPE Code — would be that public welfare takes precedence, and Engineer D would have been ethically justified in disclosing as-built drawings universally and transparently to all bidders, provided the disclosure was equitable and documented. The Board's conclusions do not address this residual conflict, leaving an important gap in the ethical analysis for cases where institutional reform is sought but not achieved.
From a virtue ethics perspective, the case reveals a character disposition in Engineer D that prioritizes responsive helpfulness over systemic responsibility. Engineer D's conduct at each individual decision point — sharing post-award, then sharing pre-bid when asked — reflects a practitioner who is responsive to immediate requests but lacks the practical wisdom to recognize that repeated informal accommodations are themselves a form of institutional failure. A professionally virtuous engineer in Engineer D's position would have recognized, after the first or second pre-bid request, that the pattern indicated a structural deficiency in the agency's procurement process and would have treated that recognition as a professional obligation to act systemically rather than transactionally. The virtue ethics analysis also highlights that Engineer D's good intentions, while genuine, are not a substitute for the institutional courage required to advise the agency that its bid document practices are inadequate — a conversation that may be uncomfortable but that the NSPE Code's honesty and integrity standards require. The Board's conclusions are correct in outcome but would benefit from this character-level analysis to explain why the pattern of conduct, not just the individual acts, is ethically significant.
It is unethical for Engineer D to share as-built documents selectively pre-bid.
In response to Q101: Engineer D did not have explicit employer authorization to share as-built drawings post-award, and the absence of a formal prohibition does not constitute implied permission under the NSPE Code. Code provision II.1.c requires prior consent before revealing employer-held facts, data, or information — silence is not consent. While the post-award sharing may have served legitimate safety and constructability purposes, Engineer D was operating under a faithful agent obligation that required affirmative authorization, not merely the absence of objection. The ethical weight of this gap is partially mitigated by the fact that post-award sharing does not distort competitive procurement, but the underlying authorization deficiency remains a real, if lower-severity, violation of the confidentiality canon. Engineer D should have sought explicit agency approval before establishing what became a recurring informal practice.
In response to Q102: The state agency bears substantial independent institutional responsibility for the ethical problems that arose. By consistently omitting as-built drawings from bid solicitation materials despite possessing them, the agency created the structural information gap that Engineer D then attempted to fill informally. This institutional failure does not eliminate Engineer D's individual ethical obligations — Engineer D still violated equal access and confidentiality norms — but it meaningfully shifts the distribution of moral culpability. A significant portion of the harm, specifically the competitive information asymmetry and the pressure on Engineer D to act outside formal channels, is traceable to the agency's failure to maintain bid document completeness. The Board's conclusions focus almost entirely on Engineer D's conduct, but a complete ethical accounting must recognize that the agency's omission was itself an institutional ethical failure that foreseeably produced the conditions for Engineer D's violations.
In response to Q103: The safety-critical nature of fire protection systems does create a heightened duty of care, but that heightened duty does not override the formal channel requirement or authorize Engineer D to act unilaterally outside procurement rules. The appropriate ethical response to a safety-driven information need is not informal selective disclosure but rather formal escalation — Engineer D should have argued to agency leadership that as-built fire protection drawings are material safety information that must be included in bid documents as a matter of both procurement integrity and public welfare. The Public Welfare Paramount principle is best served not by bypassing institutional processes but by using professional authority to reform those processes. Informal workarounds, even safety-motivated ones, ultimately undermine the systemic reliability that public safety depends upon.
In response to Q104: Once Engineer D recognized that a recurring pattern of pre-bid as-built requests had emerged — meaning after at least the second or third project cycle in which contractors sought drawings before bid submission — continued inaction on formalizing the process became an independent ethical violation distinct from the sharing itself. At that point, Engineer D possessed sufficient information to know that the informal practice was structurally producing competitive inequity: only contractors with prior project relationships knew to ask. The failure to escalate this pattern to agency leadership and propose a formal policy remedy violated the Proactive Systemic Remedy Obligation and the obligation to act as a faithful agent who serves the employer's long-term institutional integrity, not merely its immediate operational convenience. The Board's conclusions identify the selective sharing as unethical but do not separately name the failure to escalate as an independent breach; this analysis concludes that it is.
In response to Q201: A genuine tension exists between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle in this case, but the tension is resolvable without requiring Engineer D to choose between them. The faithful agent obligation does not require Engineer D to passively accept an employer practice that compromises public safety; it requires Engineer D to serve the employer's legitimate interests, which include legal compliance, procurement integrity, and public trust. Engineer D's highest service to the agency was therefore to formally advocate for including as-built fire protection drawings in bid documents — an action that simultaneously satisfies public welfare, procurement fairness, and faithful agency. The apparent conflict between these principles dissolves when Engineer D's role is understood as including proactive institutional advocacy, not merely passive compliance with existing agency practice.
In response to Q302: From a deontological perspective, Engineer D's selective pre-bid sharing constitutes a categorical violation of the equal treatment duty, independent of intent or outcome. Kantian ethics requires that Engineer D's conduct be universalizable — that is, the rule governing Engineer D's action must be one that could apply equally to all similarly situated parties. A rule permitting as-built disclosure only to contractors who happen to know to ask cannot be universalized without producing systematic structural disadvantage for less-informed bidders. This is not a marginal procedural irregularity; it is a structural inequity baked into the information environment of public procurement. The deontological analysis therefore supports the Board's conclusion that selective pre-bid sharing is unethical, and further grounds that conclusion in a duty of equal treatment that is independent of consequentialist harm calculations.
In response to Q303: From a consequentialist perspective, the post-award informal sharing of as-built drawings likely produced net positive outcomes — better-informed renovation work, reduced risk of fire protection system errors, and more accurate contractor pricing on awarded contracts — without distorting competitive procurement, since bids had already closed. However, the pre-bid selective sharing produced a different consequentialist calculus: the safety benefits of better-informed bidding were real but were distributed inequitably, and the competitive distortions introduced by information asymmetry likely degraded the quality of the overall bid pool by disadvantaging contractors who lacked prior relationships with Engineer D. The consequentialist analysis therefore supports the Board's bifurcated conclusion — post-award sharing is defensible on outcome grounds, while pre-bid selective sharing is not — but also reveals that the optimal consequentialist outcome would have been universal pre-bid disclosure through formal channels, which would have captured the safety benefits without the competitive distortion costs.
In response to Q304: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer D demonstrated genuine professional care and practical responsiveness in recognizing that contractors needed as-built information to perform safe renovation work. However, the failure to escalate the recurring pre-bid request pattern into a formal institutional remedy reveals a deficiency in the virtue of professional courage — specifically, the courage required to challenge an employer's established practice and advocate for systemic change. Practical wisdom, or phronesis, requires not only recognizing what is good in a particular situation but also understanding when a recurring particular problem signals a systemic deficiency that demands institutional action. Engineer D's continued reliance on informal workarounds, while well-intentioned, reflects a form of ethical passivity that virtue ethics would characterize as a failure of the fully virtuous professional character. The virtuous engineer in Engineer D's position would have used the recurring requests as evidence to formally advocate for policy reform.
In response to Q401: If the state agency had included as-built drawings as a standard component of all bid solicitation packages from the outset, the ethical problems of selective pre-bid sharing and informal post-award disclosure would not have arisen. This counterfactual strongly supports the conclusion that the agency's institutional failure was the root cause of the ethical dilemma Engineer D faced. Engineer D's individual ethical violations were, in a meaningful sense, downstream consequences of the agency's structural omission. This does not excuse Engineer D's conduct, but it does suggest that the Board's framing — which focuses almost entirely on Engineer D's individual choices — understates the degree to which institutional design failures create conditions that predictably produce individual ethical violations. The policy implication is that public agencies have an independent ethical obligation to design procurement processes that do not structurally force engineers into positions where serving safety requires violating procurement fairness norms.
In response to Q403: Even if Engineer D had simultaneously disclosed as-built drawings to all bidders upon receiving the first pre-bid request — thereby eliminating the selective sharing problem — that action would still have been ethically problematic under public procurement rules. Simultaneous informal disclosure to all bidders does not satisfy the formal bid document amendment process that public procurement integrity requires. Material information affecting bid preparation must be incorporated through official addenda or solicitation amendments so that it is documented, attributable, and part of the official procurement record. An informal mass email or verbal disclosure, even if universal, lacks the procedural legitimacy that protects both the agency and bidders in the event of a bid protest or contract dispute. The Board's recommendation that as-builts be made available through the standard project delivery process implicitly recognizes this: the ethical remedy is not informal universality but formal inclusion.
In response to Q404: If Engineer D had formally escalated the recurring pre-bid as-built request pattern to agency leadership after the second or third project cycle and proposed a policy change, the ethical violations identified by the Board would very likely have been avoided — or at minimum, Engineer D's individual culpability would have been substantially reduced. The failure to escalate constitutes an independent ethical breach beyond the sharing itself, because it represents a failure to exercise the proactive institutional advocacy that the faithful agent and public welfare obligations jointly require. Engineer D possessed the professional knowledge, the positional access, and the accumulated evidence of a recurring systemic gap sufficient to justify and compel formal escalation. Continuing to address a structural problem through informal workarounds, when formal remedies are available and within Engineer D's professional reach, is not ethically neutral — it is a choice to perpetuate a deficient system rather than improve it, and that choice carries independent moral weight.
In response to Q402: If Engineer D had refused all post-award requests for as-built drawings pending establishment of a formal employer-authorized disclosure process, fire protection safety outcomes on renovation projects would likely have been materially worse in the short term. Contractors working without as-built information on existing sprinkler systems face genuine risks of incorrect system integration, inadequate capacity planning, and unsafe installations. However, this safety risk does not justify Engineer D's informal sharing practice as an ongoing substitute for proper process. The correct ethical response to the safety risk was not to absorb it through informal workarounds but to treat it as an urgent basis for escalating the bid document deficiency to agency leadership. The safety risk actually strengthens the case for immediate formal action, not for continued informal accommodation. Engineer D's failure to escalate urgently — given the life-safety stakes — represents a more serious lapse than the informal sharing itself, because it allowed a known safety risk to persist in the procurement process indefinitely.
In response to Q403: If Engineer D had recognized the emerging pattern of pre-bid requests after the first or second occurrence and immediately initiated a formal process to include as-built drawings in bid documents, the selective pre-bid sharing problem would have been avoided and the post-award sharing practice would have been legitimized through proper institutional channels. The failure to act at that inflection point constitutes a distinct ethical lapse beyond the individual sharing incidents. Each subsequent informal sharing event after the pattern became apparent was not merely a repetition of the original conduct but a compounding failure to exercise the professional judgment and systemic responsibility that the NSPE Code requires. The inflection point — when the pattern became recognizable — is the moment at which Engineer D's obligation shifted from responding to individual requests to reforming the process. Failure to recognize and act on that shift reflects a deficit in the professional judgment capability that Code Section I.6 and the Proactive Systemic Remedy Obligation demand.
In response to Q404: If a contractor who did not receive pre-bid as-built drawings submitted a higher bid than a contractor who did receive them and subsequently lost the contract, Engineer D would bear significant ethical responsibility for that outcome. The excluded contractor was denied information that materially affected their ability to price the work accurately, and the competitive disadvantage was a direct consequence of Engineer D's selective pre-bid disclosure. This scenario reframes the severity of the selective pre-bid sharing conduct: it is not merely a procedural irregularity but a potential cause of concrete economic harm to a specific party and a distortion of the public procurement process that the agency and taxpayers rely upon. Code Sections II.5.b and III.1 reflect the principle that engineers must not participate in conduct that undermines the integrity of competitive processes. The possibility — indeed the likelihood — of this harm occurring in a pattern of selective pre-bid sharing elevates the ethical severity of Engineer D's conduct from a technical violation to a substantive injury to procurement fairness.
The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle was resolved in this case by the Board implicitly treating procedural fairness — not safety — as the dominant concern. The Board did not find that withholding as-built fire protection drawings from post-award contractors was unethical; it found that sharing them selectively pre-bid was unethical. This resolution reveals a hierarchy in which Public Welfare Paramount does not automatically override Faithful Agent Obligation and Procurement Integrity when the safety risk is indirect or speculative rather than immediate and certain. The case teaches that public welfare arguments can justify information disclosure only when the safety nexus is direct and the procedural harm of disclosure is clearly subordinate — a threshold this case did not clearly meet in the pre-bid context. However, the Board's silence on whether the agency's failure to include as-builts in bid documents itself created a safety risk suggests an underexamined tension: if fire protection system accuracy is safety-critical, the agency's omission may have been the more consequential ethical failure, and Engineer D's informal remedy — however procedurally irregular — may have been closer to the ethically required response than the Board's framing acknowledges.
The Equal Access to Bid Information principle and the Confidentiality of Employer Information principle created a structural double bind for Engineer D that the Board resolved asymmetrically and only partially. The Board correctly identified that selective pre-bid sharing violates equal access, but it did not fully resolve the underlying confidentiality question: whether as-built drawings held by a public agency are properly characterized as confidential employer information at all, or whether they are public project records to which contractors have a legitimate claim. If as-builts are public records, then the Confidentiality of Employer Information principle has diminished force, and the primary remaining constraint is procedural — that disclosure must occur through formal channels to all bidders equally, not that it must be withheld. The Board's recommendation that as-builts be made 'readily available to contractors as part of the standard project delivery process' implicitly acknowledges this: the problem was never that the information should be secret, but that its release was uncontrolled. This case therefore teaches that the Confidentiality principle and the Equal Access principle are not genuinely opposed here — they converge on the same remedy of formalized universal disclosure — and that treating them as in tension obscures the real failure, which is the absence of a formal disclosure process rather than Engineer D's individual sharing decisions.
The Proactive Systemic Remedy Obligation and the Formal Channel Requirement interact in this case to reveal a temporal dimension of ethical responsibility that the Board's conclusions do not fully address. At the moment of the first post-award as-built request, Engineer D faced a genuine ambiguity: no formal process existed, the request was reasonable, and sharing was arguably within the spirit of the faithful agent role. At that point, the Formal Channel Requirement had limited bite because no formal channel existed to violate. However, as the informal pattern of pre-bid requests emerged and repeated across multiple project cycles, the Proactive Systemic Remedy Obligation became increasingly activated. Each subsequent cycle in which Engineer D continued informal sharing without escalating the process gap represented a compounding ethical failure — not merely a continuation of the original ambiguous act, but an independent violation of the obligation to address a known recurring structural deficiency. The Formal Channel Requirement thus did not conflict with the Proactive Systemic Remedy Obligation so much as it was progressively displaced by it: once the pattern was established, the ethically required action shifted from 'share informally' to 'formalize the process,' and Engineer D's failure to make that shift transformed a defensible initial response into an ongoing procedural impropriety. This case teaches that good-faith initial actions can become ethical violations through inaction when systemic patterns emerge and the engineer has both the capability and the institutional position to initiate reform.
Continue Informal As-Built Sharing Repeatedly
Creating contractor expectations that as-builts are available on request
Increasing likelihood that the practice would migrate to the pre-bid phase
Normalizing an informal channel that bypasses procurement procedures
Continued attention to public safety through better-informed contractor designs
Ongoing support of employer's project quality goals
Consistency and reliability as a project engineer
Proactive identification of ethical risks
Procedural integrity in public contracting
Consistently support awarded contractors with useful existing-condition information; maintain a helpful working relationship and improve project quality across the portfolio
Obligation to avoid creating conditions that could lead to informational favoritism
Ability to escalate process concerns to agency leadership
Pattern recognition for ethically problematic practices
Recurring post-award phase, across multiple projects
Obligation to proactively identify and correct practices that could compromise procurement integrity
Obligation to use formally authorized and documented processes for sharing public project information
Engineer D continued the practice of informally providing as-built drawings to awarded contractors across multiple successive projects without establishing or requesting a formal process. This repeated pattern entrenched the informal practice and increased its ethical exposure over time.
Contractor Requests As-Builts Post-Award
Engineer D is now directly confronted with a request for information that was absent from bid documents; a decision point is created regarding informal sharing
Post-award phase, after first contract awarded
After a contract is awarded, the successful contractor discovers the need for as-built sprinkler drawings and requests them from Engineer D, triggering the first informal disclosure.
Should Engineer D include as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems in the bid documents so that all prospective bidders have equal access before submitting bids?
When preparing bid documents for building renovation projects involving existing sprinkler systems, Engineer D must decide whether to include references to available as-built drawings and make them accessible to all prospective bidders as part of the standard bid package, or to omit them and rely on post-award disclosure.
Include references to existing as-built drawings in the bid package and make them equally available to all prospective bidders before bid submission
Omit as-built drawings from bid documents and provide them only to the successful contractor after award on an informal, as-requested basis
Omit as-built drawings from bid documents but note their existence in a general project description without formally making them available to all bidders
Engineer D Bid Document Material Information Inclusion Sprinkler As-Builts
When a contractor requests as-built drawings post-award and no formal policy exists, should Engineer D share them informally, withhold them pending formal authorization, or seek employer authorization before sharing?
After award of a renovation contract, Engineer D is asked by the successful contractor for as-built drawings of the existing sprinkler system. No formal agency policy explicitly authorizes or prohibits sharing these documents. Engineer D must decide how to respond, balancing safety concerns against faithful agent and employer consent obligations.
Share as-built drawings informally with the awarded contractor immediately, reasoning that safety necessity and good intent justify the disclosure without formal authorization
Withhold as-built drawings entirely until formal employer authorization is obtained, even if this delays contractor access to safety-critical information
Seek formal employer authorization to share as-built drawings with the awarded contractor, and simultaneously initiate a process to incorporate them into future bid packages through official channels
Faithful Agent Obligation Engineer D State Agency Procurement
When a contractor requests as-built drawings during the pre-bid phase, should Engineer D share them with that contractor, decline to share with anyone pre-bid, or take action to make them equally available to all bidders?
During the bidding phase for a renovation project, one or more sprinkler contractors contact Engineer D directly and request access to as-built drawings before bids are submitted. Engineer D possesses these drawings and must decide how to respond, knowing that providing them selectively would advantage those contractors over others who did not ask.
Share as-built drawings with the requesting contractor informally and pre-bid, reasoning that the information improves design quality and the contractor's initiative warrants a response
Decline to share as-built drawings with the requesting contractor pre-bid and take no further action, leaving the information gap unaddressed for all bidders
Decline to share as-built drawings selectively with the requesting contractor, and instead immediately escalate to agency procurement officials to issue a formal addendum making the drawings equally available to all prospective bidders before bid submission
Engineer D Pre-Bid Selective Information Sharing Prohibition As-Built Drawings
Once Engineer D recognizes that informal as-built sharing has become a recurring pattern across multiple projects, should Engineer D continue addressing requests informally or initiate a formal institutional process to systematically include as-built drawings in future bid packages?
Engineer D has recognized a recurring pattern: contractors repeatedly request as-built drawings informally, both post-award and pre-bid, across multiple renovation projects. Engineer D has been responding on a case-by-case informal basis. At this point, Engineer D must decide whether to continue the informal ad hoc approach or take proactive steps to institutionalize a formal process.
Continue responding to contractor requests informally on a case-by-case basis, reasoning that the current approach is working and formal process change is outside Engineer D's authority
Cease all informal sharing immediately without initiating any formal remedy, leaving contractors without access to safety-critical as-built information
Formally document the recurring information gap, advocate to agency management and procurement officials for revising standard bid document procedures to include as-built drawing references, and obtain employer authorization to implement systematic equal-access disclosure for all future renovation projects
Proactive Formal Process Initiation Engineer D Recurring Pre-Bid Requests
When formal agency processes have not yet been established to authorize as-built sharing, and withholding fire protection as-built drawings could create safety risks, how should Engineer D balance the public welfare paramount principle against the faithful agent and formal channel obligations?
Engineer D faces a structural tension between two legitimate obligations: the safety-critical nature of fire protection systems creates a heightened duty to ensure contractors have accurate as-built information before commencing work, while the formal channel requirement prohibits sharing employer-owned documents without institutional authorization. Engineer D must decide how to resolve this apparent conflict when formal processes are slow or absent.
Unilaterally share fire protection as-built drawings with contractors outside formal channels, invoking the public welfare paramount principle to override faithful agent and employer consent obligations
Withhold fire protection as-built drawings entirely until formal authorization is obtained, accepting the safety risk as a consequence of procedural compliance
Urgently escalate the safety risk to agency management with a formal written request for immediate authorization to share fire protection as-built drawings, document the safety rationale, and simultaneously propose permanent inclusion of as-built references in all future fire protection renovation bid packages
Engineer D Fire Protection System As-Built Safety Disclosure Renovation Projects
Engineer A BER 15-7 Constructability Information Equitable Access Design Water Treatment
Constructability Information Equitable Access Design Capability
Engineer A in BER Case 15-7 possessed — but initially failed to exercise — the capability to design an equitable process for obtaining constructability input from contractors, ultimately being advised to conduct a publicly advertised constructability meeting rather than consulting selectively with Contractor B.
Referenced from BER Case 15-7 as precedent for the principle that constructability information access must be designed to provide equal opportunity to all interested contractors.
Engineer A recognized the value of constructability input but was tempted to consult selectively with one contractor, requiring BER guidance to redirect toward an equitable public process.
rather than consulting solely with Contractor B, Engineer A could have conducted a publically (sic) advertised constructability meeting, inviting all interested contractors to provide Engineer A with the input necessary to achieve a better design and construction outcome.
Such a process would avoid any appearance of favoritism toward one particular contractor, serve the client's interests, and gain the benefit of broader input to improve the design and construction process.
Engineer A BER 16-3 Procurement Fairness Appearance Management Late Submittal
Procurement Fairness Appearance Management Capability
Engineer A in BER Case 16-3 was required to exercise the capability to recognize that accepting a late submittal from a highly qualified firm — even if the firm was genuinely qualified — would create an appearance of non-adherence to public procurement rules that would undermine procurement integrity.
Referenced from BER Case 16-3 as precedent for the principle that procurement fairness appearance management requires adherence to process rules even when substantive outcomes might not be affected.
The BER advised Engineer A to return the late submittal unopened, recognizing that the appearance of procurement rule non-adherence was as problematic as actual non-adherence.
the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated.
Such a situation would not reflect well on that process, the city, or the engineering profession.
The conclusion was that A should return the submittal to firm B, unopened and explain that the bid/submittal was received late.
Engineer A BER 82-2 Client Confidentiality Boundary Recognition Home Inspection
Client Confidentiality Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer A in BER Case 82-2 lacked the capability to recognize that sharing a client's home inspection report with the real estate firm — even without ulterior motive — crossed the boundary of client confidentiality obligations.
Referenced from BER Case 82-2 as precedent for the principle that good intent does not justify confidentiality breaches in professional client relationships.
Engineer A provided a copy of the home inspection report to the real estate firm as a matter of course, without recognizing that this constituted an impermissible breach of client confidentiality regardless of intent.
The board exonerated the engineer of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, but determined it was incorrect to not recognize the confidentiality of a client relationship.
The engineer acted unethically in submitting a copy of the home inspection report to the real estate agent.
we read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive; that he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties
{'case_reference': 'BER Case 82-2', 'service_type': 'Residential home inspection', 'violation': 'Shared client report with third party (real estate firm) without client consent'}
Referenced from BER Case 82-2. An engineer who provides residential inspection services to a homebuyer client and improperly shares the inspection report with the real estate firm handling the sale without client consent, violating client confidentiality even absent an ulterior motive. Used as precedent for the principle that informal sharing of client information without consent is unethical.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Prospective homeowner client'}
{'type': 'improper_disclosure', 'target': 'Real estate firm'}
an engineer offers a service providing inspection of residences to prospective homeowners
The client complained the engineer acted unethically by providing a copy to the real estate firm
the engineer acted unethically in submitting a copy of the home inspection report to the real estate agent
the engineer produced a report for their client and provided a copy to the real estate firm handling the home sale
Engineer A Late Submittal Procurement Officer
{'case_reference': 'BER Case 16-3', 'issue': 'Receipt of late engineering firm submittal after publicized deadline', 'resolution': 'Return submittal to Firm B unopened, explaining it was received late'}
Referenced from BER Case 16-3. An engineer who receives a late submittal from a highly qualified firm and must decide whether to accept it. The precedent establishes that adherence to public procurement rules and deadlines is paramount to protect procurement integrity, and the late submittal must be returned unopened.
{'type': 'procurement_authority_over', 'target': 'Firm B (late submitter)'}
Municipal Engineering Contracting Authority
Engineer A who receives a submittal by a highly qualified engineering firm (Firm B) a few hours after a well-publicized deadline.
A should return the submittal to firm B, unopened and explain that the bid/submittal was received late.
the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge
Engineer A Water Treatment Constructability Consultant
{'case_reference': 'BER Case 15-7', 'employer': 'Firm X', 'client': 'Municipality', 'project': 'Water treatment facility design', 'issue': 'Potential informal constructability discussion with single contractor'}
Referenced from BER Case 15-7. An engineer retained by a municipality to design a water treatment facility who considers consulting informally with a single contractor on constructability issues, raising concerns about unfair competitive advantage. The precedent establishes that publicly advertised constructability meetings open to all contractors are the appropriate mechanism.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Municipality'}
{'type': 'potential_improper_contact', 'target': 'Contractor B'}
A's firm is retained by a municipality to design a water treatment facility.
A believes the project can benefit from a discussion of constructability issues, and is tempted to begin a discussion with local Contractor B.
A is concerned that potential discussions with B will provide an unfair advantage.
Engineer D As-Built Disclosure Equity Capability
As-Built Drawing Disclosure Equity Capability
Engineer D possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that providing as-built drawings selectively to some contractors (post-award) while not making them available to all bidders pre-bid created an unfair competitive advantage, and to formalize disclosure procedures ensuring equal access.
Engineer D provided as-built drawings to awarded contractors after contract award, creating a pattern that led pre-bid contractors to seek the same information, revealing the competitive inequity of the original practice
Pattern of providing as-built drawings to successful contractors post-award, which over time led contractors to request them pre-bid, revealing the competitive advantage created by selective disclosure
After bids are opened and contracts are awarded, the successful sprinkler contractor asks Engineer D for as-built drawings of the existing sprinkler system. D provides the drawings.
Engineer D As-Built Drawing Disclosure Equity Recognition
Engineer D possessed — but did not fully exercise — the capability to recognize that selective disclosure of as-built drawings to some contractors but not others, particularly before bid opening, creates an unfair competitive advantage and requires formalized equal-access disclosure procedures.
Engineer D served as custodian of as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems in public buildings and provided them selectively to contractors who requested them, without a formal equal-access process.
Engineer D's pattern of providing as-built drawings informally to requesting contractors without ensuring all prospective bidders had equal access to the same information at the same time.
if information is shared selectively with contractors before bids are opened; will D's actions influence the award of a contract?
Engineer D should initiate a process to include as-built drawings, when available, on projects going forward.
Engineer D Bid Document Completeness Capability
Bid Document Technical Completeness Assurance Capability
Engineer D possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that bid documents for major building renovation projects should include reference to existing as-built drawings for sprinkler systems, and to ensure that such material technical information was included in bid documents before advertisement.
Engineer D prepared or oversaw bid documents for state agency building renovation projects that made no reference to existing as-built drawings, despite their material relevance to accurate bid preparation
Absence of reference to existing as-built drawings in bid documents for major building renovation projects, indicating a failure to exercise this capability
Engineer D Constructability Information Equitable Access Design Sprinkler Projects
Engineer D possessed — but did not exercise — the capability to design a formal process for providing constructability-relevant as-built information to all interested contractors on equal terms, such as including as-built drawings in bid packages or establishing a formal document request process accessible to all prospective bidders.
Engineer D recognized the value of as-built drawings for improving renovation designs but responded to requests informally rather than designing a formal equal-access process.
Rather than designing an equitable access process, Engineer D responded to individual contractor requests informally, creating selective access rather than equal access to material technical information.
rather than consulting solely with Contractor B, Engineer A could have conducted a publically (sic) advertised constructability meeting, inviting all interested contractors to provide Engineer A with the input necessary to achieve a better design and construction outcome. Such a process would avoid any appearance of favoritism toward one particular contractor, serve the client's interests, and gain the benefit of broader input.
Engineer D Employer Authorization Prerequisite Recognition As-Built Drawings
Employer Authorization Prerequisite Recognition Capability
Engineer D possessed — but did not fully exercise — the capability to recognize that as-built drawings are employer-owned documents requiring formal authorization before sharing with contractors, whether before or after bid opening.
Engineer D, a fire protection engineer employed by a state public agency, managed as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems and informally provided them to contractors without formal institutional authorization.
The case analysis reveals Engineer D shared as-built drawings informally with contractors post-award and considered sharing them pre-bid, without obtaining formal employer authorization, indicating a gap in exercising this capability.
When D provides as-built drawings after bid openings, is employer information being shared without consent?
Engineer D Employer Authorization Recognition Capability
Engineer D possessed — but failed to fully exercise — the capability to recognize that as-built drawings held by the state agency are employer-owned documents requiring formal institutional authorization before disclosure to external parties, rather than being available for personal-initiative sharing.
Engineer D shared employer-owned as-built drawings with contractors through informal personal responses to requests rather than through formally authorized institutional disclosure procedures
Provision of as-built drawings to contractors on personal initiative without evidence of formal institutional authorization or process
Engineer D is a fire protection engineer in the public sector and works for a state agency
the successful sprinkler contractor asks Engineer D for as-built drawings of the existing sprinkler system. D provides the drawings.
Engineer D Equitable Access Process Design Capability
Engineer D possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize the recurring pattern of contractor requests for as-built drawings as a signal requiring a formal institutional process for equitable pre-bid access, and to design and implement such a process providing equal access to all prospective bidders.
Over time, as contractors began requesting as-built drawings pre-bid, Engineer D had the opportunity and obligation to recognize this pattern and establish a formal equitable disclosure process rather than continuing ad hoc responses
Failure to initiate a formal process for equitable pre-bid disclosure despite the emergence of a recurring pattern of contractor requests for as-built drawings
Over time, sprinkler contractors who received as-built drawings from Engineer D in the past begin to ask for these documents when projects are advertised, before bids are turned in
Engineer D Informal Sharing Restraint Capability
Informal Information Sharing Restraint Capability
Engineer D possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that informally providing as-built drawings to contractors through personal responses to requests, rather than through formal institutional channels, created an appearance of impropriety and selective advantage, and to restrain from such informal sharing.
Engineer D responded to individual contractor requests for as-built drawings on a personal-initiative basis rather than through formal institutional disclosure procedures
Informal personal provision of as-built drawings to contractors upon request, without formal institutional process or equal access mechanism
sprinkler contractors who received as-built drawings from Engineer D in the past begin to ask for these documents when projects are advertised
Engineer D Post-Award Safety Documentation Capability
Post-Award Safety Documentation Provision Capability
Engineer D demonstrated the capability to recognize the safety obligation to provide as-built drawings of existing sprinkler systems to awarded contractors before renovation work commenced, and acted on that recognition by providing the drawings upon request after contract award.
Engineer D appropriately provided as-built drawings to awarded contractors post-award, recognizing the safety value of this information for renovation work on existing sprinkler systems
Provision of as-built drawings to successful sprinkler contractors after contract award, enabling compliant installation and modification work
Engineer D Post-Award Safety Documentation Provision Sprinkler Systems
Engineer D possessed the capability to recognize the safety obligation to provide as-built drawings of existing sprinkler systems to awarded contractors before renovation work commenced, and partially exercised this capability by providing drawings post-award — though the timing and process were procedurally improper.
Engineer D provided as-built drawings to awarded sprinkler contractors for renovation projects, recognizing that contractors needed this information to perform compliant installation and modification work safely.
Engineer D provided as-built drawings to successful contractors after contract award, recognizing their safety value for renovation work, but did so through informal channels rather than formal institutional processes.
Engineer D's efforts to make as-built drawings available for reference appears to be acting in the employer's best interest. Providing more information about existing conditions should help produce a better design.
Fire Protection System As-Built Safety Disclosure Obligation -- Engineer D, as a fire protection engineer and custodian of as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems, was obligated to ensure that contractors performing renovation work had access to complete and accurate as-built documentation.
Engineer D Procurement Fairness Appearance Management As-Built Sharing
Engineer D possessed — but did not fully exercise — the capability to recognize that informal sharing of as-built drawings, even with benign intent, created an appearance of favoritism and impropriety in a public procurement context that required formal process management.
Engineer D's informal as-built drawing sharing practices in the context of public agency renovation project procurement.
Engineer D's well-intentioned but informal sharing of as-built drawings created the appearance of favoritism toward contractors who received them, without Engineer D recognizing this appearance problem.
Engineer D seems to be acting without what was termed in case 82-2, an ulterior motive - D's desire is to make information available to improve designs. Even so, informally sharing as-built information is troubling.
Engineer D Procurement Fairness Appearance Management Capability
Engineer D possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that providing as-built drawings to some contractors informally, even with benign intent, created an appearance of favoritism and improper competitive advantage that would not withstand scrutiny for procurement fairness.
Engineer D's well-intentioned provision of as-built drawings to contractors created an appearance of impropriety and selective advantage in the competitive bidding process for state agency renovation projects
Informal provision of as-built drawings to contractors without recognizing the appearance of favoritism this created in the competitive procurement context
Engineer D Procurement Information Asymmetry Recognition Capability
Procurement Information Asymmetry Recognition Capability
Engineer D possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that the emerging pattern of pre-bid requests for as-built drawings indicated that an information asymmetry had developed among prospective bidders, with some contractors having access to material technical information that others lacked, and that this asymmetry required corrective action.
The pattern of pre-bid requests from contractors who had previously received as-built drawings post-award created a recognizable information asymmetry that Engineer D failed to identify and correct
Failure to recognize and address the competitive information asymmetry created when contractors who had previously received as-built drawings post-award began requesting them pre-bid while other contractors remained unaware of their existence
Engineer D Procurement Information Asymmetry Recognition Sprinkler As-Builts
Engineer D possessed — but did not fully exercise — the capability to recognize that informal sharing of as-built drawings with some contractors while others lacked access created a material information asymmetry undermining competitive fairness in the procurement process.
Engineer D managed as-built drawings for state agency renovation projects and provided them to some sprinkler contractors informally, creating an information asymmetry among prospective bidders.
Engineer D's failure to recognize that contractors who received as-built drawings informally gained a competitive advantage over those who did not, creating an asymmetry requiring immediate corrective action.
Engineer D Recurring Information Gap Systemic Process Initiation As-Built Drawings
Recurring Information Gap Systemic Process Initiation Capability
Engineer D possessed — but did not exercise — the capability to recognize the recurring pattern of contractor requests for as-built drawings as a signal of a systemic gap in procurement processes, and to respond by initiating a formal institutional process to include as-built drawings in future bid packages.
Engineer D experienced a recurring pattern of contractors requesting as-built drawings for renovation projects, which should have triggered recognition of a systemic bid document gap requiring formal process reform.
Engineer D responded to individual contractor requests informally rather than recognizing the pattern as a systemic process gap requiring a formal institutional solution.
Because as-builts are useful and can help improve designs, Engineer D should initiate a process to include as-built drawings, when available, on projects going forward.
Engineer D provides as-built drawings (initial post-award sharing) before contractors begin requesting drawings pre-bid
Engineer D provides as-built drawings (initial post-award sharing)
contractors begin requesting drawings pre-bid
The informal practice is no longer tacitly tolerated; a formal ethical judgment has been rendered requiring systemic change
Discussion/analysis phase, retrospective recognition
The Discussion section analysis concludes that Engineer D's informal sharing practice, though well-intentioned, creates identifiable ethical problems under NSPE Code standards and prior BER case precedents, formally naming the practice as ethically deficient.
Ethical Problem Formally Recognized (Event 6) → Formal Process Requirement Established (Event 7) via Initiate Formal As-Built Distribution Process (Action 5)
As a result of the ethical analysis concluding that informal sharing undermines competitive bidding integrity, it is determined that a formal process must be established; Engineer D should decide to proactively recommend and implement a formal process by which as-built drawings are made available to all prospective bidders simultaneously and through official channels
Ethical Problem Formally Recognized (Event 6)
Without formal ethical recognition, the informal practice would likely have continued indefinitely, perpetuating competitive inequity across future bid cycles
Formal Process Requirement Established (Event 7) via Initiate Formal As-Built Distribution Process (Action 5)
Availability of a feasible formal mechanism (e.g., bid addenda, pre-bid document packages)
Engineer D's professional authority and obligation to recommend corrective process changes
Formal recognition that the existing informal practice is ethically deficient
Institutional receptivity of the state agency to adopt a formal distribution protocol
Engineer D (remedial action); State Agency (institutional implementation)
Ethical problem recognition combined with Engineer D's proactive recommendation and agency adoption of formal protocol constitutes a sufficient remedial set
Society of Fire Protection Engineers and relevant regulatory bodies
Fire Protection Engineering Practice Standards for Public Sector Roles
Fire Protection Engineering Practice Standard
the successful sprinkler contractor asks Engineer D for as-built drawings of the existing sprinkler system
Engineer D in managing sprinkler system documentation and responding to contractor requests
Establishes the professional obligations of a public-sector fire protection engineer regarding the management, retention, and disclosure of sprinkler system as-built drawings to support contractor work on renovation projects
Fire Protection System As-Built Safety Disclosure — Engineer D Renovation Projects
As a fire protection engineer, Engineer D held specialized knowledge of the safety implications of renovation work on existing sprinkler systems, making the timing and completeness of as-built drawing disclosure a safety-critical professional obligation.
Fire Protection System As-Built Safety Disclosure Obligation
Engineer D, as a fire protection engineer and custodian of as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems, was constrained to ensure that contractors performing renovation work had access to those drawings in a timely and equitable manner sufficient to protect worker and occupant safety — with the constraint that post-award disclosure alone may be insufficient when pre-bid access would have materially affected bid preparation and safety planning.
Fire Protection Engineering Practice Standards; NSPE Code of Ethics; Life Safety Code; NFPA Standards
Engineer D is a fire protection engineer in the public sector and works for a state agency.
Throughout all renovation project procurement and execution cycles
Firm B submittal received after well-publicized submission deadline (BER Case 16-3)
well-publicized submission deadline (BER Case 16-3)
The informal practice is formally superseded by a requirement for equal, documented, transparent access to as-built drawings for all bidders; systemic reform is now obligatory
Conclusion phase, prescriptive outcome of analysis
As a result of the ethical analysis, it is determined that a formal process must be established to make as-built drawings available equally to all bidders, resolving the information asymmetry through systemic reform rather than individual accommodation.
Good Intention Non-Exculpation Engineer D As-Built Sharing Confidentiality
Engineer D acted without ulterior motive in sharing as-built drawings, but the BER Case 82-2 precedent establishes that good intentions do not render unauthorized sharing ethically permissible.
Good Intention Non-Exculpation for Confidentiality Breach Constraint
Engineer D's good intentions — the desire to improve design quality by making as-built drawings available to contractors — did not exculpate or mitigate the ethical violation arising from unauthorized informal sharing of employer-owned technical documents, establishing that benevolent motivation is not a defense to the confidentiality and procurement integrity obligations applicable to public agency engineers.
Returning to the case at hand, Engineer D seems to be acting without what was termed in case 82-2, an ulterior motive - D's desire is to make information available to improve designs.
Throughout all informal document sharing activities
Good Intention Non-Exculpation for Confidentiality Breach — Engineer D As-Built Sharing
Engineer D's provision of as-built drawings appears motivated by legitimate professional goals of improving renovation quality and safety, but the informal and selective nature of the sharing created procurement integrity concerns regardless of intent.
Engineer D's good intentions in sharing as-built sprinkler drawings — including the desire to improve design quality and assist contractors — did not exculpate or mitigate the ethical constraint arising from sharing employer-owned documents without formal authorization and in a manner that created procurement inequity, as established by BER Case 82-2.
Throughout all instances of informal as-built drawing sharing
Informal Document Sharing Without Employer Authorization Engineer D As-Built Drawings
Engineer D shared as-built sprinkler system drawings with contractors informally — both after contract award and in response to pre-bid requests — without formal employer authorization and outside of the agency's standard project process.
Informal Document Sharing Without Employer Authorization Constraint
Engineer D was constrained from sharing as-built drawings with contractors through personal initiative or informal channels without formal employer authorization, regardless of the benign intent to improve design quality, because good intentions do not substitute for formal institutional authorization and do not render unauthorized sharing ethically permissible.
Throughout all project phases, both pre-bid and post-award
Informal Document Sharing Without Employer Authorization — Engineer D As-Built Drawings
Engineer D provided as-built drawings informally in response to contractor requests without evidence of formal agency authorization or a standardized institutional process governing such disclosures.
Engineer D was prohibited from sharing state agency-owned as-built sprinkler system drawings with contractors through personal initiative or informal channels without formal employer authorization, arising from the faithful agent obligation and the principle that good intentions do not substitute for formal institutional authorization.
NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent canon; BER Case 82-2
Throughout all instances of as-built drawing sharing, both post-award and in response to pre-bid requests
Informal Selective Document Sharing Prohibition Engineer D Pre-Bid As-Built Drawings
Some contractors with prior project experience were requesting as-built drawings before bid submission, creating a pattern of selective pre-bid information sharing that Engineer D was obligated to refuse and redirect through formal channels.
Informal Selective Document Sharing Prohibition Constraint
Engineer D was prohibited from sharing as-built drawings selectively with individual contractors before bid opening on an informal, request-driven basis, because such selective pre-bid sharing creates information asymmetry among prospective bidders and constitutes an unethical attempt to influence contract awards.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 15-7, 16-3
Pre-bid period for all public renovation projects involving existing sprinkler systems
Informal Selective Document Sharing Prohibition — Engineer D As-Built Pre-Bid Requests
Engineer D's informal practice of providing as-built drawings post-award evolved into a pattern where experienced contractors began requesting the drawings pre-bid, creating selective pre-bid information sharing risk.
Engineer D was prohibited from sharing as-built sprinkler system drawings with individual contractors on an informal, request-driven basis when those documents were material to competitive bid preparation, when the sharing was not formalized through the agency's procurement process, and when the informal sharing pattern created information asymmetry among prospective bidders.
Upon recognition of the recurring pre-bid request pattern and throughout all future bid cycles
What began as isolated accommodation has become a de facto informal policy; contractors now factor in the likelihood of receiving as-builts when planning bids
Mid-narrative, after multiple project cycles
Over time, the repeated post-award sharing of as-built drawings by Engineer D solidifies into an informal but recognizable pattern, with multiple contractors having received the drawings after contract award.
The bidding process is now structurally compromised; the state agency's procurement integrity is at risk; Engineer D's informal practice has created a legally and ethically untenable situation
Concurrent with pre-bid requests, ongoing state
A clear and documented information asymmetry now exists in the bidding pool: some contractors have access to as-built sprinkler drawings before submitting bids while others do not, structurally distorting competitive pricing.
Information Asymmetry Crystallizes (Event 5) → Ethical Problem Formally Recognized (Event 6)
The clear and documented information asymmetry in the bidding pool, where some contractors have access to as-built drawings and others do not, directly precipitates the formal ethical analysis concluding that Engineer D's informal sharing practice, though well-intentioned, undermines the integrity of the competitive bidding process
Information Asymmetry Crystallizes (Event 5)
Without a crystallized, documented asymmetry, i.e., if all bidders had equal access, no ethical violation would have been identifiable and no formal problem recognition would have occurred
Demonstrable differential access to material project information among competing bidders
Engineer D's role as the agent controlling information distribution
Ethical framework analysis applied to the documented facts
Recognition that competitive bidding integrity requires equal information access
Engineer D (primary ethical actor); State Agency (structural contributor)
Documented asymmetry combined with Engineer D's professional obligation to fairness was sufficient to trigger formal ethical problem recognition
Initiate Formal As-Built Distribution Process
Minor increase in administrative burden for bid document preparation
Some contractors who previously benefited from informal access may lose a competitive advantage
Obligation to act as a faithful agent to the employer by correcting a flawed process
Obligation to ensure equal access to material information for all bidders
Obligation to proactively identify and remedy ethically problematic practices
Obligation to protect the integrity of the public competitive bidding process
Obligation to serve the public interest through fair procurement and quality project outcomes
Faithful agency to employer through process improvement
Public interest in fair competition and accurate bidding
Transparency and equal treatment in public procurement
Establish a transparent, equitable, and formally sanctioned process for distributing as-built drawings to all bidders simultaneously, eliminating informational asymmetry and protecting procurement integrity
Ability to advocate for process improvements to agency management
Knowledge of public procurement regulations and best practices
Process design for bid document preparation
Records management and document control system design
Recommended future decision point, upon recognition of the ethical problem
Engineer D should decide to proactively recommend and implement a formal process by which as-built drawings are included in standard bid documents or made equally available to all prospective bidders through official channels. This recommended future action would correct the ethical deficiencies of the informal practice.
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer D is a fire protection engineer in the public sector
Engineer D in evaluating professional obligations regarding drawing disclosure
Provides the primary normative framework for evaluating Engineer D's obligations regarding disclosure of as-built drawings in a public procurement context, including duties to the public, to clients, and to fair dealing
NSPE Code of Ethics - Faithful Agent or Trustee Canon
Acting as a faithful agent or trustee for a client or employer is an obligation for any engineer and is one of the fundamental canons in NSPE's code of ethics.
Engineer D in evaluating disclosure obligations
Referenced as establishing the fundamental canon that engineers must act as faithful agents or trustees for clients and employers, grounding Engineer D's obligations regarding as-built drawing disclosure
Contractors may lack critical existing-condition information when pricing bids
Information asymmetry may emerge if some parties obtain drawings informally
Streamline bid document preparation; possibly reduce administrative burden of compiling and distributing as-built records
Records management for existing facility drawings
Understanding of public bidding requirements
Initial project advertisement phase, recurring across multiple projects
Obligation to promote fair and transparent competitive bidding
Obligation to protect the public interest by enabling accurate, informed bids
Obligation to provide all material information equally to all bidders in public procurement
The state agency deliberately chose not to include as-built drawings in bid documents when advertising building renovation projects. This decision created an information gap that would later drive contractors to seek drawings through informal channels.
Omit As-Builts from Bid Documents (Action 1) → Bid Documents Published Without As-Builts (Event 1)
The state agency deliberately chose not to include as-built drawings in bid documents when advertising renovation projects, resulting in bid documents released without any reference to existing sprinkler system documentation
Omit As-Builts from Bid Documents (Action 1)
Had the agency included as-built drawings in bid documents, the foundational information asymmetry would never have emerged and subsequent informal sharing practices would have been unnecessary
Bid Documents Published Without As-Builts (Event 1)
Existence of as-built drawings that could have been included
Publication of bid documents without remediation of the omission
State agency's volitional decision to exclude as-built drawings
Agency authority over bid document content combined with deliberate exclusion decision
Post-Award As-Built Disclosure Safety Adequacy — Engineer D Sprinkler Renovation
Engineer D provided as-built sprinkler drawings to successful contractors after contract award on major building renovation projects, where bid documents made no reference to existing as-built drawings.
Post-Award Document Disclosure Safety Adequacy Constraint
Engineer D's practice of providing as-built sprinkler system drawings only after contract award — rather than including them in bid documents — required Engineer D to assess whether this post-award timing was adequate to protect worker and occupant safety during renovation, and prohibited treating post-award disclosure as fully satisfactory when contractors may have bid without knowledge of existing system configurations.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 15-7; BER Case 16-3; Fire Protection Engineering Practice Standards
At each instance of post-award as-built drawing disclosure and upon recognition of the recurring pre-bid request pattern
Post-Award Sprinkler Contractor Documentation Requester
{'timing': 'Post-award, post-bid-opening', 'purpose': 'Support compliant sprinkler installation under awarded contract', 'procurement_stage': 'Construction phase'}
A successful sprinkler contractor who, after being awarded a contract for a major building renovation project, requests as-built drawings of the existing sprinkler system from Engineer D to support compliant installation work. This post-award request is the initial and arguably legitimate form of the information-seeking behavior that later evolves into pre-bid requests.
{'type': 'contractor', 'target': 'State Public Agency'}
{'type': 'information_requester', 'target': 'Engineer D Public Sector Fire Protection Engineer'}
Sprinkler Contractor Documentation Requester
After bids are opened and contracts are awarded, the successful sprinkler contractor asks Engineer D for as-built drawings of the existing sprinkler system
Information asymmetry is now occurring before bids are submitted, directly corrupting the competitive bidding process; the ethical problem has escalated from retrospective to prospective harm
Later phase: after pattern is established, before bid submission
Contractors who previously received as-built drawings post-award begin requesting them before bids are submitted, creating an explicit and visible pre-bid information asymmetry between informed and uninformed bidders.
Pre-Bid Material Information Equal Disclosure Engineer D Sprinkler As-Built Drawings
Engineer D possessed as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems that were material to accurate bid preparation for building renovation projects, but these were not included in bid documents and were only shared informally with contractors who requested them.
Pre-Bid Material Information Equal Disclosure Constraint
Engineer D was constrained to ensure that as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems — being material to accurate and competitive bid preparation — were made available to all prospective bidders on equal terms before bid submission, prohibiting selective or informal disclosure to only those contractors who happened to request them through prior project relationships.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 15-7, 16-3; Public procurement fairness standards
Pre-Bid Material Information Equal Disclosure — Engineer D As-Built Sprinkler Drawings
Sprinkler contractors who had previously received as-built drawings from Engineer D after contract award began requesting those drawings before bid submission, creating a risk that only contractors with prior relationships would have access to material technical information during bid preparation.
Engineer D was constrained from providing as-built sprinkler system drawings selectively to contractors who informally requested them before bid submission, and was required to ensure those documents were made available to all prospective bidders on equal terms before bid submission, prohibiting informal selective disclosure that created information asymmetry among competing bidders.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; BER Case 15-7; BER Case 16-3; Public Procurement Fairness Standards
Upon emergence of the pattern of pre-bid requests from contractors with prior project experience
Pre-Bid Sprinkler Contractor Documentation Requester
{'timing': 'Pre-bid, during advertisement period', 'purpose': 'Gain informational advantage in competitive bidding', 'procurement_stage': 'Pre-bid / advertisement phase', 'prior_relationship': 'Previously received post-award drawings from Engineer D'}
Sprinkler contractors who, having previously received as-built drawings from Engineer D after contract award, begin requesting those same documents before bids are submitted when new projects are advertised. This pre-bid information-seeking creates procurement equity concerns and triggers Engineer D's obligations to formalize and equalize access to material project information through official bid document channels.
{'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'Other sprinkler contractors without prior Engineer D relationship'}
Proactive Formal Bid Document Improvement Initiation Engineer D As-Built Drawings
Engineer D recognized that as-built drawings were useful and could help improve designs, and that contractors were repeatedly requesting them. This recognition triggered an obligation to formalize the process rather than continue informal ad hoc sharing.
Proactive Formal Bid Document Improvement Initiation Constraint
Engineer D was constrained to initiate a formal institutional process to include as-built drawings in future bid packages for renovation projects involving existing sprinkler systems, prohibiting passive continuation of the informal sharing practice when Engineer D had both the knowledge and institutional standing to advocate for systemic improvement through proper channels.
Ongoing obligation arising upon recognition of the recurring information gap
Proactive Formal Bid Document Improvement — Engineer D Recurring Pre-Bid As-Built Requests
The recurring pattern of pre-bid requests from contractors with prior project experience signaled a systemic gap in the agency's bid document preparation process that Engineer D, as the custodian of the as-built drawings and the fire protection engineer on these projects, was positioned to address through formal institutional advocacy.
Upon recognizing the recurring pattern of contractors requesting as-built sprinkler drawings before bid submission, Engineer D was required to initiate a formal institutional process to include those documents in future bid packages, prohibiting passive continuation of the informal sharing practice when Engineer D had both the knowledge and institutional standing to advocate for systemic improvement through proper channels.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 15-7; BER Case 16-3; Public Procurement Fairness Standards
Upon recognition of the recurring pre-bid request pattern
Establishing an informal precedent that could be repeated
Potential future requests from non-awarded parties if practice became known
Obligation to act as faithful agent to employer by facilitating better project outcomes
Obligation to protect public safety by enabling accurate fire protection system design
Transparency and procedural integrity in public procurement
Help the awarded contractor produce better, more accurate sprinkler designs by providing existing-condition information; improve project outcomes and public safety
Obligation to ensure all parties have equal access to material project information
Engineering judgment regarding relevance of as-built information
Knowledge of public procurement protocols
Post-bid award phase, initial occurrence
Obligation to avoid even the appearance of favoritism or impropriety in public contracting
Obligation to use formally sanctioned processes on public projects
Engineer D voluntarily decided to provide as-built sprinkler drawings to the successful contractor upon request after contract award, without a formal authorization process or documented procedure. This action was well-intentioned but established an informal precedent outside sanctioned procurement channels.
Provide As-Builts Post-Award Informally (Action 2) → Informal Sharing Pattern Emerges (Event 3)
Engineer D voluntarily decided to provide as-built sprinkler drawings to the successful contractor under the belief it was helpful; repeated over time, this solidified into an informal but consistent practice
Provide As-Builts Post-Award Informally (Action 2)
Had Engineer D declined to share informally and instead escalated the omission formally after the first instance, no informal pattern would have emerged
Informal Sharing Pattern Emerges (Event 3)
Absence of a formal process governing as-built distribution
Engineer D's volitional decision to share drawings outside formal channels
Repetition of the sharing behavior across multiple contract cycles
Repeated informal sharing without institutional correction or formalization was sufficient to establish a de facto practice pattern
Public procurement regulatory bodies and professional engineering ethics organizations
Public Procurement Fairness Standards for Engineering Contracts
The agency advertises for bids on major building renovation projects; the bid documents made no reference to existing as-builts or drawings
Engineer D and the state agency in structuring bid documents and responding to pre-bid drawing requests
Establishes the obligation to provide all material technical information — including as-built drawings — to all prospective bidders simultaneously before bid submission, addressing the inequity created when some contractors have access to drawings that others do not
Public Procurement Fairness Standard - As-Built Context
Engineer D and BER panel in evaluating fairness of disclosure practices
Applied to evaluate whether Engineer D's selective or informal sharing of as-built drawings with certain contractors before bid opening violates the equitable treatment obligations owed to all bidders in public procurement processes
Is it ethical for Engineer D to provide access to as-builts after projects were awarded?
Did Engineer D have an obligation to seek explicit employer authorization before sharing as-built drawings with contractors post-award, and does the absence of a formal prohibition constitute implied permission?
Does the state agency bear independent ethical or institutional responsibility for failing to include as-built drawings in bid documents, and to what extent does that institutional failure shift moral culpability away from Engineer D?
Does the safety-critical nature of fire protection systems create a heightened duty for Engineer D to ensure contractors have accurate as-built information, even if doing so requires acting outside formal procurement channels?
Once Engineer D recognized that an informal pattern of pre-bid as-built requests had emerged, at what point did continued inaction on formalizing the process itself become an independent ethical violation?
Is it ethical for Engineer D to share as-builts with sprinkler contractors who ask for information during the bidding phase?
Does the Faithful Agent Obligation to the state agency employer conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle when withholding as-built fire protection drawings from contractors could compromise renovation safety outcomes?
Does the Equal Access to Bid Information principle conflict with the Confidentiality of Employer Information principle, given that making as-builts universally available pre-bid serves fairness but may require Engineer D to disclose employer-held documents without explicit authorization?
Does the Proactive Systemic Remedy Obligation conflict with the Formal Channel Requirement when Engineer D's most immediately effective remedy — sharing as-builts informally — is precisely the action the Formal Channel Requirement prohibits?
Does the Procurement Integrity principle conflict with the Bid Document Completeness principle in a way that creates a double bind for Engineer D — where including as-builts in bid documents serves completeness but the agency's failure to do so means any Engineer D workaround risks undermining procurement integrity?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer D fulfill the duty of acting as a faithful agent to the state agency by sharing as-built drawings informally and without explicit employer authorization, regardless of whether the outcome benefited the contractor or the project?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer D violate a categorical duty of equal treatment by selectively sharing as-built drawings with only those pre-bid contractors who happened to ask, thereby structurally disadvantaging contractors who did not know to request the information?
From a consequentialist perspective, did the cumulative outcome of Engineer D's informal post-award as-built sharing — enabling better-informed renovation work and potentially safer fire protection systems — justify the procedural irregularity of bypassing formal bid document channels, or did the downstream competitive distortions outweigh those safety benefits?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer D demonstrate professional integrity and practical wisdom by recognizing a recurring information gap and continuing to address it informally, or did the failure to escalate the problem into a formal systemic remedy reveal a deficiency in the virtue of professional courage and institutional responsibility?
If the state agency had included as-built drawings as a standard component of all bid solicitation packages from the outset, would the ethical problems of selective pre-bid sharing and informal post-award disclosure have arisen at all, and what does this suggest about the agency's institutional responsibility relative to Engineer D's individual ethical burden?
If Engineer D had refused to share as-built drawings with the first post-award contractor who requested them, citing the absence of employer authorization, would that refusal have been more or less ethical than the informal sharing that actually occurred, and would it have prompted earlier systemic reform?
If Engineer D had immediately disclosed to all bidders simultaneously upon receiving the first pre-bid request for as-built drawings — rather than sharing selectively — would that action have been ethically sufficient, or would it still have been problematic because it bypassed the formal bid document amendment process required by public procurement rules?
If Engineer D had formally escalated the recurring pre-bid as-built request pattern to agency leadership and proposed a policy change after the second or third project cycle, rather than continuing informal sharing, would the ethical violations identified by the Board have been avoided, and does the failure to escalate constitute an independent ethical breach beyond the sharing itself?
Active competitive disadvantage created for bidders without access to as-built information
Contractors without prior relationship with Engineer D would not know to request the drawings and would bid without them
Potential violation of public procurement rules on equal information access
Avoidance of conflicts of interest or preferential treatment
Public interest in competitive pricing through level-playing-field bidding
Transparency and fairness in public procurement
Continue being helpful to contractors; allow better-informed bids that could improve project quality and pricing accuracy
Ability to recognize when informal practices cross into impermissible territory
Judgment to escalate or refuse requests that compromise procurement integrity
Understanding of public procurement ethics and legal requirements
Emerging pre-bid phase, after informal practice became known among repeat contractors
Obligation to act only within formally sanctioned processes on public projects
Obligation to avoid actions that create unfair advantage for particular contractors
Obligation to avoid even the appearance of favoritism or impropriety
Obligation to ensure all bidders have equal access to material project information
When contractors who had previously received as-built drawings post-award began requesting them before bid submission, Engineer D faced a decision point and implicitly or explicitly complied with at least some of these pre-bid requests. This action directly created informational asymmetry among competing bidders during the active bidding period.
Selectively Share As-Builts Pre-Bid (Action 4) → Information Asymmetry Crystallizes (Event 5)
When contractors who had previously received as-built drawings post-award began requesting them before bids, selective pre-bid sharing created a clear and documented information asymmetry in the bidding pool where some contractors have access and others do not
Selectively Share As-Builts Pre-Bid (Action 4)
Had Engineer D either declined all pre-bid requests and referred contractors to formal channels, or ensured all bidders received identical information simultaneously, no asymmetry would have crystallized
Active bidding competition among contractors with differential information access
Engineer D's decision to honor pre-bid requests selectively rather than universally or not at all
Existence of as-built drawings not included in official bid documents
Prior informal sharing creating contractor awareness of drawings' existence
Engineer D (primary); State Agency (contributory)
Selective pre-bid disclosure to a subset of bidders while others remained uninformed was sufficient to produce a material competitive imbalance
Standard Project Process Channeling Constraint Engineer D As-Built Availability Advisement
Engineer D was positioned to informally share as-built drawings with contractors who requested them. The ethical pathway was to advise of availability and direct to standard process, not to personally provide documents.
Standard Project Process Information Channeling Constraint
Engineer D was constrained to channel all contractor access to as-built drawings through the agency's standard project process — permissibly advising contractors of document availability but directing them to request documents through formal channels — prohibiting direct personal provision of documents outside of institutionally authorized disclosure mechanisms.
Throughout all project phases for public renovation projects
After bids are opened and contracts are awarded, the successful sprinkler contractor asks Engineer D for as-built drawings of the existing sprinkler system.
bid submission (bids turned in) before bid opening
if information is shared selectively with contractors before bids are opened; will D's actions influence the award of a contract? / before bids are turned in
contract award before Engineer D provides as-built drawings (initial post-award sharing)
contractors begin requesting drawings pre-bid during project advertisement / bid solicitation phase
sprinkler contractors who received as-built drawings from Engineer D in the past begin to ask for these documents when projects are advertised, before bids are turned in.
project advertisement / bid solicitation phase
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
Public welfare obligations require that bid documents include material technical information for fire protection work, overriding any administrative convenience rationale for omission
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
The tension is resolved by recognizing that the employer's institutional interest in proper information management is itself a public interest — proper procurement processes protect taxpayers and ensure fair competition, which are public welfare goals
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.86
Engineer D was constrained from sharing as-built drawings with awarded contractors after contract award without formal employer authorization, because even post-award sharing through informal personal initiative constitutes sharing of employer-owned information without consent and fails to recognize the confidentiality of the employer relationship.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
The tension between equal access and bid document completeness is resolved by including as-built drawings in the formal bid package for all bidders, rather than sharing selectively with some
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
Procurement integrity and faithful agency are reconciled by recognizing that the employer's long-term interest is best served by maintaining procurement integrity, even if short-term project quality might benefit from informal information sharing
The faithful agent obligation is fulfilled — not violated — by Engineer D flagging the systemic bid document omission to agency management and proposing corrective procedures
The faithful agent obligation is satisfied by advising contractors that as-built drawings are available and directing them to formal request processes, rather than sharing documents informally on D's own initiative
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
The formal channel requirement supersedes informal helpfulness because only formal channels ensure equal access and institutional accountability
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
The principle is not in tension with faithful agency — rather, it clarifies that faithful agency requires procedural compliance, not merely good intentions; D can be a faithful agent by using proper channels
Engineer D can satisfy both the formal channel requirement and the goal of improving designs by initiating a systemic process to include as-built drawings in bid documents going forward, rather than using informal sharing as a workaround
The bid document completeness obligation requires that existing as-built drawings be referenced in bid documents regardless of administrative convenience, because their omission creates material information asymmetry
Bid document completeness is achieved through formal inclusion of as-built drawings in the bid package, not through informal selective sharing — the principle supports the systemic remedy rather than the informal workaround
Procurement integrity obligations require Engineer D to correct the bid document deficiency and cease informal information sharing that creates bidder advantage
Initiating a formal process to include as-built drawings in bid documents simultaneously satisfies the systemic remedy obligation, the formal channel requirement, and the bid document completeness principle
Equal access requires that all bidders receive the same information through the same formal channels, superseding any individual engineer's responsive inclination to share helpful technical information informally
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.84
Engineer D was constrained by the faithful agent obligation to the state agency, which prohibited sharing agency-owned technical documents through informal personal channels without formal authorization, even when the sharing was motivated by legitimate professional goals, and required that Engineer D's information-sharing practices serve the agency's legitimate interests in conducting fair, legally compliant procurement processes.
The systemic remedy obligation requires Engineer D to escalate the bid document deficiency to agency management and propose formal procedural corrections, rather than continuing to respond informally to individual requests
engineer produces home inspection report (BER Case 82-2) before engineer provides copy to real estate firm (BER Case 82-2)
the engineer produced a report for their client and provided a copy to the real estate firm handling the home sale.
engineer produces home inspection report (BER Case 82-2)
engineer provides copy to real estate firm (BER Case 82-2)
informal as-built sharing practice before recommended formal process for making as-builts available to all bidders
Engineer D should initiate a process to include as-built drawings, when available, on projects going forward. It would be unethical for D to share as-builts with selected contractors pre-bid.
recommended formal process for making as-builts available to all bidders
pre-bid selective sharing of as-builts with some contractors before bid submission deadline
pre-bid selective sharing of as-builts with some contractors
project advertisement / bid solicitation before bid submission (bids turned in)
project advertisement / bid solicitation
Engineer D's agency issued bid documents for major building renovation projects that made no reference to existing as-built drawings for the existing sprinkler systems, depriving bidders of material technical information needed to prepare a
As-built drawings of existing sprinkler systems constitute material technical information that competent contractors need to prepare accurate bids for building renovation projects, and their systematic absence from bid documents creates con
Engineer D serves the state agency as a fire protection engineer managing as-built drawings and supporting procurement processes, with an obligation to serve the agency's interests faithfully while also bearing independent professional obli
Because the unavailability of as-built drawings in bid documents is a recurring gap that Engineer D has identified as harmful to design quality, D has an obligation to initiate a formal process to include as-built drawings in future bid pac
The public welfare is served by ensuring that fire protection system renovation work is accurately priced and safely executed, which requires that contractors have access to existing as-built drawings before bidding — because uninformed bid
As-built drawings held by the state agency constitute employer information that Engineer D may not share without institutional authorization, even when sharing would benefit project outcomes, because the agency's institutional integrity in
Sharing as-built drawings with selected contractors before bid opening would give those contractors an informational advantage over competitors who did not receive the drawings, violating the equal access principle
Engineer D's efforts to make as-built drawings available are framed as acting in the employer's best interest, but the faithful agent obligation also requires D to act within proper institutional channels rather than through informal person
Engineer D must direct contractors to request as-built drawings through standard project processes rather than sharing them informally, ensuring institutional authorization governs all information disclosure
Sharing as-built drawings selectively with some contractors before bid opening would compromise the integrity of the public procurement process by giving favored contractors an informational advantage, undermining the competitive fairness t
Engineer D's benign motivation — improving design quality by making as-built drawings available — does not render informal selective sharing ethically permissible, because the procedural harm to procurement integrity exists independently of
The state agency's bid process for building renovation projects is compromised by the omission of as-built drawing references from bid documents and the subsequent informal disclosure of those drawings to select contractors, creating condit
Engineer D shared as-built drawings with successful contractors through informal personal responses to post-award requests rather than through formal bid document inclusion or official addendum processes, creating an informal information ch
The pattern of contractors requesting as-built drawings pre-bid — having learned of their availability through prior post-award experience — signals a systemic deficiency in the agency's bid document preparation practice that Engineer D is
Engineer D's practice of providing as-built drawings to successful contractors after award created a class of contractors with knowledge of the drawings' availability, who then sought them pre-bid — giving those contractors an informational
Engineer D was obligated to identify existing as-built drawings for sprinkler systems as material technical information for renovation bid documents and to reference and make available that documentation in the bid package so that all bidde
Engineer D was obligated to identify the existing as-built drawings for sprinkler systems as material to accurate bid preparation and safe performance of renovation work, and to reference and make available those drawings in the bid package
Engineer D was obligated to refrain from sharing as-built drawings selectively with some contractors before bids were opened, recognizing that selective pre-bid disclosure would give favored contractors an unfair informational advantage and
Engineer D was obligated to recognize that their benign motivation — improving design quality by making as-built drawings available — did not render informal selective sharing of those drawings ethical, and to refrain from using good intent
Engineer D was obligated to obtain formal employer authorization or consent before sharing as-built drawings of existing sprinkler systems with contractors, whether post-award or pre-bid, recognizing that these documents constitute employer
Engineer D was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the state public agency employer, serving the agency's legitimate interests in procurement integrity and design quality within the bounds of professional ethics.
Engineer D was obligated to ensure that bid documents for building renovation projects involving existing sprinkler systems included reference to available as-built drawings and made them equally available to all prospective bidders before
Engineer D was obligated to refrain from sharing as-built drawings with contractors through informal, personally initiated channels, and instead to direct all contractor requests through formal, agency-sanctioned processes, so that no contr
Engineer D was obligated to refrain from sharing as-built drawings with contractors through informal personal responses to post-award requests, and instead to direct all such requests through formal agency-sanctioned processes, so that no c
Engineer D was obligated to refrain from providing as-built drawings selectively to successful contractors after award while withholding them from other bidders, and subsequently to refrain from providing them informally to pre-bid requeste
Engineer D was obligated to initiate a formal institutional process to systematically include as-built drawings in future bid packages for renovation projects involving existing sprinkler systems, rather than continuing to address contracto
Upon recognizing the recurring pattern of contractors requesting as-built drawings pre-bid, Engineer D was obligated to initiate a formal institutional process to systematically include as-built drawing references in future bid packages, ra
Engineer D was obligated, upon learning that sprinkler contractors were requesting as-built drawings pre-bid, to recognize that equitable practice required formalizing equal pre-bid access for all prospective bidders and to advocate for or
Engineer D, as a fire protection engineer and custodian of as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems, was obligated to ensure that contractors performing renovation or modification work on those systems had access to those drawings b
Engineer D was obligated to include reference to existing as-built drawings for sprinkler systems in bid documents for major building renovation projects, and to make those drawings available to all prospective bidders on equal terms before
Upon learning that some contractors were requesting as-built drawings pre-bid, Engineer D was obligated to recognize that equitable practice required formalizing equal pre-bid access for all prospective bidders, and to advocate for or imple
Engineer D was obligated to act as a faithful agent of the state agency, serving the agency's legitimate interests in conducting fair, legally compliant, and safety-sound procurement processes — including ensuring that bid documents were co
Engineer D was obligated, as the public agency fire protection engineer managing as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems, to ensure that contractors performing renovation work on those systems had access to those drawings through f
Faithful Agent Boundary — Engineer D Employer Information Sharing
Engineer D's informal sharing of as-built drawings created tension between the desire to improve project outcomes and the obligation to act as a faithful agent of the state agency by respecting institutional authorization requirements and procurement integrity obligations.
Throughout all instances of as-built drawing sharing and procurement-related conduct
Faithful Agent Employer Information Consent Engineer D As-Built Drawings Post-Award
Engineer D provided as-built drawings to successful contractors after contract award in response to informal requests, without formal employer authorization, believing this served the employer's best interests by improving design quality.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Faithful Agent Canon; BER Case 82-2
Post-award period for all public renovation projects
it was incorrect to not recognize the confidentiality of a client relationship.
Emerging Informal Pre-Bid As-Built Request Pattern
From the time contractors who previously received as-built drawings begin requesting them pre-bid, persisting as an ongoing pattern
Experienced sprinkler contractors with prior relationships
Other prospective bidders without prior access
Pattern of sprinkler contractors with prior project experience requesting as-built drawings before bid submission
Not resolved in the facts; would terminate upon formal equitable disclosure policy being adopted
Sprinkler contractors who received as-built drawings from Engineer D in the past begin requesting those documents when projects are advertised, before bids are submitted
Engineer D Faithful Agent Boundary — Employer Information Sharing
From the point Engineer D began sharing as-built drawings informally through resolution of the case
Engineer D's tension between desire to improve design quality through information sharing and obligation as faithful agent not to share employer information without consent
Establishment of formal employer-sanctioned disclosure process
Engineer D seems to be acting without what was termed in case 82-2, an ulterior motive - D's desire is to make information available to improve designs
Even so, informally sharing as-built information is troubling
Engineer D sharing employer-held as-built drawings with contractors without formal employer permission, motivated by desire to improve design outcomes
Engineer D Post-Award As-Built Disclosure
From the moment the successful sprinkler contractor requests as-built drawings after bid opening and contract award, through Engineer D's provision of those drawings
Other prospective bidders on future projects
Engineer D's provision of as-built sprinkler drawings to successful contractor after contract award
Not explicitly terminated in the facts; persists as a practice pattern
Successful sprinkler contractor requests as-built drawings of existing sprinkler system after bids are opened and contracts are awarded
Informal Pre-Bid As-Built Request Pattern — Selective Pre-Bid Sharing Risk
From the point contractors began requesting as-built drawings pre-bid through resolution via formal process establishment
Contractors with prior project experience
Contractors without prior project experience
It would be unethical for D to share as-builts with selected contractors pre-bid
Selective Pre-Bid Information Sharing State
Pattern of contractors requesting as-built drawings before bid submission, creating risk of selective pre-bid information sharing by Engineer D
Formal process established making as-built drawings available to all prospective bidders through official channels
Contractors with prior project experience learning that as-built drawings are available and requesting them before bids are submitted on future projects
Post-Award As-Built Sharing — Faithful Agent and Confidentiality Analysis
From Engineer D's initial post-award sharing of as-built drawings through the present case analysis
Engineer D's sharing of as-built drawings with contractors after bid opening and contract award, without formal employer authorization
Formal employer-sanctioned process established for as-built disclosure
Engineer D's efforts to make as-built drawings available for reference appears to be acting in the employer's best interest
Engineer D providing as-built drawings to contractors after bid openings to improve design quality, without formal employer permission or standard process
Public Agency Absent Formal As-Built Disclosure Process
From the inception of the pattern of informal as-built sharing through the present, until Engineer D successfully initiates a formal process change
General public benefiting from improved designs
Engineer D should initiate a process to include as-built drawings, when available, on projects going forward
Absent Formal As-Built Disclosure Process State
Public agency's lack of a formal standardized process for including as-built drawings in bid solicitation materials
Engineer D initiating and agency adopting a formal process to include as-built drawings in standard project documentation going forward
Because as-builts are useful and can help improve designs, Engineer D should initiate a process to include as-built drawings, when available, on projects going forward
Recognition that as-built drawings are useful for improving designs but no formal mechanism exists to make them systematically available to all prospective contractors
Selective Pre-Bid Information Sharing Risk
From the time contractors begin making pre-bid requests through the unresolved present state of the facts
Engineer D's position of being informally solicited for as-built drawings by select contractors before bid opening, creating potential for inequitable information access
Not resolved in the facts; would terminate upon formal equitable disclosure mechanism being established
the bid documents made no reference to existing as-builts or drawings
Contractors with prior project experience begin requesting as-built drawings before bid submission, placing Engineer D in a position of deciding whether to share selectively
State Agency As-Built Information Custodian
{'entity_type': 'State public agency', 'documentation_type': 'Sprinkler system as-built drawings', 'procurement_role': 'Contracting authority for building renovation projects'}
The state public agency, through Engineer D, serves as the institutional custodian of existing sprinkler system as-built drawings for public buildings undergoing renovation. The agency's bid documents make no reference to these drawings, creating an informal and inequitable channel through which contractors with prior relationships obtain material project information unavailable to other bidders.
{'type': 'contracting_authority', 'target': 'Sprinkler Contractors (post-award and pre-bid)'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Engineer D Public Sector Fire Protection Engineer'}
Engineer D's agency prepared bid documents for building renovation projects without referencing existing as-built drawings for the sprinkler systems, despite those drawings being material to accurate bid preparation and safe performance of the work.
Bid Document Material Information Inclusion Obligation
Engineer D was obligated to identify existing as-built drawings for sprinkler systems as material technical information for renovation bid documents and to reference and make available that documentation in the bid package so that all bidders could prepare complete and accurate proposals.
Engineer D's agency issued bid documents for major building renovation projects that made no reference to existing as-built drawings for the existing sprinkler systems
At the time of bid document preparation for each renovation project involving existing sprinkler systems
Engineer D Informal As-Built Sharing Without Formal Permission
From the point Engineer D began sharing as-built drawings post-award through the present case analysis, and prospectively until a formal process is established
D should not share documents on their own initiative or without formal permission
Informal As-Built Sharing Without Formal Permission State
Engineer D's practice of sharing as-built drawings with contractors informally on public projects
Establishment of a formal process to include as-built drawings in standard project documentation and direction of all requests through official channels
Engineer D can advise that as-built drawings are available, but D should direct subcontractors to request them as part of the standard project process
Working through informal mechanisms on public projects can give the appearance of impropriety or favoritism
Engineer D sharing as-built drawings with contractors after bid opening without formal employer permission or standard process authorization, followed by contractors beginning to request documents pre-bid
Engineer D Proactive Formal Process Initiation As-Built Drawing Gap
Engineer D recognized that as-built drawings were useful for improving design quality but had been addressing contractor requests informally rather than through formal institutional processes.
Proactive Formal Process Initiation for Recurring Information Gap Obligation
Engineer D was obligated to initiate a formal institutional process to systematically include as-built drawings in future bid packages for renovation projects involving existing sprinkler systems, rather than continuing to address contractor requests informally on a case-by-case basis.
Upon recognizing the recurring pattern of contractor requests for as-built drawings
Undisclosed Available As-Built Drawings in Bid Documents
From the time bid documents are advertised through the period when contractors begin requesting documents pre-bid; persists as long as bid documents omit reference to existing as-builts
State agency's possession of as-built sprinkler drawings not referenced in bid solicitation materials
Not resolved in the facts; would terminate upon agency adopting policy of referencing as-builts in bid documents
Agency advertises bids on major building renovation projects with bid documents making no reference to existing as-built drawings
Bid Document Material Information Inclusion Engineer D Sprinkler As-Builts
Engineer D's agency issued bid documents for major building renovation projects that made no reference to existing as-built drawings for the existing sprinkler systems, despite those drawings being material to accurate bid preparation and safe execution of fire suppression system renovation work.
Engineer D was obligated to identify the existing as-built drawings for sprinkler systems as material to accurate bid preparation and safe performance of renovation work, and to reference and make available those drawings in the bid package for each renovation project.
The agency advertises for bids on major building renovation projects; the bid documents made no reference to existing as-builts or drawings for the bidders' or awarded contractor's use.
During preparation of bid documents for each renovation project involving existing sprinkler systems
The pattern of contractors requesting as-built drawings pre-bid — having learned of their availability through prior post-award experience — signaled a recurring systemic information gap in the agency's bid documents that Engineer D was obligated to remedy through formal institutional action.
Upon recognizing the recurring pattern of contractors requesting as-built drawings pre-bid, Engineer D was obligated to initiate a formal institutional process to systematically include as-built drawing references in future bid packages, rather than continuing to address requests informally on a case-by-case basis.
Upon recognition that contractors were beginning to request as-built drawings pre-bid as a recurring pattern
Engineer D As-Built Information Custodian
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'employer': 'Public agency', 'information_controlled': 'As-built drawings for public infrastructure projects', 'intent': 'Improve design quality by making existing condition information available'}
A public sector engineer who manages as-built drawings for a public agency and informally shares or considers sharing them with subcontractors and contractors, both before and after bid openings, raising procurement equity and favoritism concerns. The discussion concludes D must route all such requests through formal procurement channels and should initiate a process to include as-builts in standard project documentation going forward.
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Public Agency Employer'}
{'type': 'service_context', 'target': 'Pre-Bid As-Built Information Seeker (contractors)'}
Engineer D's efforts to make as-built drawings available for reference appears to be acting in the employer's best interest.
Engineer D Equal Pre-Bid Information Access Enforcement Sprinkler Contractors
Sprinkler contractors who had previously received as-built drawings post-award began requesting those same documents pre-bid, signaling a need for Engineer D to formalize equal pre-bid access rather than continuing informal post-award sharing.
Equal Pre-Bid Information Access Enforcement Obligation
Engineer D was obligated, upon learning that sprinkler contractors were requesting as-built drawings pre-bid, to recognize that equitable practice required formalizing equal pre-bid access for all prospective bidders and to advocate for or implement that procedural correction within the agency.
Upon learning that contractors were requesting as-built drawings pre-bid
Fire Protection System As-Built Safety Disclosure Engineer D Renovation Projects
As-built drawings of existing fire suppression systems are safety-critical information for renovation contractors; Engineer D's practice of providing them only post-award, and only upon request, created material risk of improper system modification and reduced fire suppression effectiveness.
Engineer D, as a fire protection engineer and custodian of as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems, was obligated to ensure that contractors performing renovation or modification work on those systems had access to those drawings before commencing work — and that this access was provided through formal bid document channels rather than only upon post-award request.
Before bid submission for renovation projects involving existing fire suppression systems, and before commencement of any renovation work
Proactive Systemic Remedy Obligation Triggered By Recurring Pre-Bid Requests
Recurring pattern of pre-bid as-built drawing requests from experienced sprinkler contractors
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
The pattern of contractors requesting as-built drawings pre-bid — having learned of their availability through prior post-award experience — signals a systemic deficiency in the agency's bid document preparation practice that Engineer D is obligated to address institutionally rather than through continued informal responses
The emergence of pre-bid requests is a diagnostic signal that the bid document omission has become a known and recurring problem; Engineer D's professional obligation shifts from responsive information sharing to institutional remedy
Proactive Systemic Remedy Obligation for Recurring Information Gaps
Bid Document Completeness Invoked By Engineer D Omission
Bid document preparation for major building renovation projects involving existing sprinkler systems
Engineer D's agency issued bid documents for major building renovation projects that made no reference to existing as-built drawings for the existing sprinkler systems, depriving bidders of material technical information needed to prepare accurate bids
The omission of as-built drawing references from bid documents constitutes a failure of the bid document completeness obligation, because contractors cannot accurately price fire protection work without knowledge of the existing system configuration
Engineer D Public Sector Fire Protection Engineer
Bid Document Completeness and Material Information Disclosure
Confidentiality of Employer Information Invoked for As-Built Drawing Sharing
As-built drawings of existing sprinkler systems held by the state public agency
As-built drawings held by the state agency constitute employer information that Engineer D may not share without institutional authorization, even when sharing would benefit project outcomes, because the agency's institutional integrity in managing its information assets must be respected
The confidentiality principle here is not about protecting sensitive personal or commercial information but about respecting the institutional authority of the employer over its own information assets — D lacks unilateral authority to share employer documents informally
Confidentiality of Employer Information in Public Agency Context
the board determined it was incorrect to not recognize the confidentiality of a client relationship
Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked For Engineer D Agency Service
Engineer D's role in bid document preparation and as-built drawing management
Equal Access to Bid Information in Public Procurement
Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
Engineer D serves the state agency as a fire protection engineer managing as-built drawings and supporting procurement processes, with an obligation to serve the agency's interests faithfully while also bearing independent professional obligations to ensure procurement fairness
Engineer D's faithful agent obligation to the agency includes proactively identifying and correcting bid document deficiencies, not merely complying with existing (deficient) practices
Formal Channel Requirement Invoked for Engineer D As-Built Sharing
As-built drawing requests from sprinkler contractors pre-bid and post-award
The formal channel requirement applies both pre-bid and post-award: even when sharing as-built drawings would improve design quality, the sharing must occur through institutionally sanctioned processes to preserve procurement integrity and equal access
Formal Channel Requirement for Information Sharing in Public Procurement
Pre-Bid As-Built Drawing Disclosure Engineer D State Agency Sprinkler Renovation
Engineer D's state agency issued bid documents for major building renovation projects that made no reference to existing as-built drawings for the existing sprinkler systems, depriving all bidders of material safety-critical information needed for accurate bid preparation.
Pre-Bid As-Built Drawing Disclosure Obligation
Engineer D was obligated to include reference to existing as-built drawings for sprinkler systems in bid documents for major building renovation projects, and to make those drawings available to all prospective bidders on equal terms before bids were submitted.
At the time of preparing and issuing bid documents for each renovation project
Proactive Systemic Remedy Obligation Invoked for As-Built Drawing Gap
Recurring absence of as-built drawings from bid documents on public building renovation projects
Because the unavailability of as-built drawings in bid documents is a recurring gap that Engineer D has identified as harmful to design quality, D has an obligation to initiate a formal process to include as-built drawings in future bid packages rather than continuing to address the gap through ad hoc informal sharing
The systemic remedy obligation transforms D's individual ethical problem into an institutional improvement opportunity — D's knowledge of the recurring gap creates a professional obligation to fix the system, not just manage individual instances
Procurement Integrity Invoked In Public Agency Bid Process
State agency procurement process for major building renovation projects
The state agency's bid process for building renovation projects is compromised by the omission of as-built drawing references from bid documents and the subsequent informal disclosure of those drawings to select contractors, creating conditions of unequal competition in publicly funded procurement
Procurement integrity requires not only a fair formal award process but also an information environment in which all bidders can compete on equal terms with access to the same material technical data
The agency advertises for bids on major building renovation projects; the bid documents made no reference to existing as-builts or drawings for the bidders' or awarded contractor's use
Procurement Integrity Invoked for Engineer D Pre-Bid Sharing Prohibition
Pre-bid requests for as-built drawings from sprinkler contractors
Sharing as-built drawings selectively with some contractors before bid opening would compromise the integrity of the public procurement process by giving favored contractors an informational advantage, undermining the competitive fairness that public procurement law requires
Procurement integrity requires not only formal compliance with procurement rules but also avoidance of any action that could influence contract award through informal informational advantages — the BER Case 16-3 precedent on late submittals reinforces that procurement rules must be followed even when deviation might produce better immediate outcomes
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked In Fire Protection Bid Context
Bid document preparation for building renovation projects involving existing sprinkler systems
The public welfare is served by ensuring that fire protection system renovation work is accurately priced and safely executed, which requires that contractors have access to existing as-built drawings before bidding — because uninformed bids may result in cost-cutting, improper modifications, or unsafe fire protection system configurations
In the fire protection engineering context, public welfare requires that bid documents enable accurate and safe contractor performance, making the omission of as-built drawing references a public welfare concern as well as a procurement fairness concern
Engineer D is a fire protection engineer in the public sector and works for a state agency. The agency advertises for bids on major building renovation projects; the bid documents made no reference to existing as-builts or drawings for the bidders' or awarded contractor's use.
Engineer D managed as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems in public buildings and recognized that contractors needed this information to safely and accurately perform renovation work, but had been providing it informally rather than through formal bid document processes.
Engineer D was obligated, as the public agency fire protection engineer managing as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems, to ensure that contractors performing renovation work on those systems had access to those drawings through formal processes before commencing work, recognizing that as-built drawings of fire protection systems are safety-critical information.
Before contractors commenced renovation work on existing sprinkler systems
Providing more information about existing conditions should help produce a better design.
Equal Pre-Bid Information Access Enforcement Engineer D Pre-Bid Request Pattern
Contractors who had previously received as-built drawings from Engineer D post-award began requesting them pre-bid, creating an emerging class of informationally advantaged bidders that Engineer D was obligated to address by formalizing equal access procedures.
Upon learning that some contractors were requesting as-built drawings pre-bid, Engineer D was obligated to recognize that equitable practice required formalizing equal pre-bid access for all prospective bidders, and to advocate for or implement procedural corrections within the agency to ensure no contractor gained informational advantage through prior relationships.
Upon recognition that pre-bid requests were being made by contractors with prior post-award experience
Engineer D serves the state agency as a fire protection engineer managing as-built drawings and supporting procurement processes, with an obligation to serve the agency's interests faithfully while remaining within ethical and legal bounds.
Engineer D was obligated to act as a faithful agent of the state agency, serving the agency's legitimate interests in conducting fair, legally compliant, and safety-sound procurement processes — including ensuring that bid documents were complete and that as-built drawings were made available through proper channels.
Throughout Engineer D's employment with the state agency and in all procurement-related activities
Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety Invoked for Engineer D
Engineer D's informal sharing of as-built drawings with contractors
Engineer D's benign motivation — improving design quality by making as-built drawings available — does not render informal selective sharing ethically permissible, because the procedural harm to procurement integrity exists independently of D's intent
The BER Case 82-2 precedent is directly applicable: just as Engineer A in that case was found to have acted unethically despite having no ulterior motive, Engineer D's good intentions do not cure the procedural impropriety of informal information sharing in a public procurement context
Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety
Engineer D Good Intent Non-Justification Informal As-Built Sharing
Engineer D shared as-built drawings informally with contractors out of a desire to improve design quality, without recognizing that good intent does not cure the procedural impropriety of informal selective sharing.
Good Intent Non-Justification for Procedural Impropriety Obligation
Engineer D was obligated to recognize that their benign motivation — improving design quality by making as-built drawings available — did not render informal selective sharing of those drawings ethical, and to refrain from using good intent as a justification for bypassing formal institutional processes.
Throughout Engineer D's practice of informally sharing as-built drawings
The board exonerated the engineer of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, but determined it was incorrect to not recognize the confidentiality of a client relationship. The engineer acted unethically in submitting a copy of the home inspection report to the real estate agent.
Sprinkler contractors who had previously received as-built drawings post-award began requesting those same documents pre-bid, and Engineer D was considering whether to provide them.
Pre-Bid Selective Information Sharing Prohibition Obligation
Engineer D was obligated to refrain from sharing as-built drawings selectively with some contractors before bids were opened, recognizing that selective pre-bid disclosure would give favored contractors an unfair informational advantage and compromise the integrity of the competitive procurement process.
Before bid opening for any renovation project involving existing sprinkler systems
Equal Access to Bid Information Violated By Post-Award Informal Disclosure
Pre-bid requests for as-built drawings from contractors with prior post-award experience
Engineer D's practice of providing as-built drawings to successful contractors after award created a class of contractors with knowledge of the drawings' availability, who then sought them pre-bid — giving those contractors an informational advantage over competitors who did not know to request the drawings
The evolution from post-award disclosure to pre-bid requests illustrates how informal information sharing creates de facto information asymmetry among bidders, violating the equal access principle even when no single disclosure was intended to confer advantage
Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer D
Sharing of as-built drawings with contractors
Engineer D's efforts to make as-built drawings available are framed as acting in the employer's best interest, but the faithful agent obligation also requires D to act within proper institutional channels rather than through informal personal initiative
In this context, faithful agency requires D to serve the employer's interest in improved project outcomes while respecting the employer's institutional processes for information sharing — the two obligations must be reconciled through formal channels, not informal workarounds
Informal Information Sharing Restraint Engineer D As-Built Drawings
Engineer D informally provided as-built drawings to successful contractors upon personal request after contract award, outside any formal agency process, creating an informal channel that some contractors learned to exploit for competitive advantage.
Informal Information Sharing Restraint Obligation
Engineer D was obligated to refrain from sharing as-built drawings with contractors through informal personal responses to post-award requests, and instead to direct all such requests through formal agency-sanctioned processes, so that no contractor gained an informational advantage through personal relationships with Engineer D.
Upon receipt of any contractor request for as-built drawings, whether post-award or pre-bid
Pre-Bid Selective Information Sharing Prohibition Engineer D Post-Award Disclosure
Engineer D provided as-built drawings to successful contractors after contract award, creating a class of contractors with prior knowledge of the drawings who then began requesting them pre-bid, while other contractors remained uninformed of their availability.
Engineer D was obligated to refrain from providing as-built drawings selectively to successful contractors after award while withholding them from other bidders, and subsequently to refrain from providing them informally to pre-bid requesters on a selective basis, recognizing that such selective disclosure compromises procurement integrity.
From the point of first post-award disclosure onward, and continuing as pre-bid requests began to emerge
Engineer D Employer Information Consent Requirement As-Built Drawings
Engineer D managed as-built drawings for a state public agency and shared them with successful contractors after bid award in response to informal post-award requests, without formal employer authorization.
Employer Information Consent Requirement Before Sharing Obligation
Engineer D was obligated to obtain formal employer authorization or consent before sharing as-built drawings of existing sprinkler systems with contractors, whether post-award or pre-bid, recognizing that these documents constitute employer-owned information that may not be shared without institutional authorization.
Upon any contractor request for as-built drawings, whether pre-bid or post-award
Formal Channel Requirement Violated By Engineer D Informal Sharing
Post-award provision of as-built drawings to successful sprinkler contractors
Engineer D shared as-built drawings with successful contractors through informal personal responses to post-award requests rather than through formal bid document inclusion or official addendum processes, creating an informal information channel that later generated pre-bid access disparities
Even when Engineer D's post-award sharing was responsive and helpful, the use of informal channels rather than formal procurement processes planted the seed of the subsequent pre-bid information asymmetry problem
Bid Document Completeness Invoked for As-Built Drawing Inclusion
Preparation of bid documents for public building renovation projects involving existing sprinkler systems
As-built drawings of existing sprinkler systems constitute material technical information that competent contractors need to prepare accurate bids for building renovation projects, and their systematic absence from bid documents creates conditions for inaccurate bids and downstream disputes
The principle of bid document completeness supports Engineer D's underlying instinct that as-built drawings should be available to contractors — the ethical problem is not the goal but the informal mechanism used to achieve it
Engineer D Faithful Agent Obligation State Agency Fire Protection
Engineer D is a fire protection engineer employed by a state public agency who manages as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems and supports procurement processes for building renovation projects.
Throughout Engineer D's employment and management of as-built drawings
Engineer D Pre-Bid As-Built Drawing Disclosure State Agency Renovation Projects
Engineer D's state agency issued bid documents for major building renovation projects that made no reference to existing as-built drawings for the existing sprinkler systems, creating an information gap that disadvantaged bidders who were unaware of the drawings' existence.
Engineer D was obligated to ensure that bid documents for building renovation projects involving existing sprinkler systems included reference to available as-built drawings and made them equally available to all prospective bidders before bids were submitted.
Engineer D's agency issued bid documents for major building renovation projects that made no reference to existing as-built drawings
At the time of bid document preparation for each renovation project
Equal Access to Bid Information Invoked for Pre-Bid As-Built Sharing
Pre-bid requests from sprinkler contractors for as-built drawings
Equal access requires that if as-built drawings are available and material to bidding, they must be made available to all prospective bidders simultaneously through formal channels — selective pre-bid disclosure to some contractors but not others is categorically prohibited
Engineer D Informal Information Sharing Restraint As-Built Drawings
Engineer D informally provided as-built drawings to successful contractors after bid award in response to post-award requests, and was considering whether to share them pre-bid with contractors who had learned of their availability.
Engineer D was obligated to refrain from sharing as-built drawings with contractors through informal, personally initiated channels, and instead to direct all contractor requests through formal, agency-sanctioned processes, so that no contractor gained an informational advantage through personal relationships with Engineer D.
Upon any contractor request for as-built drawings
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by fire protection engineering role in public agency)', 'specialty': 'Fire protection engineering', 'employer': 'State public agency', 'sector': 'Public sector'}
Engineer D is a fire protection engineer employed by a state public agency who manages as-built drawings for existing sprinkler systems in public buildings. D initially provides as-built drawings to successful sprinkler contractors after contract award, and over time faces requests from contractors seeking those documents before bid submission, raising procurement equity and public interest obligations.
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'State Public Agency'}
{'type': 'information_custodian', 'target': 'Sprinkler Contractors (post-award)'}
{'type': 'information_custodian', 'target': 'Sprinkler Contractors (pre-bid)'}