Incomplete Plans and Specifications – Engineer, Government, and Contractor Responsibilities
The Board cited this case to compare the ethical obligations of engineers regarding disclosure of unsatisfactory plans and unjustified expenditure of public funds, noting that the Code does not require disclosure in cases not involving public health and safety but that engineers have an ethical right to pursue the matter further.
CausalLink_Incomplete Documents Approval
Approving documents without the competence or diligence to detect their incompleteness converts a correctable upstream error into an official authorization, triggering bid advertisement and ultimately causing Engineer C to submit a low bid on work that cannot be built as specified.
Submitting drawings that are not complete violates the obligation to deliver full professional work product, and because those incomplete documents flow directly into the approval and bid advertisement stages, the deficiency is multiplied across every subsequent party who relies on them in good faith.
Committing to a contract price without adequately assessing whether the design documents are sufficient to support construction leads directly to the unbuildability declaration at the pre-construction conference, at which point public funds have already been obligated and the project is in crisis.
CausalLink_Non-Disclosure of Incompletene
Staying silent about the incompleteness allows Engineer B to approve the documents without the information needed to catch the deficiency, which means the deception does not merely affect the immediate client relationship but actively enables federal funds to be committed to a project built on a flawed foundation.
By representing the firm as capable of performing the work, this action initiates the entire causal chain leading to contract award, meaning any gap between claimed and actual competence is not a minor misstatement but the root cause of all downstream professional and public harm.
CausalLink_Reactive Incompleteness Acknow
By waiting until the pre-construction conference to acknowledge the incomplete documents, Engineer A allowed a cascade of approvals, bid advertisements, and contract awards to proceed on a flawed foundation, meaning the violations of honest disclosure and complete specification obligations directly enabled wasted public funds, contractor harm, and project delay that earlier transparency could have prevented.
It was not ethical for Engineer A to submit drawings and specifications for review and approval that he knew were incomplete.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting incomplete drawings, Engineer A committed a compounded ethical violation by affixing his professional seal to documents he knew were deficient. The act of signing and sealing drawings carries an affirmative professional representation that the work product meets the standard of care and is fit for its intended purpose. By sealing incomplete drawings, Engineer A did not merely fail to disclose a deficiency — he actively misrepresented the completeness and adequacy of the documents to every downstream party who relied on that seal, including Engineer B, the local public agency, and ultimately the bidding contractors. This transforms what might otherwise be characterized as an omission into an affirmative deceptive act, implicating not only the duty of honest disclosure but also the prohibition against deceptive acts and the obligation to avoid sealing plans not in conformity with accepted engineering standards.
The Board's conclusion regarding Engineer A's ethical failure does not fully address the heightened duty of disclosure that arose specifically because the local public agency lacked in-house technical capacity to review the drawings and specifications. When an engineer's client is demonstrably unable to independently detect deficiencies in the work product, the engineer's obligation of candor is not merely equivalent to the baseline standard — it is materially elevated. Engineer A was aware of this incapacity, and his silence in the face of it effectively denied the local public agency any meaningful opportunity to protect its own interests, to seek independent review, or to require corrections before the project advanced to federal approval and competitive bidding. This asymmetry of technical knowledge, combined with Engineer A's deliberate non-disclosure, constitutes a breach of the faithful agent duty that goes beyond the simple submission of incomplete work.
Engineer A's rationalization that federal funds — rather than local funds — would absorb cost overruns from his incomplete design represents a separate and independent ethical violation beyond the incompleteness of the drawings themselves. This reasoning reflects a fundamental misuse of public funds: Engineer A effectively treated federal grant money as a contingency reserve to underwrite his own professional shortfall, without the knowledge or consent of either the federal agency or the local public agency. This assumption also introduced a cost allocation bias that distorted his professional judgment, allowing him to rationalize proceeding with a deficient deliverable that he might otherwise have refused to submit. On a dam project — a structure whose failure poses direct risks to public safety — this rationalization is especially troubling, as it subordinated the paramount obligation to protect public welfare to a financial convenience that was not his to invoke.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer B acted unethically in approving incomplete drawings does not fully examine the institutional dimension of that failure. Engineer B's approval did not merely constitute a personal lapse in professional judgment — it lent the formal imprimatur of federal authority to a materially deficient document set, thereby triggering the entire downstream sequence of competitive bidding, contract award, and pre-construction conflict. When a federal approving engineer lacks the technical competence to independently assess the adequacy of a submission, the ethical obligation is not to defer to the submitting engineer's seal but rather to escalate the review to a technically qualified authority or to condition approval on supplemental verification. Engineer B's failure to recognize the limits of his own competence, or to act on those limits by seeking escalation, compounded Engineer A's original violation by converting a deficient private submission into an officially sanctioned federal procurement.
Engineer B's ethical failure also raises a systemic question the Board did not address: the approval process itself appears to have been structurally inadequate for a dam project involving public safety. A federal review mechanism that permits a single engineer to approve complex dam design documents without independent verification protocols, peer review requirements, or competence thresholds specific to dam engineering creates conditions in which individual ethical failures become institutionally probable. While Engineer B bears personal ethical responsibility for the approval, the absence of systemic safeguards suggests that the federal agency's oversight framework itself may have been deficient. Engineers in institutional roles bear a professional obligation to advocate for review processes commensurate with the safety stakes of the projects they oversee, and Engineer B's acquiescence to an inadequate process — whether by silence or by action — represents a failure of professional responsibility that extends beyond the single approval decision.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer C acted unethically in submitting a bid on a project he later characterized as unbuildable requires an important temporal nuance: the ethical analysis depends critically on when Engineer C formed his assessment of unbuildability. If Engineer C identified the unbuildable elements during his review of the bid documents — before submitting his bid — then his submission constituted an entry into a binding contractual relationship under conditions he privately believed to be materially defective, which implicates his duty of candor to the contracting parties and his obligation as an engineer to notify clients of project deficiencies. If, however, Engineer C's unbuildability assessment emerged only after more detailed post-award review, the ethical calculus shifts: his obligation would then be to notify the parties promptly upon forming that assessment, which he did at the pre-construction conference. The Board's conclusion is most clearly supported if Engineer C possessed or should have possessed the technical capacity to identify the deficiencies during the bidding phase, given his professional qualifications as both a contractor and an engineer.
Engineer C's dual status as both a licensed engineer and the owner of the contracting firm creates a heightened ethical standard that the Board's conclusion does not fully develop. An ordinary contractor without engineering credentials might plausibly claim insufficient technical expertise to evaluate the buildability of dam design documents during the bidding phase. Engineer C, however, possessed the professional engineering knowledge to assess the adequacy of the drawings and specifications, and that capacity imposed on him an obligation that a non-engineer contractor would not bear. His professional engineering license did not become dormant upon his entry into the role of contractor — it continued to carry with it the ethical obligations of the engineering profession, including the duty to advise clients of project deficiencies and to avoid deceptive acts. By submitting a bid without disclosing known or reasonably discoverable unbuildability deficiencies, Engineer C effectively used his engineering competence to identify a competitive advantage while withholding the professional disclosure that same competence obligated him to make.
It was not ethical for Engineer B to approve a set of incomplete drawings on behalf of the Federal government for competitive bidding.
In response to Q101: Engineer A's assumption that federal funds would absorb cost overruns from his incomplete design constitutes a separate and independent ethical violation beyond the mere incompleteness of the drawings. By privately reasoning that the financial consequences of his deficient work would fall on federal rather than local coffers, Engineer A engaged in a form of cost allocation rationalization that misrepresented the true risk profile of the project to all stakeholders. This assumption was never disclosed to the local public agency, Engineer B, or any other party, meaning that the parties who bore fiduciary responsibility for public funds were denied the information necessary to make an informed decision about whether to proceed. The rationalization also reflects a troubling indifference to the public interest: federal funds are no less public funds, and the deliberate structuring of one's professional conduct around the expectation that a particular funding source will silently absorb the costs of one's own professional shortfall is itself a form of misrepresentation. Under Code Section II.3.a, engineers must be objective and truthful in professional reports and statements, and Engineer A's silence about both the incompleteness and his funding assumption violated that standard. Under Code Section II.5, engineers shall avoid deceptive acts, and the deliberate non-disclosure of a known deficiency paired with a private financial rationalization satisfies the definition of a deceptive act even in the absence of an affirmative false statement.
In response to Q102: Engineer A bore a heightened and affirmative duty of disclosure precisely because his client, the local public agency, lacked the in-house technical capacity to independently detect the deficiencies he knew existed. The asymmetry of technical knowledge between a licensed professional engineer and a non-technical client is not a passive background condition that reduces the engineer's obligations; it is an aggravating factor that intensifies them. When a client is structurally incapable of identifying a deficiency that the engineer knows exists, the engineer's silence is not merely non-disclosure — it is the functional equivalent of concealment. Code Section III.1.b requires engineers to advise their clients when they believe a project will not be successful, and the submission of drawings and specifications that Engineer A himself acknowledged were incomplete and that Engineer C later characterized as unbuildable clearly falls within the scope of a project that will not be successful in its submitted form. The local public agency's reliance on Engineer A was total and unchecked, which means Engineer A's failure to disclose was not a minor procedural omission but a fundamental breach of the fiduciary-like relationship that professional engineers owe to clients who cannot protect themselves through independent technical review.
In response to Q103: Engineer B's review obligation did not begin only at the moment of formal submission; it encompassed a duty to assess whether the submission was substantively complete before lending federal approval to it. The act of approval by a federal engineering authority is not a ministerial stamp but a professional judgment that the documents meet the standard required for competitive bidding on a public project. Engineer B's approval of materially incomplete drawings effectively transferred federal legitimacy to a deficient document set, thereby enabling the project to proceed through bidding and contract award in a state that Engineer A himself later acknowledged was problematic. Code Section III.2.b prohibits engineers from completing, signing, or sealing plans and specifications not in conformity with applicable engineering standards, and while that provision is most directly applicable to Engineer A, it also informs the standard of care applicable to Engineer B as a reviewing authority. If Engineer B lacked the technical competence to identify the material incompleteness of the submission, Code Section I.1 required him to escalate the matter to higher federal authority or to seek supplemental technical review rather than approving documents whose adequacy he could not independently verify. Deference to Engineer A's professional seal does not relieve Engineer B of independent verification responsibility; it compounds the ethical failure by adding a second layer of professional endorsement to a document set that was known by its author to be deficient.
In response to Q104: Engineer C's ethical obligation was not limited to notifying the contracting parties of the unbuildability deficiencies at the pre-construction conference. That notification, while better than silence, came after contract award and after Engineer C had already submitted a bid on documents he assessed as containing unbuildable elements. The more demanding ethical standard — and the one more consistent with Code Section II.5's prohibition on deceptive acts and Code Section III.1.b's duty to advise clients of project failure risks — would have required Engineer C to notify the local public agency and Engineer A of the apparent deficiencies before submitting his bid, or at minimum to condition his bid on resolution of those deficiencies. By submitting a low bid on a project whose documents he privately assessed as materially defective, Engineer C entered a binding contractual relationship under conditions he believed to be unbuildable, which is itself a form of deception toward the contracting parties who relied on the competitive bidding process to produce a reliable, executable contract. Furthermore, once Engineer C identified the unbuildability issues, his obligation as a licensed engineer extended beyond mere notification to refusing to proceed with construction until the drawings and specifications were corrected to a buildable standard, because proceeding on deficient dam design documents implicates the paramount obligation to protect public safety under Code Section I.1.
In response to Q201 and Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's deadline pressure does not constitute a morally sufficient justification for submitting incomplete drawings and specifications, and his duty of honest disclosure was not discharged by silence. The deontological framework evaluates the moral permissibility of an action based on whether it conforms to a universalizable duty, not on whether the actor believed the consequences would be manageable. Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to meet a client's delivery deadline is a real but subordinate obligation; it cannot override his overriding duty under Code Section III.2.b not to sign or seal plans that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards, nor his duty under Code Section II.3.a to be truthful in professional statements. When two duties conflict, the engineer's obligation is to disclose the conflict to the client — not to resolve it unilaterally by delivering a deficient product without disclosure. A universalizable rule permitting engineers to submit incomplete sealed drawings whenever deadline pressure exists would systematically undermine the reliability of professional seals and the integrity of public procurement processes. Engineer A's failure to disclose the incompleteness to the local public agency, Engineer B, or any other stakeholder was therefore not merely a procedural lapse but a categorical violation of his duty of honest disclosure.
In response to Q303 and Q403: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer B's approval of materially incomplete drawings produced a cascade of harms that substantially outweighed any benefit gained by expediting the project timeline. The approval enabled the project to proceed through competitive bidding and contract award in a state that Engineer A himself acknowledged was deficient, meaning that every subsequent step in the procurement process — bid preparation by contractors, contract award, and pre-construction planning — was conducted on a false premise of document adequacy. The concrete harms include: wasted public funds expended by bidders preparing bids on unbuildable documents; the risk of construction defects on a dam project with direct public safety implications under Code Section I.1; project delays and cost overruns attributable to the need for redesign after contract award; and erosion of public trust in federal engineering oversight as an effective safeguard against deficient design. Systemically, Engineer B's approval also signals to other design engineers that incomplete submissions can pass federal review, which creates a perverse incentive structure that degrades the quality of future submissions. The counterfactual in which Engineer B either rejected the submission or escalated to higher federal authority would have imposed a short-term delay but would have prevented all of these downstream harms, making it the clearly superior outcome under a consequentialist analysis.
In response to Q401 and Q402: The public safety risk and financial harm to the project would very likely have been substantially reduced, if not avoided, had Engineer A disclosed the incompleteness of the drawings and specifications at the time of submission rather than waiting for Engineer C to raise the issue at the pre-construction conference. Early disclosure would have triggered one of two corrective pathways: either the local public agency and Engineer B would have required Engineer A to complete the drawings before approval, preventing the project from proceeding to competitive bidding on deficient documents, or the parties would have made an informed collective decision about how to proceed — a decision that would at minimum have been made with full knowledge of the risks. The alternative counterfactual — Engineer A refusing to submit by the deadline rather than delivering an incomplete product — would have been governed by his contractual obligations to the local public agency and his professional obligations under Code Section III.2.b. While a refusal to deliver might have exposed Engineer A to contractual liability for delay, that consequence does not override his professional obligation not to seal and submit non-conforming plans. The professional and ethical framework clearly contemplates that an engineer's duty to submit only complete and conforming documents takes precedence over schedule compliance, and that the appropriate response to irreconcilable deadline pressure is disclosure and renegotiation, not silent delivery of a deficient product.
In response to Q404 and Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer C violated his duty of candor to the contracting parties by submitting a low bid on a project whose documents he assessed as containing unbuildable elements, and the timing of his disclosure — after contract award rather than before bid submission — is ethically significant rather than merely procedurally inconvenient. By waiting until the pre-construction conference to raise deficiencies he had identified during bid preparation, Engineer C allowed the competitive bidding process to run to completion on a false premise, depriving the local public agency of the opportunity to suspend bidding for redesign. Had Engineer C notified the local public agency and Engineer A of the apparent unbuildability before submitting his bid, the contracting parties would have had the information necessary to make a meaningful decision about whether to proceed, suspend, or redesign — and the competitive bidding process would have served its intended function of producing reliable, executable contracts. Engineer C's post-award disclosure, while better than permanent silence, did not cure the ethical deficiency of having entered a binding contractual relationship under conditions he privately believed to be materially defective. Code Section II.5's prohibition on deceptive acts applies to Engineer C in his capacity as a licensed engineer, and submitting a bid while privately assessing the project as unbuildable without major changes satisfies the functional definition of a deceptive act toward the contracting parties who relied on the integrity of the bidding process.
It was not ethical for Engineer C, owner of the Hi-Lo Construction firm, to submit a bid on a construction contract that he later characterized as “unbuildable” without major changes.
The tension between Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to meet the client's delivery deadline and his overriding obligation to submit only complete, accurate, and professionally sealed drawings was never genuinely resolved — it was simply evaded. Engineer A treated the deadline as an absolute constraint and the completeness obligation as a negotiable one, when the ethical hierarchy demands the opposite. The NSPE code's requirement that engineers hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, combined with the prohibition on completing, signing, or sealing plans not in conformity with accepted engineering standards, establishes that professional completeness is not subordinate to schedule compliance. A faithful agent duty cannot be fulfilled by delivering a deficient product on time; it is fulfilled only when the deliverable itself meets professional standards. Where those two obligations genuinely conflict, the engineer's recourse is disclosure and renegotiation of the deadline — not silent submission of incomplete work. This case teaches that schedule pressure, however real, does not constitute a recognized exception to the completeness and honesty obligations that attach to a professional seal.
Engineer A's cost allocation rationalization — his private assumption that federal funds rather than local funds would absorb cost overruns — did not merely reflect poor financial judgment; it functioned as a principle-substitution mechanism that allowed him to suppress the honesty and public welfare principles that should have governed his conduct. By convincing himself that the financial consequences would fall on a deep-pocketed federal source rather than the local public agency, Engineer A effectively neutralized his own sense of obligation to disclose the deficiencies. This represents a compounded ethical failure: the rationalization itself violated the principle of cost allocation neutrality and the prohibition on deceptive acts, because it permitted Engineer A to proceed as though the incompleteness were inconsequential when he knew it was not. The case teaches that a professional's ethical obligations are not contingent on who bears the financial cost of a failure; the duty of honest disclosure and the duty to submit only complete work apply regardless of funding source. Allowing anticipated federal indemnification to substitute for professional completeness inverts the public welfare principle, since federal funds are themselves public funds, and their misuse harms the public interest no less than misuse of local funds.
The interaction among Engineer A's professional competence principle, Engineer B's competence-limit recognition principle, and Engineer C's bid adequacy and deficiency notification principles reveals a systemic failure in which each actor's ethical shortfall was partially enabled by the others' failures, yet none is thereby relieved of independent responsibility. Engineer A's confidence in his own eventual ability to resolve the missing design details — a form of competence rationalization — led him to treat the incompleteness as a technical inconvenience rather than a professional and public safety violation. Engineer B's deference to Engineer A's professional seal, rather than exercising independent verification or escalating concerns about the submission's adequacy, lent federal legitimacy to a deficient document set and foreclosed the last institutional checkpoint before competitive bidding. Engineer C's decision to submit a low bid on documents he assessed as containing unbuildable elements, and to raise those concerns only after contract award at the pre-construction conference, allowed the procurement process to run to completion on a materially defective foundation. The case teaches that professional ethical obligations are not discharged by reliance on another engineer's seal or institutional role: each engineer in a multi-party project bears an independent, non-delegable duty to act on what he knows. The principle of honest disclosure and the principle of public welfare are not satisfied by collective silence followed by reactive acknowledgment; they require affirmative, timely action at the moment the deficiency is known, regardless of the actor's position in the project hierarchy.
Should Engineer A disclose the incompleteness of the dam design documents to the client and approving authority at the time of submission, or submit the documents without flagging the deficiency?
Engineer A submitted incomplete dam design drawings and specifications under time pressure, without disclosing the deficiency to the client or approving authority at the time of submission.
Formally notify the client and approving authority in writing that the submitted documents are incomplete, identify the missing elements, and specify conditions under which completion would occur.
Submit the documents on schedule on the assumption that all parties understand the staged nature of the design due to the pending federal funding, without a formal written disclosure of incompleteness.
Refuse to submit the documents until they meet minimum completeness standards, even if this means missing the deadline and potentially jeopardizing the funding timeline.
Should Engineer A seal the incomplete dam design documents, or decline to seal until the documents meet the standard required for responsible charge?
Engineer A sealed and submitted dam design documents that were materially incomplete, raising the question of whether sealing constituted a misrepresentation of responsible charge over a complete and adequate design.
Withhold the professional seal until the design documents are sufficiently complete to support a responsible charge determination, communicating this position clearly to the client.
Affix the seal accompanied by a written statement explicitly limiting its scope to the completed portions of the design and identifying elements not yet finalized.
Seal and submit the documents to preserve the project timeline, relying on the approving authority's review process to identify any deficiencies before construction approval is granted.
Should Engineer B escalate the review to a qualified engineer upon recognizing competence limitations, or proceed with approving the dam design documents as submitted?
Engineer B, serving as the approving engineer, recognized or should have recognized limitations in competence to review Engineer A's dam design documents, yet approved documents that were materially incomplete rather than escalating to a qualified reviewer.
Inform a supervisor of the competence limitation and request that a qualified engineer be assigned to review the dam design documents before any approval is granted.
Approve the documents while formally documenting identified deficiencies and incompleteness in writing, placing the record in the project file and notifying the submitting engineer.
Treat Engineer A's professional seal as sufficient evidence of responsible charge and approve the documents on the basis that the submitting engineer bears professional responsibility for completeness.
Should Engineer A pursue external disclosure of the design deficiencies and public funds concerns after internal reporting was rejected, or treat the matter as resolved once internal channels were exhausted?
Engineer A, having documented concerns about the adequacy of the dam design and the misuse of public funds, faced a decision about whether to pursue disclosure beyond the employer's rejection of internal reports, analogous to the defense industry whistleblower scenario.
After internal reporting is rejected, escalate disclosure of the design deficiencies and public safety concerns to the relevant state or federal regulatory authority responsible for dam safety.
Treat the matter as resolved once internal channels are exhausted, on the basis that the employer's rejection of the reports and the existence of an independent approving authority are sufficient safeguards.
Consult legal counsel to determine the scope of professional and legal obligations before deciding whether to pursue external disclosure, balancing whistleblower protections against contractual and employment constraints.
Should Engineer A treat time pressure and anticipated funding as sufficient justification for submitting incomplete documents without disclosure, or are those circumstances insufficient to override the disclosure obligation?
Engineer A submitted dam design documents while asserting that incompleteness was justified by time pressures and anticipated federal funding, raising the question of whether those circumstances constitute an adequate ethical justification for non-disclosure.
Treat the disclosure obligation as unconditional and formally notify all relevant parties of the incompleteness regardless of time pressures or funding status.
Treat the submission as a recognized phased deliverable under the project's funding structure, documenting the staged nature of the design in the project record and relying on the approving authority's familiarity with the funding context.
Refuse to submit incomplete documents and instead negotiate with the client for an extended deadline that allows for a complete submission, even at the risk of delaying the funding application.
Engineer B approved incomplete dam design documents. The Board found that failure to recognize and address a competence gap in performing the review constitutes an ethics violation.
Engineer B was required, upon recognizing any inability to perform a competent review of Engineer A's dam design documents, to inform a supervisor so that an appropriately qualified engineer could be assigned to the review.
During the review and approval process for Engineer A's submitted documents
If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review
the failure to recognize the lack of competency and take appropriate action to address the situation is a violation of the NSPE Code
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.
Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.
The question arose because Engineer A's act of sealing and submitting drawings he knew were incomplete placed his professional certification in direct conflict with his obligation to provide honest and complete deliverables to a client who lacked the technical capacity to detect the deficiency. The undisclosed reliance on federal funds to absorb consequences added a second layer of conflict between his duty of cost allocation neutrality and his self-serving rationalization, making the ethical status of the submission genuinely contested.
The question arose because Engineer A did not simply submit deficient work; he also constructed a private financial justification that reframed the consequences of that deficiency as manageable, and that justification implicates the principle of public welfare because it allowed a safety-relevant decision on a dam project to be filtered through a cost-source assumption rather than evaluated on its safety merits alone. The question persists because it is genuinely unclear whether a rationalization that concerns cost allocation, rather than safety directly, can be treated as a violation of the public welfare principle, or whether it is only a secondary ethical failure that follows from the primary one of submitting incomplete work.
The question emerged because Engineer B occupied a dual position: he held institutional authority as the federal approving engineer, which carries an independent verification obligation, but the state of his competence relative to the submission created a gap between that authority and his actual capacity to exercise it. Engineer A's professional seal introduced a further complication, because reliance on that seal could be read either as a reasonable professional deference or as a mechanism by which federal legitimacy was lent to a deficient document set without any independent check.
The question emerged because Engineer A's act of submitting incomplete documents without disclosure sits at the intersection of two genuine professional obligations: the deontological duty of honest representation to clients and public agencies, and the practical reality that engineers routinely rely on iterative review processes to catch deficiencies. The undisclosed deadline pressure and the undisclosed federal-funds assumption removed the conditions under which silent reliance on review might be defensible, converting what could have been a procedural shortfall into a potential breach of the duty of honest disclosure.
The question emerged because Engineer A possessed the capability and awareness to deliver complete drawings but chose not to, and then concealed both the incompleteness and his reasoning from the client and the funding authority. Virtue ethics asks whether the internal rationalization about federal funds reflects the honest exercise of professional judgment or a self-serving substitution of financial convenience for integrity, and that substitution is precisely what makes the question non-trivial.
This question arose because Engineer B's Incomplete Documents Approval set off a chain of concrete, measurable harms including the Unbuildability Declaration, the wasted bid cycle, and the Pre-Construction Conference disruption, all of which demand a reckoning with whether any timeline benefit justified those costs. The question is genuinely contested because consequentialism requires aggregating and comparing harms and benefits that span different stakeholders and time horizons, and reasonable analysts can weigh the Public Funds Stewardship Principle against the project delivery interest differently depending on what counterfactual they assume.
The question arose because Engineer C possessed a private professional assessment that the documents were unbuildable yet proceeded to submit a low bid and enter a binding contract without disclosing that assessment, creating a gap between his internal knowledge and the representations implied by his contractual commitment. Deontological analysis forces the question of whether that gap constitutes a breach of the duty of candor or whether the competitive bidding context redefines the disclosure obligation.
This question arose because Engineer A's silence persisted across multiple decision points, each of which gave downstream parties, including Engineer B, the local agency, and Engineer C, a false basis for proceeding. The question forces a determination of whether the harm to public safety and project finances was a direct consequence of the timing of disclosure, or whether earlier disclosure would have interrupted the chain of uninformed decisions before they became costly and dangerous.
This question emerged because Engineer A faced a genuine structural conflict between the obligation to deliver complete, buildable design documents and the obligation to honor contractual deadlines, and the path he chose, submitting incomplete work without disclosure, satisfied neither warrant fully. The question asks whether the untaken path of refusal would have resolved that conflict more ethically, which requires weighing professional integrity obligations, contractual duties, public safety consequences, and the downstream effects on the client, the federal funding agency, and Engineer C's unbuildable bid.
The question emerged because Engineer B's approval allowed deficient documents to reach competitive bidding, creating a fork between blaming individual competence failure and blaming systemic protocol design. The question asks whether correcting Engineer B's individual capacity would have been sufficient, or whether the approval pathway itself required redesign to prevent incomplete documents from advancing regardless of who occupied the reviewing role.
The question emerged because Engineer C's Reactive Incompleteness Acknowledgment after Contract Award to Contractor created a gap between when his engineering judgment should have triggered disclosure and when disclosure actually occurred. The Unbuildability Declaration arriving post-award rather than pre-bid placed the competitive bidding process, the public agency's decision-making, and Engineer A's opportunity to correct deficiencies in a worse position than pre-bid disclosure would have, forcing the question of whether Engineer C's dual role as contractor and licensed engineer imposed a higher and earlier disclosure obligation.
The question arose because Engineer B stood at the institutional checkpoint where federal oversight was supposed to protect public funds and downstream bidders from deficient documents, yet the approval was granted and the bid advertisement proceeded on an unbuildable design. The tension between the obligation to verify and the practical limit of competence recognition makes it genuinely uncertain whether Engineer B acted unethically through negligence, through incapacity, or through a systemic failure that no individual approval act could have corrected.
The question arose because Engineer C's post-award characterization of the project as unbuildable created a retroactive conflict with the professional representation implied by submitting a bid. The gap between the moment of bidding and the moment of disclosure forced scrutiny of whether Engineer C used the bid as a competitive instrument while withholding a material professional judgment that the client and public funding authority needed before contract award.
The question arose because Engineer A's assumption introduced a second, analytically distinct act alongside the incomplete submission. The assumption silently allocated a financial consequence of Engineer A's own deficiency onto a public fund without the knowledge or consent of the authority controlling that fund, and that act of silent allocation can be read as a misrepresentation independent of whether the drawings themselves were complete.
The question emerged because Engineer A possessed knowledge of a deficiency that the Local Public Agency Client was structurally unable to discover, creating a gap between what the client could verify and what Engineer A knew. That gap forced a choice between a standard disclosure warrant and a relational warrant grounded in the power asymmetry between a technically sophisticated engineer and a technically limited client, and neither warrant clearly overrides the other in the extracted obligation set.
The question emerged because Engineer B's approval of incomplete documents created a gap between what the verification obligation required and what a simple approve-or-reject action could achieve. Federal funding involvement introduced a public funds stewardship warrant that a purely bilateral approval decision could not satisfy, making it unclear whether Engineer B's duty began at document receipt and required escalation rather than unilateral disposition.
The question arose because Engineer C's obligation to notify contracting parties of known deficiencies is well established, but the adequacy of notification as a terminal duty is contested when the underlying documents remain unbuildable after that notification. The gap between a disclosure duty and a performance-refusal duty is precisely where the ethical question lives, because the data show Engineer C proceeded into a contract on documents that were already known to be deficient.
The question emerged because Engineer A faced a genuine collision between two independently legitimate professional obligations, and the act of submitting incomplete sealed drawings without disclosure made it impossible to satisfy both at once. The absence of any disclosure to the client or funding agency removed the one condition that might have reconciled the two warrants, forcing a direct confrontation between faithful-agent duty and the non-negotiable standard of professional completeness.
This question arose because Engineer A's conduct at the moment of submission fused two normally compatible principles into a conflict. His technical self-confidence provided a plausible internal justification for not disclosing the incompleteness, making it genuinely unclear whether his silence reflected a defensible professional judgment or a rationalization that allowed competence confidence to override the independent duty of honest disclosure.
Was it ethical for Engineer A to submit final drawings and specifications for review and approval that he knew were incomplete?
Did Engineer A's assumption that federal funds would absorb cost overruns from his incomplete design constitute a misuse or misrepresentation of public funds, and does that assumption itself represent a separate ethical violation independent of the incompleteness of the drawings?
Given that the local public agency lacked the in-house technical capacity to review the drawings and specifications, did Engineer A bear a heightened duty of disclosure precisely because his client was unable to independently detect the deficiencies he knew existed?
At what point during the design process did Engineer B's review obligation begin, and should Engineer B have escalated concerns about the adequacy of the submission to higher federal authority rather than simply approving or rejecting the documents unilaterally?
Was Engineer C's ethical obligation limited to notifying the contracting parties of the unbuildability deficiencies at the pre-construction conference, or did it extend to refusing to proceed with the contract until the drawings and specifications were corrected to a buildable standard?
Was it ethical for Engineer B to approve a set of incomplete drawings on behalf of the Federal government for competitive bidding?
Does Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to meet the client's specified delivery deadline conflict with his overriding obligation to submit only complete, accurate, and professionally sealed drawings, and if so, which obligation must yield and under what circumstances?
Does Engineer A's principle of professional competence in dam design conflict with his principle of honesty and non-concealment of deficiency, given that his technical confidence in his own eventual ability to resolve the missing details may have led him to rationalize withholding disclosure of the incompleteness from the client and approving authority?
Does Engineer A's cost allocation rationalization — his assumption that federal funds rather than local funds would cover overruns — conflict with the principle of public welfare and safety, insofar as that rationalization functioned as a justification for proceeding with a design that posed a public safety risk on a dam project?
Does Engineer B's obligation to recognize the limits of his own competence in reviewing the incomplete submission conflict with his institutional role as the federal approving authority, and does deference to Engineer A's professional seal relieve Engineer B of independent verification responsibility or instead compound the ethical failure by lending federal legitimacy to a deficient document set?
Was it ethical for Engineer C, owner of the Hi-Lo Construction firm, to submit a bid on a construction contract that he later characterized as “unbuildable” without major changes?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill his duty of honest disclosure when he knowingly submitted incomplete drawings and specifications without informing the local public agency, Engineer B, or any other stakeholder of their deficiency, regardless of whether he believed federal funds would cover resulting cost overruns?
From a virtue ethics standpoint, did Engineer A demonstrate professional integrity when he rationalized submitting deficient work by assuming federal funds would absorb any cost overruns, thereby prioritizing schedule compliance and financial convenience over the honest exercise of his professional judgment?
From a consequentialist perspective, did the aggregate harm produced by Engineer B's approval of materially incomplete drawings — including wasted public funds, project delays, potential construction defects, and erosion of public trust in federal engineering oversight — outweigh any benefit gained by expediting the project timeline?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer C violate his duty of candor to the contracting parties by submitting a low bid on a project whose documents he assessed as containing unbuildable elements, thereby entering a binding contractual relationship under conditions he privately believed to be materially defective?
Would the public safety risk and financial harm to the project have been avoided if Engineer A had disclosed the incompleteness of the drawings and specifications to the local public agency and Engineer B at the time of submission, rather than waiting until the deficiencies were raised by Engineer C at the pre-construction conference?
If Engineer A had refused to submit the drawings and specifications by the specified deadline rather than delivering an incomplete product, what professional and contractual obligations would have governed that refusal, and would such a refusal have better served the public welfare than the path he chose?
If Engineer B had possessed or sought the technical expertise necessary to identify the material incompleteness of Engineer A's drawings before approving them, would the project have proceeded to competitive bidding, and what systemic changes to federal review protocols might have prevented the approval of deficient documents?
Had Engineer C notified the local public agency and Engineer A of the apparent unbuildability of portions of the project before submitting his bid rather than after contract award, would the competitive bidding process have been suspended for redesign, and would that course of action have better aligned with Engineer C's professional obligations as both a contractor and an engineer?
RFP issuance by local public agency before Engineer A's firm submitting brochure and completing interview
Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency... Engineer A's firm's impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract.
Engineer A's firm submitting brochure and completing interview
Because Engineer A possessed actual knowledge of the incompleteness and chose to submit without any disclosure, the board concluded that his conduct violated the obligation of honest representation to his client and the prohibition against deceptive acts, regardless of his belief that federal funds would eventually cover resulting overruns.
Because Engineer C's professional engineering license gave him a technical capacity that an ordinary contractor would not possess, and because that capacity imposed a disclosure obligation coextensive with his ability to assess the documents, the board found that his submission of a bid without disclosing known or discoverable unbuildability deficiencies represented a use of professional competence to gain competitive advantage while simultaneously suppressing the professional disclosure that competence required.
Because Engineer A combined a known deficiency with an undisclosed private rationalization that redirected anticipated financial harm onto federal funds, the board found that the rationalization itself constituted a separate ethical violation, given that the parties responsible for those funds were never told the basis on which Engineer A had decided to proceed.
Because the local public agency could not independently detect the deficiencies Engineer A knew existed, the board concluded that Engineer A bore a heightened and affirmative disclosure duty, and that his silence under those conditions was not a minor omission but a fundamental breach of the professional relationship owed to a client who could not protect itself.
Because Engineer B's approval was not a ministerial act but a professional judgment carrying federal legitimacy, and because that approval was given to documents the board found to be materially incomplete, the board concluded that Engineer B's review obligation began before formal submission and required either independent verification of adequacy or escalation to higher authority when such verification was beyond his competence.
Because Engineer C entered a binding contractual relationship under conditions he privately believed to be materially defective, and because the project was a dam with direct public safety implications, the board concluded that his ethical obligation extended beyond post-award notification to pre-bid disclosure and, once deficiencies were identified, to refusing to proceed until the drawings were corrected to a buildable standard.
Because Engineer A resolved the conflict between deadline pressure and completeness unilaterally and silently, rather than disclosing it to the client who bore responsibility for the project, the board concluded under a deontological analysis that his duty of honest disclosure was not discharged and that his failure to disclose was a categorical violation, not a procedural lapse excused by schedule circumstances.
Because Engineer B approved drawings that Engineer A had already internally flagged as deficient, and because that approval directly enabled a procurement process built on a false premise of adequacy, the board found that every subsequent harm traced causally to the approval decision. Given that rejection or escalation was available and would have cost only time, the board concluded that the approval produced net harm far exceeding any benefit under a consequentialist analysis.
Because Engineer A knew the drawings were incomplete and submitted them without disclosure, the board found that the harms flowing from the deficient procurement were attributable to that concealment. Given that disclosure at the time of submission would have opened corrective pathways, and given that schedule pressure does not constitute a recognized exception to the completeness obligation, the board concluded that early disclosure was both required and would have been effective.
Because Engineer C formed his unbuildability assessment during bid preparation and then submitted a low bid without disclosing it, the board found that he allowed the contracting parties to commit to a binding relationship on a false premise of document adequacy. Given that pre-bid disclosure would have given the local public agency a meaningful opportunity to suspend bidding for redesign, the board concluded that Engineer C's timing of disclosure violated his duty of candor under Code Section II.5.
Because Engineer A privately knew the drawings were incomplete and submitted them without disclosure rather than seeking a deadline extension or renegotiation, the board found that he evaded rather than resolved the tension between schedule and completeness. Given that the NSPE code establishes professional completeness as non-subordinate to schedule compliance, the board concluded that Engineer A's conduct failed both obligations simultaneously rather than satisfying one at the expense of the other.
Because Engineer B approved a set of drawings he should have scrutinized as the federal gatekeeper, and because that approval allowed an incomplete design to proceed to competitive bidding at public expense, the board concluded that Engineer B failed his independent verification obligation and thereby compounded the harm initiated by Engineer A's submission.
Because Engineer A's assumption that federal funds would cover overruns was undisclosed and functioned to suppress rather than resolve his awareness of the deficiency, the board found it constituted a compounded ethical failure layered on top of the incomplete submission itself. Given that federal funds are public funds and their misuse harms the public interest regardless of the funding tier, the board concluded that the rationalization violated the public welfare principle independently of the incompleteness violation.
Given that all three engineers acted on knowledge of material deficiencies without making timely affirmative disclosure to the parties who could have halted or corrected the process, and given that the project was a dam carrying direct public safety implications and funded by public money, the board concluded that each actor independently violated the duty of honest disclosure and the duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. The board further concluded that no actor was relieved of that independent responsibility by the failure of another, because professional ethical obligations in a multi-party project are non-delegable and are not discharged by reliance on another engineer's seal, institutional role, or anticipated corrective action.
Because Engineer C held a professional judgment that the project was unbuildable without major changes and nonetheless submitted a bid without disclosing that judgment, the board concluded that he entered the contractual relationship under conditions he privately believed to be materially defective, in violation of his duty of candor to the contracting parties.
Because Engineer A chose to seal documents he knew were incomplete, and because that seal carried an affirmative professional representation of adequacy to every party in the review and bidding chain, the board concluded that his conduct went beyond mere non-disclosure and constituted an active deceptive act compounding his original ethical violation.
Because Engineer A knew his client could not independently evaluate the drawings and chose to remain silent about their incompleteness, the board concluded that his faithful agent duty required a heightened standard of candor in this specific relationship, and that his silence under those conditions constituted a breach of that elevated obligation beyond the baseline ethical failure already identified.
Because Engineer A privately assumed federal funds would cover his professional shortfall without authorization or disclosure, and because that assumption operated on a dam project carrying public safety risk, the board found the cost allocation rationalization to be a separate ethical violation, one that distorted his professional judgment and misappropriated public funds in a way that compounded rather than merely accompanied the incompleteness of the drawings.
Because Engineer B's approval lent federal legitimacy to materially deficient documents and set the procurement sequence in motion, the board found that his failure to recognize or act on the limits of his own competence was not merely a personal lapse but an institutional act that compounded Engineer A's original violation by making the deficient submission the official basis for a public construction contract.
Because the approval process itself was structurally inadequate for a dam project and Engineer B neither challenged that inadequacy nor compensated for it, the board found that his ethical failure extended beyond the single approval decision to encompass a broader failure of professional responsibility, one that included acquiescence to an institutional framework that made deficient approvals foreseeable.
Because the ethical weight of Engineer C's bid submission depends on when he formed his unbuildability assessment, the board found that the conclusion of unethical conduct is most clearly supported when Engineer C had or should have had the professional capacity to identify the deficiencies before bidding, and that the pre-construction conference notification, while better than silence, did not retroactively cure a bid submitted under conditions he privately believed to be materially defective.
property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.88
Because the conduct did not involve public health or safety, the engineer's obligation to disclose did not extend beyond internal channels; further disclosure became a matter of personal conscience with attendant professional risk.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.6
Professional competence required Engineer A to produce drawings and specifications that were complete, technically adequate, and constructable. The submission of documents that were neither complete nor buildable without major changes reflects a failure to meet this standard.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.8
The principle prohibits Engineer A from rationalizing deficient deliverables on the basis that remediation costs would fall on federal funding rather than the client, because the source of remediation funding does not alter the obligation to deliver complete work.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.78
The federal funding source did not lower the required standard of completeness.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.7
Transparency required Engineer A to make the limitations and incompleteness of the deliverables visible to all parties who would rely on them, enabling informed decision-making by the client and approving authority.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.72
The obligation to disclose known incompleteness at the time of submission required Engineer A to inform the client and approving authority that the deliverables were deficient before or at the time of submission, not to allow them to proceed through approval and bidding as if complete.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.82
The paramount duty to public welfare required Engineer A to deliver complete, adequate, and buildable design documents for a dam, a structure whose failure could cause serious harm to the public. Submitting known-deficient sealed documents violated this paramount obligation.
The principle required Engineer B to recognize whether the review task exceeded personal competence and, if so, to notify a supervisor so that an appropriately qualified engineer could be assigned rather than proceeding with an inadequate review.
property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
Active Construction Contract; Contractor Bound to Deficient Documents
Deficient Documentation State; Public Safety Risk; Contractor Exposure to Ambiguity
Federal Oversight Active; Federal Review Requirement
Federal Approval of Deficient Documents; Project Cleared for Bidding
Incomplete Documents in Circulation; Public Safety Risk Latent; Unjustified Expenditure of Public Funds Risk
Construction Contract Awarded on Deficient Documents; Contractor Exposed to Unbuildable Conditions
Stakeholder Uninformed of Deficiencies; Misrepresentation of Deliverable Completeness
Constructability Impasse; Public Safety Risk; Project Dispute State
property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Competence in professional review; Responsible stewardship of federal funds; Honest representation to client
property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Obligation to perform services within area of competence; Obligation to recognize limits of competency and escalate appropriately; Public fund stewardship
Completeness of professional deliverables; Honest representation to client; Public fund stewardship
Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications; Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation to perform services within area of competence
Informed risk assessment before bidding; Professional competence; Honest representation to client
Obligation to perform services within area of competence; Obligation to make an informed professional judgment before committing to contract performance
Transparency with clients and public agencies; Honest representation to client; Public fund stewardship
Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications; Obligation of honest disclosure to client and funding agency; Public fund stewardship
Professional competence; Honest representation to client
Obligation to avoid deceptive acts; Obligation of honest disclosure to client and funding agency; Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications
property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Defense Industry Engineer (BER Case No. 82-5)
property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Defense industry engineer (BER Case No. 82-5)
property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
relation_type=has_provider; property=hasClient
Engineer C could have requested further clarification from the owner or Engineer A in order to better understand the engineering drawings
relation_type=reviewed_by; property=workReviewedBy
The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency
relation_type=employs; property=employedBy
approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
relation_type=reviews; property=reviewsWorkOf
The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
Engineer A owed a duty of loyalty to the local public agency client as a faithful agent, but that duty did not extend to concealing the incompleteness of the deliverables
Engineer A engaged in deceptive conduct by submitting incomplete drawings while asserting that incompleteness was attributable to time pressures and anticipated federal funding
Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete design documents by asserting that federal funds would be awarded to complete the work
Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete drawings and specifications in part because he believed federal grant funds, rather than local funds, would cover any increased costs
Engineer A submitted incomplete and partially unbuildable dam drawings and specifications, creating risk to the public who would rely on the dam
Engineer A submitted incomplete design drawings and specifications for the dam project while asserting that the incompleteness was due to time pressures
Engineer A concealed the known incompleteness of the drawings and specifications from the client, the federal approving engineer, and the bidding contractors
Engineer A knew the drawings and specifications were incomplete and that parts of the project were unbuildable, yet submitted them under seal without disclosing these deficiencies
Engineer A produced drawings and specifications for a dam that were materially incomplete and contained elements that a contractor found unbuildable
Engineer A failed to conduct the professional engagement transparently by submitting incomplete drawings and specifications without disclosing their deficiencies
Engineer A's assertion that incomplete work was acceptable because federal funds would remedy the deficiency constituted a misrepresentation to the public funding authority
Engineer B approved Engineer A's incomplete dam design drawings without either possessing the competence to identify their inadequacy or taking action to ensure that a competent reviewer was assigned
Engineer B reviewed and approved the signed and sealed drawings and specifications on behalf of the federal funding agency, yet the documents were materially incomplete
Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, identified and reported the material deficiencies in the drawings and specifications at the pre-construction conference
Engineer C, as both a licensed engineer and a contractor, was expected to apply professional engineering competence to evaluate the bidding documents and identify their inadequacies
Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, submitted a low bid on the dam project without including bid items for additional services to address known document inadequacies
The defense industry engineer who documented and reported excessive subcontractor costs and delays had an ethical right but not an ethical duty to continue pursuing disclosure
Transforms general honesty and faithful-agent principles into a specific obligation to disclose when external pressures have compromised the professional's ability to deliver a complete and adequate work product.
Engineer A was obligated to apply his professional seal only to drawings and specifications that were complete, buildable, and met professional standards, and not to seal documents he knew to be materially incomplete.
Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by ensuring that the dam drawings and specifications were complete and buildable before submission
Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, was obligated to formally document and report the identified design deficiencies and unbuildable elements to the client and design engineer
Engineer C was obligated, upon identifying deficiencies and unbuildable elements in the dam project bidding documents, to either include appropriate bid items for additional services needed to complete the work or to seek clarification
The engineer had an ethical right but not a mandatory ethical duty to continue reporting excessive subcontractor costs and delays to proper authority after the employer rejected the reports
Engineer A was obligated to make the decision to submit complete and adequate drawings and specifications without regard to his assumption that federal funds rather than local funds would absorb any cost overruns
Engineer A was obligated to produce drawings and specifications that were complete, technically adequate, and buildable
Engineer A was obligated to provide a complete and buildable set of design drawings and specifications for the dam project
Engineer A was obligated to communicate to the local public agency that the specified delivery date was incompatible with producing complete and buildable drawings and specifications
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from representing to the client and federal funding agency that incomplete design documents were acceptable because federal funds would be awarded to complete the work
Engineer A was obligated to disclose to the local public agency client, the federal approving engineer, and the bidding contractors that the drawings and specifications were materially incomplete and that certain elements were unbuildable
Engineer B was obligated to conduct a sufficiently thorough independent technical review of the submitted dam drawings and specifications to identify material deficiencies and unbuildable elements before approving them on behalf of the fede
Engineer B was obligated, upon recognizing any inability to perform a competent review of Engineer A's dam design documents, to inform a supervisor so that a qualified engineer could be assigned to perform the review
property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
Engineer A; Local public agency; Engineer B; Hi-Lo Construction; Federal funding agency
Engineer A; Local public agency; Federal funding agency; Hi-Lo Construction
Engineer A; Owner; Public (as federal fund recipients)
Engineer A; Owner; Engineer B; Engineer C; Public
Engineer A; Local public agency; Engineer B (federal agency approver); Hi-Lo Construction
General public downstream of dam; Local public agency; Hi-Lo Construction workers; Engineer A
Engineer A; Local public agency; Engineer B; Hi-Lo Construction
Local public agency; Engineer A; Engineer B
property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Engineer may disclose but is not required to do so
property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Discretionary right to disclose as matter of personal conscience
Professional must not allow client or approving authority to rely on a deliverable without knowing its limitations
Professional must not seal and submit documents known to be incomplete without disclosing the reason and the incompleteness
Duty to seek deadline extension rather than deliver a known-incomplete product
Duty to disclose factors that materially affected the quality of the professional's work product
property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
A contractor-engineer reviews bidding documents prior to submitting a bid
The contractor-engineer submits a bid without reflecting the deficiency or seeking clarification
The documents are materially incomplete or inadequate for construction
Contractor-engineer must not submit a bid that ignores known inadequacies without disclosure
Contractor-engineer may not later claim ignorance of deficiencies apparent from document review
Obligation to seek clarification when documents appear incomplete
Obligation to reflect known deficiencies in bid pricing
property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Contractor adjusts bid to include items for additional services
Contractor seeks clarification and receives adequate design information
Contract is withdrawn or rebid with complete documents
Deficiencies identified at pre-construction conference; corrective action not described
Duty to disclose assumptions about funding that affect project scope or cost
Engineer A submitted incomplete plans while assuming federal funds would be awarded to complete the work, without disclosing or obtaining authorization for that assumption
Professional submits drawings, specifications, or other deliverable known to be incomplete
Professional must not allow project to proceed to bid or construction on an incomplete deliverable without disclosure
Professional must not misrepresent completeness of sealed documents
Duty to disclose incompleteness to client and approving authority
Deficiencies identified at pre-construction conference by Engineer C; resolution not described in the text
Engineer A's acknowledgment at the pre-construction conference that he felt pressured
The submission is materially incomplete or deficient
A reviewing engineer approves a design submission
Reviewer must not allow incomplete work to advance without disclosure
Reviewer must not approve work beyond their competence
Obligation to recognize competence limits and escalate to a qualified reviewer
A competent reviewer re-examines and properly evaluates the submission
Not resolved; Engineer C encountered construction problems attributable to the incomplete documents
Local agency awards contract without in-house technical capacity to evaluate the deliverable
property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Engineer A's firm's impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications.
property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B... and the project is thereafter duly advertised for bids.
A contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction. At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C... that much of the design detail is lacking.
Presumably, Engineer C had an opportunity to review the bidding documents which included appropriate engineering drawings, plans, and specifications. From such a review, Engineer C should have had a sense of what would be necessary to complete the project... Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project.
Engineer A responds to an RFP... results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications. The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B.
A contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction. At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking.
Engineer A felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness... At the pre-construction conference... Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization.
Engineer A felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness.
Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency to build a new dam to be financed in part by a federal grant.
The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project.
The project is thereafter duly advertised for bids and a contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction.
Incomplete Work Submission → Document Incompleteness Occurrence
Engineer A decided to submit drawings and specifications that he knew to be incomplete by the specified date... while much of the information was missing from the drawings and specifications
Incomplete Work Submission -- Engineer A submits knowingly incomplete drawings and specifications
Document Incompleteness Occurrence -- Drawings and specifications exist in a knowingly incomplete state
Had Engineer A completed the full design as required, the incompleteness would not have occurred
Engineer A's decision to submit despite incompleteness
Engineer A's expectation that federal funds would cover added costs
Time pressure to deliver by a specified date
Decision to deliver incomplete documents under deadline pressure with reliance on federal funding
Defense Engineer Whistleblower Conscience
In BER Case No. 82-5, an engineer employed by a defense firm documented and reported excessive subcontractor costs and delays. The employer rejected the reports. The Board found no mandatory duty to escalate further but recognized an ethical right to do so.
The engineer was not ethically required to continue reporting excessive subcontractor costs and delays after the employer rejected those reports, but retained an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience, with the understanding that doing so might result in loss of employment.
After employer rejection of the engineer's internal reports
if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment
the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience
Defense Industry Engineer Whistleblower Conscience
Whistleblower Conscience Judgment Capability
The defense industry engineer demonstrated the capability to assess whether employer conduct involving excessive subcontractor costs and delays warranted disclosure beyond internal reporting, and to exercise personal conscience judgment about whether to pursue the matter publicly.
BER Case No. 82-5 involved an engineer at a defense firm who reported subcontractor cost and schedule problems internally. The Board found no mandatory ethical duty to continue the campaign or go public, but recognized an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience, distinguishing this from situations involving public health and safety.
Documenting and reporting excessive subcontractor costs and delays to the employer, then facing the question of whether to escalate to public disclosure after the employer rejected the reports.
the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
Via class 'Whistleblower Conscience Judgment Capability': Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability addresses escalation to regulatory authorities when internal resolution fails, but the present capability is distinct in that it concerns the threshold judgment between ethical right and ethical duty in non-safety public interest contexts, and the personal conscience dimension of that judgment. The match is weak enough that a new class is warranted, though there is partial conceptual overlap.
Engineer A possessed sufficient buildability assessment capability to recognize that the submitted drawings and specifications were incomplete and contained unbuildable elements, but failed to act on that recognition before submission.
At the pre-construction conference, Engineer A acknowledged the accuracy of the contractor's finding that the dam drawings and specifications were materially deficient and contained unbuildable elements, indicating awareness of the deficiency prior to or at submission.
Agreement with Hi-Lo Construction's characterization that design detail was lacking and that certain parts of the project were unbuildable without major changes.
Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization
Engineer A submitted dam drawings and specifications that were materially incomplete, citing deadline pressure as the cause. Whether the incompleteness arose from insufficient time, insufficient competence, or both, the constraint required him to either meet professional standards or disclose the gap.
Engineer A was constrained from submitting drawings and specifications that he lacked the capacity or time to complete to professional standards, and was required either to produce a complete and adequate product or to disclose the limitations preventing him from doing so.
Throughout the design phase and at the time of submission
Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence Constraint'
Engineer A was retained to provide a complete design for a dam project and submitted drawings and specifications that were materially incomplete, citing time pressures and anticipated federal funding as justification.
Engineer A was required to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications for the dam project and was prohibited from submitting incomplete documents as if they satisfied the full design obligation.
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering standards for design deliverables
Throughout the design engagement and at the time of deliverable submission
Engineer A was fully required to provide the complete design on the project
It is clear that Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Complete Reporting Constraint'
Engineer A was required to produce drawings and specifications that were complete and buildable, and to assess whether the documents were adequate for contractor use before submitting them under seal.
Engineer A was retained to produce a complete set of design drawings and specifications for a dam project. The Board found that Engineer A submitted incomplete and unbuildable documents, violating the obligation to deliver complete and adequate design documents.
Engineer A submitted drawings and specifications that were incomplete and contained unbuildable elements, demonstrating a failure to apply buildability assessment before submission.
Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged.
Engineer A was fully required to provide the complete design on the project.
Engineer A lacked the capability to set aside assumptions about federal cost coverage when making decisions about deliverable completeness, allowing those assumptions to substitute for professional judgment about adequacy.
Engineer A rationalized submission of incomplete dam design documents in part by assuming that increased costs from incompleteness would be borne by federal rather than local funding, a consideration irrelevant to the professional obligation to produce complete work.
Decision to submit incomplete drawings and specifications based on the assumption that federal funds rather than local funds would cover any resulting cost overruns.
Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs.
Engineer A Cost Assumption Rationalization
Engineer A justified submitting incomplete work by assuming federal grant funds would be available to remedy deficiencies, without disclosing this assumption to the client or verifying the funding.
Engineer A was prohibited from rationalizing the submission of incomplete drawings and specifications on the basis of an undisclosed assumption that federal funds would cover cost overruns arising from the incomplete design.
At the time of submission of incomplete drawings and specifications
Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code
Engineer A acknowledged that deadline pressure caused the incompleteness of the deliverable but disclosed this to no one before or at the time of submission, allowing the client and approving engineer to proceed on the false assumption that the documents were complete.
Engineer A was required to communicate to the local public agency that the specified delivery date was incompatible with producing complete and buildable drawings and specifications, and was prohibited from submitting the deficient product without that disclosure.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2 and Section III.2
Before or at the time of submission of the drawings and specifications
Engineer A lacked the capability to resist deadline pressure and communicate schedule incompatibility to the client, instead submitting incomplete drawings and specifications without disclosure.
Engineer A submitted signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications that were materially incomplete, citing deadline pressure as a factor but failing to communicate that pressure or its consequences to any party.
Failure to inform the local public agency that the specified delivery date was incompatible with producing complete and buildable dam drawings and specifications.
he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
Engineer A cited time pressures as a cause of the incomplete deliverable but did not disclose this to the client before submission.
Engineer A was required to communicate to the client that the specified delivery date was incompatible with producing complete and buildable drawings and specifications before submitting an incomplete product under seal.
Before submission of incomplete drawings and specifications
Engineer A was selected for his expertise, which presumably included Engineer A's ability to fully perform the work based on project time parameters
Engineer A Federal Funds Misrepresentation
Engineer A submitted incomplete dam design drawings and specifications, asserting that incompleteness was due to time pressures and that federal funds would cover completion, which the Board characterized as bordering on fraud and misrepresentation.
Public Funds Misrepresentation Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from representing to the local public agency and federal funding authority that incomplete drawings and specifications were acceptable on the basis of an undisclosed assumption that federal funds would be awarded to complete the work.
NSPE Code of Ethics, provisions on deceptive acts and professional obligations
Via class 'Public Funds Misrepresentation Constraint': The prohibition on misrepresenting incomplete work as adequate by relying on unverified public funding assumptions is a specific application of the general non-deception constraint. The Cost Assumption Neutrality Constraint extracted from prior sections addresses the rationalization aspect, while this constraint addresses the affirmative misrepresentation to the client and funding agency. It is a variant of Non-Deception rather than a fully new class, but the public-funds-specific framing and fraud-border characterization give it enough specificity to warrant a distinct class.
Engineer A Federal Funds Rationalization
Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete dam design documents by assuming that federal grant funds, rather than local funds, would absorb any cost overruns resulting from the incomplete design. This assumption was never disclosed to or confirmed by the client or the federal agency.
Engineer A was prohibited from using his undisclosed assumption that federal funds would cover cost overruns as a justification for submitting incomplete drawings and specifications, because that assumption was unverified, undisclosed, and not his to make on behalf of the client or the public.
At the time Engineer A decided to submit the incomplete deliverable
Engineer A Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure
Incomplete Analysis Disclosure Capability
Engineer A lacked the capability to recognize and discharge the obligation to disclose the material incompleteness of the dam drawings and specifications to the client, approving authority, and bidding contractors before or at the time of submission.
Engineer A submitted incomplete dam design documents under seal without disclosing their incompleteness to the local public agency, the federal approving engineer, or the bidding contractors, and the deficiency was only surfaced at the pre-construction conference by the contractor.
Submission of signed and sealed drawings and specifications known to be materially incomplete without informing any party of that incompleteness.
While much of the information was missing from the drawings and specifications
did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Incomplete Analysis Disclosure Capability'
Engineer A demonstrated insufficient norm awareness capability, failing to recognize that professional obligations of completeness, disclosure, and responsible charge applied to the dam drawings and specifications regardless of deadline pressure or assumptions about cost allocation.
Engineer A's conduct at each stage of the dam design project reflected a failure to recognize or apply the professional norms governing completeness, disclosure, and responsible charge that applied to his role as the design engineer.
Submission of incomplete drawings under seal without disclosure, and rationalization based on deadline pressure and funding assumptions rather than professional standards.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Norm Awareness Capability'
Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation Avoidance
Public Funds Misrepresentation Avoidance Capability
Engineer A was required to recognize that asserting incomplete work was acceptable because federal funds would be awarded to complete it constituted a misrepresentation to the client and federal funding agency, and to refrain from making such representations.
Engineer A submitted incomplete dam drawings and justified the incompleteness by claiming federal funds would be awarded to complete the work. The Board found this assertion violated the NSPE Code as a deceptive act and misrepresentation to the public client and federal agency.
Engineer A asserted that incomplete drawings were acceptable due to time pressures and anticipated federal funding, a representation the Board characterized as bordering on fraud and misrepresentation.
Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing.
Engineer A's comment about Federal funds borders on fraud and misrepresentation and is a clear violation of the NSPE Code.
Engineer A signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications that he knew to be incomplete and that a contractor subsequently declared unbuildable in significant parts. The seal implied responsible charge over a complete and adequate product.
Engineer A was prohibited from applying his professional seal to drawings and specifications that were materially incomplete and unbuildable in significant parts, because sealing those documents represented a certification of responsible charge over a product that did not meet professional standards.
State professional engineering licensing statutes and NSPE Code of Ethics, Section III.2
At the time of sealing and submitting the drawings and specifications
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Responsible Charge Seal Constraint'
Engineer A Responsible Charge Verification
Responsible Charge Verification Capability
Engineer A failed to exercise the responsible charge verification capability required before applying his professional seal, submitting drawings and specifications he knew to be incomplete and unbuildable.
Engineer A signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications that he knew were incomplete, indicating a failure to apply the standard of review required to support responsible charge before sealing the documents.
Application of professional seal to drawings and specifications that were materially incomplete and that Engineer A acknowledged were deficient when confronted at the pre-construction conference.
The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Responsible Charge Verification Capability'
The project involved design of a dam, a structure whose failure poses severe risks to public safety. Engineer A submitted incomplete and unbuildable drawings and specifications, creating conditions under which construction could proceed on an inadequate design.
Engineer A was required to ensure that the dam drawings and specifications were complete and adequate to support safe construction before submitting them under seal, and was prohibited from submitting documents that created foreseeable risks to public safety through incomplete or unbuildable design.
Throughout the design and submission phases of the dam project
Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Safety Constraint'
Engineer A's firm submitting brochure and completing interview before award of design contract to Engineer A
Engineer B Approving Engineer Verification
Engineer B was required to conduct a sufficiently thorough independent technical review of Engineer A's submitted dam drawings and specifications to identify material deficiencies before approving them on behalf of the federal funding agency.
Engineer B, as the federal agency approving engineer, reviewed and approved Engineer A's incomplete dam drawings as a condition of federal grant funding. The Board found Engineer B's approval troubling and noted the obligation to perform services within one's area of competence.
Engineer B approved incomplete and deficient drawings without identifying the material deficiencies that were apparent to Engineer C at the pre-construction conference.
Engineer B's approval of Engineer A's incomplete plans is troubling, although we do not know all of the facts and circumstances relating to the decision to approve.
Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence.
Engineer B was required to possess buildability assessment capability sufficient to identify that the submitted dam drawings and specifications were materially incomplete and contained unbuildable elements during the federal approval review.
Engineer B, as the federal agency approving engineer, reviewed and approved the dam design documents without identifying the material incompleteness and unbuildable elements that were apparent to the contractor at the pre-construction conference.
Approval of signed and sealed drawings and specifications that were subsequently found at the pre-construction conference to be materially deficient and to contain unbuildable elements.
Engineer B was required to recognize whether the review of Engineer A's dam design documents fell within Engineer B's own technical competence, and if not, to inform a supervisor so that a qualified engineer could be assigned to perform the review.
Engineer B, as the federal agency approving engineer, approved Engineer A's incomplete dam drawings. The Board found that if Engineer B lacked competence to perform the review, the obligation was to disclose that to a supervisor rather than proceed with an inadequate review.
Engineer B approved incomplete and deficient drawings without identifying material deficiencies, raising the question of whether Engineer B recognized the limits of competence and acted accordingly.
If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review.
Engineer B Responsible Charge Verification
Engineer B was required to exercise responsible charge verification capability sufficient to identify material incompleteness and unbuildable elements in the dam drawings and specifications during the federal approval review.
Engineer B, as the federal agency approving engineer, approved the dam design documents without conducting a review thorough enough to identify the material deficiencies subsequently identified by the contractor.
Approval of materially deficient drawings and specifications without identifying the incompleteness that was apparent to the contractor at the pre-construction conference.
Engineer C, a licensed engineer and contractor, submitted the low bid on a dam project with known or apparent document deficiencies without reflecting those deficiencies in the bid or seeking clarification.
Engineer C was required, upon identifying deficiencies and unbuildable elements in the dam project bidding documents, to either include appropriate bid items for additional services needed to complete the work, request clarification from the owner or Engineer A, or decline to bid.
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering standards for contractor-engineers
During the bidding process before submission of the low bid
Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for the problems Engineer C encountered in attempting to build the project
Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project, presumably knowing inadequacies of the documents as well as the obvious risks involved
If the engineering documents were incomplete or inadequate, then Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work for the benefit of the owner
Bid Document Adequacy Assessment Capability
Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, possessed the technical background and experience to evaluate the bidding documents for completeness and buildability before submitting a bid, and should have identified deficiencies and reflected them in bid pricing or clarification requests.
Engineer C submitted the low bid on the dam project despite the bidding documents containing incomplete and unbuildable elements. The Board found that Engineer C had the engineering background to evaluate the documents and should have either priced the deficiencies into the bid or sought clarification before bidding.
Engineer C's identification at the pre-construction conference that design detail was lacking and that certain elements were unbuildable, demonstrating that the capability existed but was not exercised at the bidding stage.
Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for the problems Engineer C encountered in attempting to build the project.
Engineer C had the necessary background and experience to carefully evaluate the engineering drawings as well as other aspects of the work in order to make an informed decision as to whether to bid on the project.
If the engineering documents were incomplete or inadequate, then Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work for the benefit of the owner.
Engineer C demonstrated buildability assessment capability by identifying at the pre-construction conference that design detail was lacking and that certain project elements were unbuildable without major changes.
Engineer C, as owner of Hi-Lo Construction and a licensed engineer, identified material constructability deficiencies in the dam drawings and specifications at the pre-construction conference.
Declaration at the pre-construction conference that much of the design detail was lacking and that certain parts of the project were unbuildable without major changes.
As owner of Hi-Lo Construction, the awarded low bidder, identified at the pre-construction conference that design detail was lacking and that certain parts of the project were unbuildable without major changes.
Engineering judgment applied to constructability review
Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Contractor Role'
Engineer C Contractor Deficiency Notification
Engineering Design Error Recognition Capability
Engineer C demonstrated engineering design error recognition capability by identifying at the pre-construction conference that the dam drawings and specifications contained material deficiencies and unbuildable elements.
Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, identified specific design deficiencies and unbuildable elements in the dam drawings and specifications at the pre-construction conference, triggering the obligation to formally document and report those deficiencies.
Formal identification at the pre-construction conference that design detail was lacking and that certain project elements were unbuildable without major changes.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Engineering Design Error Recognition Capability'
Engineer C's review of bidding documents before Engineer C submitting low bid
Engineer C's review of bidding documents
Provided partial federal grant funding for the dam project and employed Engineer B to review and approve the design documents as a condition of that funding.
function: Grant funding and technical document approval
Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
a new dam to be financed in part by a federal grant
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Authority Role'
award of design contract to Engineer A before production of drawings and specifications by Engineer A
production of drawings and specifications by Engineer A
delivery of drawings and specifications on specified date before Engineer A acknowledging incompleteness at pre-construction conference
delivery of drawings and specifications on specified date
Engineer A acknowledging incompleteness at pre-construction conference
design contract award before Engineer A's awareness of time pressure
partial federal grant funding commitment before RFP issuance
partial federal grant funding commitment
production of drawings and specifications by Engineer A before Engineer B's approval of drawings and specifications
Engineer B's approval of drawings and specifications
After federal approval, prior to bid submission deadline
After bid submission deadline, prior to pre-construction conference
Early project phase, after RFP response and interview
Design phase, prior to document submission for review
Pre-design phase, established before RFP issuance
Post-submission, prior to bid advertisement
Review phase, prior to project advertisement for bids
Design phase, at the deadline for deliverable submission
During the pre-construction conference, following Engineer C's declaration
Design phase, concurrent with and following submission of incomplete documents
After contract award, before construction commencement
Pre-contract phase, prior to contract award
Pre-construction conference, after contract award to Hi-Lo Construction
Engineer B's approval of drawings and specifications before project advertised for bids
Engineer C submitting low bid before pre-construction conference
contract awarded to Hi-Lo Construction before pre-construction conference
project advertised for bids before contract awarded to Hi-Lo Construction
Incomplete Documents Approval → Bid Advertisement
the signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project, and the project is thereafter duly advertised for bids
Incomplete Documents Approval -- Engineer B approves the incomplete plans
Bid Advertisement -- Project advertised for public bids based on approved documents
Without Engineer B's approval, the project would not have been advertised for bids
Existence of project documents to advertise
Federal approval triggering the bid advertisement process
Pre-Construction Conference → Unbuildability Declaration
At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are "unbuildable" without major changes
Pre-Construction Conference -- Parties convene for the conference
Unbuildability Declaration -- Engineer C declares parts of the project unbuildable without major changes
Without the conference, Engineer C's unbuildability declaration would not have been made at that point
Convening of the pre-construction conference
Engineer C's review identifying missing design detail
Conference forum combined with Engineer C's recognition of incomplete documents
RFP Response Submission → Design Contract Award
RFP Response Submission -- Engineer A's firm responds to the local public agency's RFP with brochure and interview
Design Contract Award -- Local agency awards design contract to Engineer A's firm
Without the RFP response and impressive presentation, Engineer A's firm would not have been awarded the design contract
Impressive brochure and personal interview
Combination of submitted RFP response + impressive brochure + successful personal interview
Unbuildability Declaration → Reactive Incompleteness Acknowledgment
Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date
Unbuildability Declaration -- Engineer C declares portions unbuildable
Reactive Incompleteness Acknowledgment -- Engineer A agrees and cites deadline pressure and reliance on federal funds
Without Engineer C raising the issue, Engineer A would likely not have acknowledged the incompleteness at that time
Engineer A's awareness that documents were incomplete
Engineer C's declaration of unbuildability
Engineer C's challenge prompting Engineer A's defensive acknowledgment
Federal Grant Involvement → Federal Review Completion
Federal Grant Involvement -- Federal grant partially funds the dam project
Federal Review Completion -- Engineer B reviews documents on behalf of federal agency
Without the federal grant, the federal agency review by Engineer B would not have been required
Federal grant partially funding the project
Federal oversight requirement triggering review
Federal funding requiring federal engineering review of the documents
the project is thereafter duly advertised for bids and a contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction
Bid Advertisement -- Project advertised to the public for bids
Low Bid Submission -- Engineer C submits the low bid for Hi-Lo Construction
Without the bid advertisement, Engineer C could not have submitted a bid
Public advertisement of the project for bids
Advertised project opportunity prompting Hi-Lo's bid submission
Contract Award to Contractor → Pre-Construction Conference
At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking
Contract Award to Contractor -- Hi-Lo awarded the contract
Pre-Construction Conference -- Parties convene to begin project planning
Without the contract award, the pre-construction conference would not have been convened
Standard pre-construction conference practice
Contract award triggering the standard pre-construction conference
Low Bid Submission → Contract Award to Contractor
a contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction
Low Bid Submission -- Engineer C submits lowest bid
Contract Award to Contractor -- Hi-Lo Construction awarded the construction contract
Without submitting the low bid, Hi-Lo would not have been awarded the contract
Engineer C's submission of the lowest bid
Submission of the lowest bid in a low-bid procurement
Non-Disclosure of Incompleteness → Incomplete Documents Approval
Non-Disclosure of Incompleteness -- Engineer A withholds knowledge of incompleteness from all parties
Federal Review Completion -- Engineer B reviews the incomplete plans without catching defects
Incomplete Documents Approval -- Engineer B approves the incomplete drawings and specifications
Had Engineer A disclosed the incompleteness, Engineer B would likely not have approved the plans
Engineer A's silence about the incompleteness
Engineer B's lack of independent identification of the defects
Local agency's lack of in-house technical review capability
Non-disclosure combined with inadequate federal review
In BER Case No. 82-5, an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors to the employer. The Board ruled the engineer had no ethical obligation to continue efforts after the employer rejected the reports, but had an ethical right to escalate as a matter of personal conscience, since the matter did not involve public health or safety.
issue: Excessive subcontractor costs and schedule delays
an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors
Engineer A's professional relationship with the local public agency
Deliverable Completeness Disclosure Principle
Engineer A owed a duty of loyalty to the local public agency client as a faithful agent, but that duty did not extend to concealing the incompleteness of the deliverables or to rationalizing deficient work on the basis that federal funds would cover the consequences.
The faithful agent duty requires advancing the client's legitimate interests, which include receiving complete and adequate design documents. Delivering incomplete documents while concealing their deficiency does not serve the client's legitimate interests and therefore falls outside the scope of the faithful agent duty.
The faithful agent duty, properly understood, required disclosure of deficiencies to the client, not concealment. The duty was therefore not in genuine tension with the disclosure obligation but was misapplied by Engineer A.
Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Duty Principle'
Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency to build a new dam
Engineer A Professional Integrity Deceptive Acts
Submission of incomplete dam design drawings and specifications
Engineer A engaged in deceptive conduct by submitting incomplete drawings while asserting that incompleteness was attributable to time pressures and anticipated federal funding, misrepresenting the status and adequacy of the work product to the client and the approving authority.
Professional integrity required Engineer A to honestly represent the completeness and adequacy of the work product rather than submitting deficient deliverables while offering pretextual justifications.
The Board found Engineer A's conduct to be a clear violation of the NSPE Code, with no legitimate competing obligation that could justify the deceptive submission.
this case does not involve a conflict with the ethical requirement of confidentiality, but concerns the affirmative responsibility of engineers to complete plans in conformity with applicable engineering standards and avoid deceptive acts
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Integrity'
this case does not involve a conflict with the ethical requirement of confidentiality, but concerns the affirmative responsibility of engineers to complete plans in conformity with applicable engineering standards and avoid deceptive acts.
From submission of incomplete drawings through the pre-construction conference and beyond until deficiencies are resolved
Transforms the general duty of honesty and public welfare into a discretionary right rather than a mandatory obligation, because the absence of a public safety nexus removes the override condition that would compel disclosure.
Risk to public safety arising from proceeding toward construction of a dam on incomplete and unbuildable design documents
certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications
Incomplete and partially unbuildable dam design is approved and contracted for construction
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety at Risk'
Engineer A signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications that he knew were incomplete and contained unbuildable elements, thereby certifying documents that did not meet the standard required for professional sealing.
At the time of signing and sealing the drawings and specifications
Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Responsible Charge Seal Obligation'
Engineer C, as owner of Hi-Lo Construction and a licensed engineer, identified at the pre-construction conference that design detail was lacking and that certain parts of the project were unbuildable, and reported these findings to the parties present.
Contractor Deficiency Notification Obligation
Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, was obligated to formally document and report the identified design deficiencies and unbuildable elements to the client and design engineer so that the deficiencies could be remedied before construction proceeded.
At the pre-construction conference upon identification of the deficiencies
it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
Via class 'Contractor Deficiency Notification Obligation': Observer Irregularity Reporting Obligation addresses the duty to document and report procedural irregularities during a test or investigation. The present obligation applies to a contractor-engineer who identifies design deficiencies in documents during pre-construction review rather than during a test. The underlying duty to report identified deficiencies to responsible parties is analogous but the role context and trigger conditions are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate class.
Observer Irregularity Reporting Obligation
Engineer C, as owner of Hi-Lo Construction and a licensed engineer, identified that significant design detail was lacking and that parts of the project were unbuildable. Engineer C raised these issues at the pre-construction conference but the ethical constraint required earlier and more formal notification.
Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor who identified material design deficiencies and unbuildable elements before or upon bidding, was constrained by professional ethics obligations to formally document and report those deficiencies rather than simply raising them informally at the pre-construction conference.
Upon identification of deficiencies, before or at the time of bidding and at the pre-construction conference
The incompleteness of the project documents became a matter of official record acknowledged by the design engineer, triggering formal accountability and the need for remediation.
Engineer A acknowledged at the pre-construction conference that the submitted drawings and specifications were incomplete, confirming what had previously been concealed from the agency and contractor.
Throughout the Board's analysis of the current case
Engineer A's incomplete plan submission in the current case
Not terminated within the case analysis; the Board proceeds on the basis that the affirmative duty of completeness and anti-deception applies instead
the issue does not allege a danger to public health or safety, but is premised upon a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
Board's determination that the case involves unsatisfactory plans and unjustified public expenditure rather than a public health or safety danger
BER Case No. 82-5: engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors; employer rejected the reports; no public health or safety danger was alleged.
The engineer had an ethical right but not a mandatory ethical duty to continue reporting excessive subcontractor costs and delays to proper authority after the employer rejected the reports, and any further disclosure was a matter of personal conscience.
After employer rejection of initial reports
From Engineer A's decision to submit incomplete plans through the Board's analysis
Transforms faithful-agent and honest-communication principles into an obligation to disclose and obtain authorization for any assumption about third-party funding that the professional uses to justify delivering a deficient or incomplete work product.
Engineer A's reliance on anticipated federal funding to justify incomplete deliverable
Board finding that the assumption borders on fraud and misrepresentation
his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing
The Board found that Engineer A's assertion that incompleteness was acceptable due to anticipated federal funds bordered on fraud and misrepresentation, constituting a clear violation of the NSPE Code's non-deception provisions.
Engineer A was prohibited from engaging in deceptive acts in connection with the submission of incomplete drawings and specifications, including misrepresenting their adequacy or relying on unverified funding assumptions to justify their incompleteness.
NSPE Code of Ethics, non-deception provisions
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Non-Deception (Constraint)'
The Board analogized the current case to BER Case No. 82-5, noting that neither case involved public health or safety danger, which affected the scope of mandatory disclosure obligations while leaving intact the affirmative duties of plan completeness and non-deception.
Because the incomplete plan submission did not allege a danger to public health or safety but involved unsatisfactory plans and potential unjustified expenditure of public funds, the mandatory external disclosure obligations that attach to safety-threatening conduct did not apply with the same force, though affirmative obligations of completeness and non-deception remained.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 82-5 precedent
the Board indicated that it could dismiss the case on the narrow ground that the NSPE Code does not apply to a claim not involving public health and safety, but that was too narrow a reading of the ethical duties of engineers
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Defeasible Constraint'
Engineer A submitted incomplete and partially unbuildable dam drawings and specifications, creating risk to the public who would rely on the dam, without disclosing the deficiencies to any party.
Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by ensuring that the dam drawings and specifications were complete and buildable before submission, given that the public would rely on the dam as a safety-critical structure.
Throughout the design and submission process
much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Safety Obligation'
Engineer B reviewed and approved the signed and sealed drawings and specifications as a member of the federal agency engineering staff, but the documents were materially incomplete and contained unbuildable elements that were subsequently identified by the contractor at the pre-construction conference.
Approving Engineer Verification Obligation
Engineer B was obligated to conduct a sufficiently thorough independent technical review of the submitted dam drawings and specifications to identify material deficiencies and unbuildable elements before approving them on behalf of the federal funding agency.
During the federal agency review and approval process
Via class 'Approving Engineer Verification Obligation': Responsible Charge Verification Obligation addresses the duty of a licensed engineer in responsible charge to verify work before sealing. The present obligation applies to a reviewing or approving engineer at a funding agency rather than the originating engineer, and the verification duty runs to independent review of another's submission rather than one's own work. It is a variant of the same underlying competence principle applied to a distinct role context, warranting a separate class.
Responsible Charge Verification Obligation
Reviewed and approved the signed and sealed drawings and specifications as a member of the federal agency engineering staff, thereby enabling the project to proceed to bid despite the documents' incompleteness.
function: Technical approval of grant-funded project documents
Engineer C Contractor Collegial Notification Observation
Pre-construction conference disclosure of design deficiencies
Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, identified and reported the material deficiencies in the drawings and specifications at the pre-construction conference, fulfilling an obligation to surface known technical inadequacies rather than proceeding silently.
Engineer C's disclosure of the unbuildable elements and missing design detail reflects the professional obligation to report known technical deficiencies that affect the viability of a project, even when doing so creates complications for the project schedule and relationships.
Engineer C honored the reporting obligation by disclosing the deficiencies at the pre-construction conference rather than proceeding and absorbing costs or creating safety risks.
it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Complete Reporting Principle'
Internal reports of excessive subcontractor costs and time delays on defense contracts
The defense industry engineer who documented and reported excessive subcontractor costs and delays had an ethical right but not an ethical duty to continue pursuing disclosure after the employer rejected the reports, because the conduct involved unjustified public expenditure rather than a direct public safety threat.
The Board declined to impose a blanket duty of continued disclosure or public reporting, characterizing the decision as a matter of personal conscience while acknowledging the engineer's right to proceed at personal professional risk.
the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
Incomplete dam design drawings submitted under federal grant conditions
Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete design documents by asserting that federal funds would be awarded to complete the work, effectively treating anticipated third-party public funding as a justification for delivering deficient deliverables.
Cost Allocation Bias Prohibition Principle
The Board characterized Engineer A's federal funds comment as bordering on fraud and misrepresentation, finding no legitimate basis for the cost-allocation rationale.
Engineer A Cost Allocation Rationalization
Decision to submit incomplete dam design documents
Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete drawings and specifications in part because he believed federal grant funds, rather than local funds, would cover any increased costs resulting from the deficiencies.
The prohibition on cost-allocation bias required Engineer A to evaluate the adequacy of the deliverables against objective professional standards, not against assumptions about which party would bear remediation costs. The federal funding source did not lower the required standard of completeness.
Engineer A improperly allowed cost-allocation assumptions to substitute for professional judgment about deliverable adequacy.
Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs
Engineer A Public Welfare Deficient Dam Design
Dam design drawings and specifications submitted to local public agency and federal approving authority
Engineer A submitted incomplete and partially unbuildable dam drawings and specifications, creating risk to the public who would rely on the dam, while concealing the deficiencies from the client, the approving agency, and other parties.
Public welfare paramountcy was not honored. Engineer A allowed schedule pressure and cost-allocation assumptions to override the duty to deliver complete, safe design documents.
Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle'
much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are unbuildable without major changes
Engineer B Competence Recognition Approval
Review and approval of dam design drawings and specifications for federal funding purposes
Engineer B approved Engineer A's incomplete dam design drawings without either possessing the competence to identify their inadequacy or taking action to ensure that a competent reviewer was assigned, resulting in approval of deficient work product.
The Board found that failing to recognize a lack of competence and take appropriate action is a violation of the NSPE Code, even though lacking competence is not itself a violation.
Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence
Not possessing adequate competency to perform a task is not in and of itself a violation of the NSPE Code, but the failure to recognize the lack of competency and take appropriate action to address the situation is a violation of the NSPE Code
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence Principle'
Not possessing adequate competency to perform a task is not in and of itself a violation of the NSPE Code, but the failure to recognize the lack of competency and take appropriate action to address the situation is a violation of the NSPE Code.
Engineer C, a licensed engineer and owner of Hi-Lo Construction, submitted the low bid on the dam project. As a licensed engineer, Engineer C had the background to evaluate the bidding documents and identify their inadequacies, but submitted a bid that did not reflect those deficiencies.
Engineer C was obligated, upon identifying deficiencies and unbuildable elements in the dam project bidding documents, to either include appropriate bid items for additional services needed to complete the work or to seek clarification from the owner or Engineer A before submitting a bid, rather than submitting a low bid that ignored the known inadequacies.
During bid preparation and before bid submission
Engineer C could have requested further clarification from the owner or Engineer A in order to better understand the engineering drawings.
Engineer C, as owner of Hi-Lo Construction and a licensed engineer, submitted the low bid on the dam project. The Board found that Engineer C, possessing both engineering and contracting expertise, had an obligation to evaluate the adequacy of the design documents before bidding, to include appropriate bid items for additional services if documents were incomplete, or to request clarification, and bore responsibility for the problems encountered in attempting to build the project.
role_dual: Engineer and contractor, owner of Hi-Lo Construction
As an engineer and a contractor presumably, Engineer C had the necessary background and experience to carefully evaluate the engineering drawings as well as other aspects of the work in order to make an informed decision as to whether to bid on the project
Engineer C's actions in bidding on an unbuildable contract is also very troubling
The project's constructability was formally placed in question, creating an impasse that prevented construction from proceeding as documented and exposing the full scope of the document deficiencies.
At the pre-construction conference, Engineer C declared that portions of the dam project were unbuildable, surfacing the practical construction consequences of the document deficiencies.
From Engineer A's decision to submit incomplete drawings through the pre-construction conference
Engineer A's undisclosed assumption that federal funds would cover cost overruns arising from the incomplete design
Engineer A decides not to disclose incompleteness, relying on an internal assumption that federal funds will absorb any resulting cost increases
Engineer A Honesty Concealment of Deficiency
Communications with local public agency, federal approving authority, and bidding process
Engineer A concealed the known incompleteness of the drawings and specifications from the client, the federal approving engineer, and the bidding contractors, allowing all parties to proceed under the false impression that the documents were adequate.
Honesty required Engineer A to communicate the known deficiencies in the deliverables to affected parties. Silence in the face of known deficiency, when parties are relying on the documents as complete, constitutes a form of professional dishonesty.
Honesty was not upheld. Engineer A allowed the deficient documents to proceed through approval and bidding without disclosure.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Honesty'
Engineer B approved Engineer A's materially incomplete dam design documents. The Board noted that lacking competence is not itself a violation, but failing to recognize and address that lack of competence is.
Engineer B was constrained from approving Engineer A's dam design documents without possessing adequate competence to perform the necessary technical review, and was required to escalate to a supervisor if that competence was lacking.
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering standards
During the review and approval of Engineer A's submitted drawings and specifications
Engineer B Federal Review Approval Competence
Federal agency review and approval of dam design documents
Reliance on Engineer A's professional seal
Engineer B reviewed and approved the signed and sealed drawings and specifications on behalf of the federal funding agency, yet the documents were materially incomplete and contained unbuildable elements, raising questions about the adequacy of the review.
Professional competence in the approving role required Engineer B to conduct a sufficiently thorough review to identify material deficiencies before approving documents that would enable a public project to proceed to bidding and construction.
The case raises the question of whether Engineer B's approval was adequate given the magnitude of the deficiencies that a contractor identified at the pre-construction conference.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Competence'
Engineer C Professional Competence Bid Evaluation
Evaluation of dam project bidding documents prior to bid submission
Engineer C, as both a licensed engineer and a contractor, was expected to apply professional engineering competence to evaluate the bidding documents and identify their inadequacies before submitting a bid, using the technical background and experience that the dual role conferred.
The principle required Engineer C to bring engineering competence to bear on the bid evaluation process, not merely to assess the documents as a lay contractor would, because the dual role carried the professional obligation to recognize technical deficiencies.
The Board found that Engineer C's engineering background and experience created a professional obligation to evaluate the documents competently, and that failure to act on identified inadequacies was not excused by competitive considerations.
As an engineer and a contractor presumably, Engineer C had the necessary background and experience to carefully evaluate the engineering drawings as well as other aspects of the work in order to make an informed decision as to whether to bid on the project.
Commitment to deliverables within time parameters that may prove difficult to meet
Obligation to perform services within area of competence by representing the firm as capable
Win the design contract for the dam project
Engineer A's firm decided to respond to the local public agency's RFP for dam design, submitting an impressive brochure and completing a personal interview, thereby implicitly committing to deliver a complete and competent design within the project's stated time parameters.
Engineer A rationalized submitting incomplete drawings and specifications in part because he believed federal grant funds would cover any increased costs, rather than basing his submission decision on the professional adequacy of the documents.
Engineer A was obligated to make the decision to submit complete and adequate drawings and specifications without regard to his assumption that federal funds rather than local funds would absorb any cost overruns resulting from the deficiencies.
At the time of deciding to submit the incomplete drawings and specifications
Engineer A Deadline Pressure Undisclosed
During the design phase leading to submission of incomplete plans
Engineer A's time pressure as a stated cause of incomplete deliverable
Not properly disclosed; Engineer A asserted it as a post-hoc justification rather than a disclosed constraint
Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures
Engineer A experienced time pressure that contributed to incomplete design drawings
Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Concealment
Signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications
Engineer A knew the drawings and specifications were incomplete and that parts of the project were unbuildable, yet submitted them under seal without disclosing these deficiencies to the local agency, the federal approving engineer, or any other party.
Engineer A chose to honor the delivery deadline over the obligation to disclose incompleteness, a resolution that violated professional integrity.
Federal funding and associated federal agency oversight became part of the project structure, introducing a second reviewing authority.
The dam project was partially funded by a federal grant, which brought federal oversight requirements and Engineer B's review role into the project.
Engineer A Deliverable Completeness Disclosure
Dam design drawings and specifications submitted to the local public agency and federal agency
Engineer A submitted incomplete design drawings and specifications for the dam project while asserting that the incompleteness was due to time pressures and an expectation of future federal funding, without disclosing the deficiency to the client or approving authority at the time of submission.
The principle required Engineer A to disclose the known incompleteness of the drawings at the time of submission rather than submitting deficient work while concealing its inadequacy.
The Board found no legitimate basis for Engineer A's conduct; the obligation to deliver complete work and to disclose incompleteness was not outweighed by time pressures or funding expectations.
Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged
Engineer A submitted signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications that he acknowledged were incomplete and unbuildable in significant parts. He did not inform the client, the federal approving engineer, or the contractors of this incompleteness at any point before the pre-construction conference.
Engineer A was prohibited from submitting signed and sealed drawings and specifications that he knew to be materially incomplete without disclosing that incompleteness to the local public agency, the federal approving engineer, and the bidding contractors.
At the time of submission of the drawings and specifications and throughout the bid and pre-construction phases
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Report Integrity Constraint'
Engineer A Incomplete Drawings Submitted
From submission of drawings and specifications through the pre-construction conference at which deficiencies were identified
Transforms general honesty and completeness principles into concrete obligations to disclose known deficiencies in sealed professional documents before those documents are relied upon by contractors, agencies, or funding bodies.
Engineer A's signed and sealed drawings and specifications submitted for the dam project
Engineer A submits signed and sealed drawings and specifications that he knows to be materially incomplete
Via class 'Incomplete Deliverable Submitted State': Deficient Work Product Submitted State captures the concept of a submitted work product containing errors, omissions, or deficiencies failing professional standards. The present state is a variant that emphasizes the professional's contemporaneous knowledge of incompleteness and the deliberate non-disclosure, which adds a distinct epistemic and honesty dimension not fully captured by the existing class. A medium-confidence match is appropriate; the new class is warranted to capture the non-disclosure element.
Engineer A Incomplete Submission Disclosure
Engineer A submitted incomplete dam design documents without disclosing their incompleteness to the client, the federal approving authority, or contractors who would rely on them for bidding.
Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A was required to disclose to the local public agency, the federal approving engineer, and bidding contractors that the submitted drawings and specifications were materially incomplete before or at the time of submission.
Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project
Engineer A Professional Competence Dam Drawings
Engineer A produced drawings and specifications for a dam that were materially incomplete and contained elements that a contractor found unbuildable, indicating a failure to exercise the technical competence required to produce adequate design documents.
Schedule pressure does not excuse a failure to meet minimum competence standards in sealed professional deliverables.
Throughout the design approval and pre-construction phase
Transforms the general duty of competence and professional review into a specific obligation to escalate or refuse approval when the reviewer cannot adequately evaluate the submission.
Local public agency's inability to independently review the drawings and specifications
The local public agency does not have the in-house technical resources to review the drawings and specifications
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Resource Constrained'
Engineer A produced drawings and specifications for a dam that were materially incomplete and contained elements a contractor found unbuildable, indicating that the work product did not meet the professional standard of care.
Engineer A was obligated to produce drawings and specifications that were complete, technically adequate, and buildable, and to refrain from submitting work products that he knew did not meet the standard of care for dam design.
Throughout the design and production of the drawings and specifications
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence Obligation'
Engineer A Transparency Deficient Submission
Submission of dam design documents to local public agency and federal approving authority
Engineer A failed to conduct the professional engagement transparently by submitting incomplete drawings and specifications without disclosing their deficiencies to the client, the federal approving authority, or other stakeholders who relied on the documents.
Transparency was not maintained. The concealment of known deficiencies prevented the client and approving authority from making informed decisions about whether to accept, reject, or supplement the documents.
The local public agency does not have the in-house technical resources to review the drawings and specifications.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Transparency Principle'
During Engineer B's review and approval of Engineer A's plans
Engineer B's capacity to review Engineer A's incomplete plans
Not resolved; the Board notes the failure to recognize and address the competence gap
If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor
Engineer B was assigned to review Engineer A's design drawings without confirmed competence to perform that review
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence State'
Engineer B Unreviewed Incomplete Approval
From Engineer B's review through approval of the incomplete plans
Engineer B's approval of Engineer A's materially incomplete plans
Not corrected within the case; the Board identifies this as a troubling violation
Engineer B's approval of Engineer A's incomplete plans is troubling
Engineer B approved Engineer A's incomplete design drawings without detecting or acting on the deficiencies
From submission of incomplete plans through the Board's analysis
Engineer A's submission of incomplete design drawings and specifications
Not resolved within the case; the Board finds a clear code violation
Engineer A delivered incomplete design drawings and specifications while asserting the incompleteness was due to time pressures and an expectation of federal funding
Engineer A Undisclosed Deadline Pressure
From the point at which Engineer A recognized the deliverable was incomplete due to deadline pressure through the pre-construction conference
Engineer A's internal awareness that deadline pressure caused the incompleteness of the deliverable
he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date
Engineer A experiences deadline pressure and delivers incomplete drawings without disclosing the pressure or its effect
Engineer B Approving Review Verification
Engineer B, as the federal agency approving engineer, approved drawings and specifications that were materially incomplete and unbuildable in significant parts. The local public agency lacked in-house technical resources to conduct its own review, making Engineer B's review the primary safeguard against deficient documents proceeding to bid.
Engineer B was required to conduct a sufficiently thorough independent technical review of the submitted dam drawings and specifications to identify material deficiencies before approving them, and was prohibited from approving documents that were materially incomplete without that review.
Federal agency engineering review standards and NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2
During the federal agency review and approval phase
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'AI Output Verification Constraint'
Low bid submission on dam construction contract with deficient design documents
Engineer C, as a licensed engineer and contractor, submitted a low bid on the dam project without including bid items for additional services to address known document inadequacies and without seeking clarification from the owner or Engineer A, thereby concealing identified deficiencies from the owner through the bidding process.
The principle required Engineer C to reflect document inadequacies in the bid by including appropriate additional service items or to seek clarification before bidding, rather than submitting a low bid while accepting the risks of inadequate documents.
The Board found that Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for resulting construction difficulties, because the professional obligation to disclose document deficiencies through the bid was not overridden by competitive bidding considerations.
Engineer C had no one to fault but himself for the problems Engineer C encountered in attempting to build the project. Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project, presumably knowing inadequacies of the documents as well as the obvious risks involved
Engineer C submitted the low bid on the project, presumably knowing inadequacies of the documents as well as the obvious risks involved.
Submission of documents insufficient to support construction
Completeness of professional deliverables
Unjustified Expenditure of Public Funds Risk
Meet the contractual delivery deadline and avoid conflict with the client over schedule
Conformance with applicable engineering standards
Scheduling judgment to flag infeasible deadlines
Obligation to perform services within area of competence
Obligation to provide complete design drawings and specifications
Engineer A decided to submit drawings and specifications that he knew to be incomplete by the specified deadline, citing time pressure as justification, rather than requesting an extension or otherwise seeking relief from the schedule constraint.
Client and federal agency proceed without knowledge of deficiencies
Contractor awarded work based on deficient documents
Increased risk of cost overruns charged to federal funds
Transparency with clients and public agencies
Misrepresentation of Deliverable Completeness
Avoid accountability for incomplete work and preserve the client relationship by assuming federal funds would absorb additional costs
Ethical obligation to disclose known deficiencies
Professional judgment to communicate limitations to client
Obligation of honest disclosure to client and funding agency
Engineer A decided not to inform the local public agency, the federal funding agency, or any other stakeholder that the submitted drawings and specifications were incomplete, privately rationalizing that federal funds would cover any resulting cost overruns.
Engineer B, employed by the federal funding agency, reviewed and approved Engineer A's signed and sealed but materially incomplete dam design drawings and specifications. The Board found that failure to recognize a competence gap and take corrective action is a Code violation.
Engineer B was obligated, upon recognizing any inability to perform a competent review of Engineer A's dam design documents, to inform a supervisor so that a qualified engineer could be assigned to perform the review, rather than approving documents that were materially incomplete.
During the review and approval process for the design documents
Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence. If Engineer B was not able to perform the necessary reviews of Engineer A's work, Engineer B should have provided this information to a supervisor who would have assigned an appropriate engineer to perform the review.
Via class 'Competence Limit Escalation Obligation': The canonical Competence Obligation covers the duty to practice within areas of competence. This class specializes that obligation by focusing on the affirmative duty to escalate when a competence gap is recognized, rather than simply declining to perform. The Mentorship Gap Competence Obligation from prior extractions addresses a related but distinct scenario. This is a variant of the canonical Competence Obligation with a specific escalation-action requirement.
Engineer A Public Funds Misrepresentation
Federal grant funding for dam project completion
Engineer A's assertion that incomplete work was acceptable because federal funds would remedy the deficiency constituted a misrepresentation to the public funding authority and an unjustified claim on public resources.
The principle required Engineer A to complete the work to applicable standards without relying on anticipated future public funding to remedy known deficiencies, and prohibited misrepresentations to the federal funding authority about the completeness of the work product.
The Board found that Engineer A's conduct bordered on fraud and misrepresentation, with no legitimate competing obligation that could justify reliance on public funds to remedy self-created deficiencies.
Acknowledgment exposes Engineer A to professional and legal scrutiny
Disclosure at this stage provides no remedial benefit to the design process
Respond to Engineer C's challenge by acknowledging the known deficiencies while deflecting responsibility to time pressure and anticipated federal funding
At the pre-construction conference, Engineer A acknowledged the incompleteness of the drawings and specifications only after Engineer C raised the issue and declared portions of the project unbuildable, rather than proactively disclosing the deficiencies to any stakeholder at any earlier point.
The project entered the public procurement phase, exposing contractors to the deficient documents as the basis for their bids.
Contractor Exposure to Deficient Documents
The dam project was advertised for bids to the public following federal approval of the incomplete documents, initiating the contractor selection process.
Engineer A was retained to produce full design drawings and specifications for a dam project funded in part by federal grants. Engineer A submitted incomplete and partially unbuildable documents under seal, asserting that time pressures and expected federal funds justified the incompleteness.
Engineer A was obligated to provide a complete and buildable set of design drawings and specifications for the dam project, conforming to applicable engineering standards, and was not permitted to submit incomplete documents under seal on the basis of time pressure or anticipated federal funding.
At the time of submission of design documents
It is clear that Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged.
The incomplete documents acquired an official federal approval status, removing a gatekeeping barrier and allowing the deficient project to advance to public bidding.
Federally Approved Deficient Documents State
Engineer B, acting as the federal funding agency's engineering staff reviewer, completed a review of the incomplete documents and approved them without identifying or flagging the deficiencies.
Engineer A's firm transitioned from bidder status to contracted design engineer for the dam project.
Professional Responsibility Incumbent on Engineer A
Open Competitive Bidding State for Design Services
Engineer A's firm was awarded the design contract by the local public agency following submission of an impressive brochure and completion of a personal interview.
Engineer A cited schedule pressure as the reason for submitting incomplete drawings and specifications, but did not communicate the incompleteness or request additional time from the client.
Engineer A was obligated to communicate to the local public agency that the specified delivery date was incompatible with producing complete and buildable drawings and specifications, and to refrain from submitting incomplete sealed documents merely to meet the schedule.
Prior to or at the time of the scheduled delivery of the drawings and specifications
From submission through identification of deficiencies at pre-construction conference
Transforms the general duty of honesty and competence into a specific obligation to disclose known document deficiencies at the bid stage rather than proceeding silently and later attributing construction failures to the design engineer.
The signed and sealed drawings and specifications submitted by Engineer A
Drawings and specifications are submitted, approved, advertised for bid, and contracted despite material incompleteness
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Deficient Work Product Submitted State'
Engineer A submitted incomplete dam design documents and asserted that incompleteness was attributable to time pressures and that federal grant funds would remedy the deficiency, a representation the Board characterized as bordering on fraud and misrepresentation.
Public Funds Misrepresentation Avoidance Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from representing to the client and federal funding agency that incomplete design documents were acceptable because federal funds would be awarded to complete the work, when that representation served to conceal Engineer A's failure to deliver a complete design.
At and after submission of incomplete design documents
Exposure to cost overruns and constructability problems arising from deficient documents
Risk of contract performance on an unbuildable design
Construction Contract Awarded on Deficient Documents
Contractor Exposed to Unbuildable Conditions
Win the construction contract by submitting the lowest bid
Bid preparation reflecting actual project risks
Construction document review and evaluation
Engineering judgment to identify unbuildable or incomplete design elements
Obligation to make an informed professional judgment before committing to contract performance
Engineer C, as owner of Hi-Lo Construction, decided to submit the low bid on the dam project based on documents that, upon review, should have revealed incompleteness and unbuildable elements, without seeking clarification from the owner or Engineer A and without adjusting the bid to reflect the additional work required.
All key parties were assembled in a formal setting where document deficiencies became the subject of open acknowledgment, moving the incompleteness from a concealed state to a disclosed state.
A pre-construction conference was convened bringing together Engineer A, Engineer C, and the agency, at which the deficiencies in the project documents were first openly discussed.
Engineer C's firm transitioned from bidder to awarded contractor, taking on construction responsibility under documents that were deficient.
Hi-Lo Construction, owned by Engineer C, was identified as the winning low bidder and awarded the construction contract for the dam project.
From Engineer C's review of bidding documents through submission of the low bid
Engineer C's bid on a project with known or apparent document deficiencies
Engineer C's actions in bidding on an 'unbuildable' contract is also very troubling
Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work for the benefit of the owner
Engineer C reviewed bidding documents that were incomplete or inadequate and submitted a low bid without reflecting the deficiencies or seeking clarification
Federal Agency Engineering Staff Reviewer
Federal funds committed to a project with deficient design basis
Incomplete documents advanced to bidding without correction
Responsible stewardship of federal funds
Complete the federal review and approval process to allow the project to proceed to bidding
Ability to identify incomplete or non-conforming engineering documents
Judgment to escalate review beyond personal competence
Obligation to recognize limits of competency and escalate appropriately
Engineer B, acting on behalf of the federal funding agency's engineering staff, decided to approve Engineer A's incomplete drawings and specifications without flagging identified or identifiable deficiencies or escalating the review to a more competent reviewer.
Responded to RFP, was awarded the contract, and produced incomplete drawings and specifications for the dam project while concealing their incompleteness due to schedule pressure, confident that federal funds would cover cost overruns.
misconduct: Delivered knowingly incomplete drawings and specifications without disclosing incompleteness to client or funding agency
Engineer A's firm's impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications
Via class 'Dam Design Engineer': Design Engineer exists in the previously extracted classes and covers the core obligation of producing original plans and specifications with professional accountability. Dam Design Engineer is a specialization by infrastructure type, warranting a medium-confidence match to that parent class.
Project documentation entered a deficient state, with gaps that made construction guidance unreliable and portions of the project potentially unbuildable.
Complete Design Deliverable Expected State
Engineer A's drawings and specifications were produced in a knowingly incomplete state, creating a condition of deficient project documentation that would affect all downstream project phases.
Engineer A submitted signed and sealed dam drawings and specifications that he knew were incomplete and contained unbuildable elements, without disclosing those deficiencies to any party, citing schedule pressure as justification.
Deliverable Completeness Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to disclose to the local public agency client, the federal approving engineer, and the bidding contractors that the drawings and specifications were materially incomplete and that certain elements were unbuildable, before or at the time of submitting the sealed documents.
At or before the time of submitting the signed and sealed drawings and specifications
Via class 'Deliverable Completeness Disclosure Obligation': The concept is a variant of Complete Technical Reporting Obligation and Report Completeness Obligation, but those address omissions within a report rather than the duty to disclose that a deliverable itself is materially incomplete at the time of submission. The present obligation is sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate class focused on the completeness of the deliverable artifact rather than the completeness of findings within a report.