Increased complexity in ethical compliance and organizational management
Potential reputational ambiguity regarding the firm's professional standing
Risk of blurring the distinction between professional and sub-professional work in the eyes of clients and the public
Implicit acknowledgment that sub-professional work is permissible as a business activity distinct from professional practice
Legitimate exercise of business autonomy in commercial activities not governed by the Canons of Ethics
Canons of Ethics apply only to professional engineering practice, not to sub-professional or commercial activities
Obligation to protect the dignity and honor of the engineering profession (Canon Section 2)
Obligation to protect the profession from misrepresentation and misunderstanding (Canon Section 19)
Professional engineers may engage in business activities beyond professional practice
Expand revenue streams and service offerings beyond strictly professional engineering work by capturing related sub-professional service contracts
Potential risk of failing to maintain clear distinction between professional and sub-professional work if no segregation measures are adopted (Canons Section 2 and Section 19, as applicable at the time)
Business judgment to manage dual-category service offerings
Organizational capacity to maintain clear distinctions in contracts and communications
Understanding of the boundary between professional and sub-professional engineering services
Prior to the invitation; ongoing background decision
The engineering firm, composed entirely of professional engineers, made a deliberate strategic decision to offer sub-professional services alongside its core professional engineering work, establishing a dual-category practice.
Adopt Mixed-Practice Business Model → Professional Distinction Obligation Activated
The engineering firm's deliberate strategic decision to adopt a mixed-practice business model, composed entirely of professional engineers yet offering sub-professional services, creates the foundational structural condition that makes the Professional Distinction Obligation both necessary and operative once competitive bidding permissibility is determined
If the firm had adopted a single-service model (professional services only or sub-professional services only), or had already established separate organizational entities, the distinction obligation would either not arise or would already be satisfied
Professional Distinction Obligation Activated
Absence of pre-existing organizational separation between service types
Deliberate strategic decision to offer both professional and sub-professional services under one organizational roof
Firm composition of entirely professional engineers
Subsequent affirmative ethics permissibility determination
Engineering Firm Leadership (Institutional Decision-Makers)
Mixed-practice model adoption + affirmative permissibility determination together form a sufficient set to activate the distinction obligation
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedent on Sub-Professional Services by Engineering Firms
services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services
The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
Analogical reasoning resource for determining whether prior BER rulings address the permissibility of PE firms bidding on or performing sub-professional work related to engineering services, providing pattern-based guidance for the current case.
Firm transitions from routine operations to an ethical decision point; the invitation creates an active obligation to evaluate compliance with professional canons before proceeding.
At some point during firm operations; prior to bid submission
The engineering firm receives an external invitation to submit a competitive bid for a contract consisting solely of sub-professional services. This exogenous event initiates the ethical dilemma by presenting the firm with a choice that intersects professional codes and business interests.
Bid Invitation Received → Ethical Permissibility Determined
The engineering firm receives an external invitation to submit a competitive bid for a contract, triggering the applicable Canons of Ethics analysis that concludes competitive bidding is permissible for sub-professional services
Without receipt of the bid invitation, no ethics analysis would have been triggered; without sub-professional components, permissibility determination would differ
Contract composition including sub-professional service components
Existence of applicable Canons of Ethics framework
Firm's obligation to conduct ethics analysis before proceeding
Combination of bid invitation receipt + ethics framework applicability + sub-professional service scope
PE firm with all-PE principals operating in commercial sub-professional services market
Individual PE principals of the firm submitting sub-professional bid
Business-Form Non-Influence on Individual Ethics Code Conformance Constraint
The fact that the PE firm is organized as a commercial entity submitting a price-based competitive bid for sub-professional services does not reduce or eliminate the individual ethical obligations of each PE principal; each principal remains bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics in their personal conduct throughout the bid process regardless of the commercial business form.
NSPE Board of Directors directive (January 1971); NSPE Code of Ethics
An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
Throughout bid preparation and submission and performance of sub-professional work
Canons of Ethics Sections 2 and 19 (as cited) before current analysis (note of their removal)
Note: The following Code sections no longer exist: Canons of Ethics, Section 2... Section 19...
Canons of Ethics Sections 2 and 19 (as cited)
current analysis (note of their removal)
CausalLink_Adopt Mixed-Practice Business
CausalLink_Establish Separate Organizatio
CausalLink_Implement Documentation Segreg
Client and Public Receiving Mixed Professional-Commercial Engineering Services
{'information_right': 'Must be clearly informed of whether services are professional or sub-professional', 'protection_basis': 'Public protection rationale underlying prohibition on competitive bidding for professional services', 'vulnerability': 'Risk of confusion between professional-quality-assured and commercially-bid services'}
The clients and general public who receive services from a PE firm operating in both professional and sub-professional/commercial domains, and who must be clearly informed by the engineer of which category of work they are receiving, so they understand the applicable quality standards and professional protections.
{'type': 'protected_by', 'target': 'NSPE Canons of Ethics transparency obligations'}
{'type': 'served_by', 'target': 'PE Firm Principal Engaging in Mixed Professional and Sub-Professional Practice'}
Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client
it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work
the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price
Client and Public Receiving Mixed Services Transparency Benefit
Mixed-Practice Firm Professional Identity Transparency Capability
The client receiving the sub-professional bid benefits from the PE firm's transparency about its professional identity, enabling informed procurement decisions about whether to engage a PE firm for sub-professional work.
Client invited a PE firm to submit a competitive bid for sub-professional services and receives transparent disclosure of the firm's professional identity
Client receiving accurate disclosure of the bidding firm's PE status and mixed-practice nature in the context of the sub-professional procurement
The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
All principals of the bidding firm are licensed PEs; their ethical obligations persist regardless of the sub-professional nature of the work being bid
PE firm principals submitting sub-professional services bid
Code of Ethics Universal Applicability Constraint
The PE firm's principals remain bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics in their conduct during the sub-professional bid process — including obligations of honesty, non-deception, and honorable competitive conduct — even though the specific competitive bidding prohibitions of the code do not apply to sub-professional work.
NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE Board of Directors directive (January 1971)
An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers
Throughout bid preparation and submission
The provisions of the Canons and Rules do not apply to services solely of a sub-professional nature.
The Board's sole explicit conclusion is an interpretive determination clarifying the scope of the NSPE Code of Ethics: the Canons and Rules governing professional engineering conduct do not extend to services that are solely sub-professional in nature. This means a PE firm may submit competitive price-based bids for sub-professional work without violating the ethics code provisions that would otherwise restrict competitive bidding for professional engineering services.
Although the Board correctly concludes that the Canons and Rules do not formally apply to services solely of a sub-professional nature, this conclusion does not extinguish a residual layer of baseline ethical obligations that attach to the PE firm by virtue of its principals' licensure status. Honesty, non-deception, and avoidance of misleading representations are not merely code-derived duties; they are foundational professional character obligations that persist regardless of the classification of the work being bid. A PE firm that submits a sub-professional bid containing false statements about scope, capacity, or quality would still be acting in a manner inconsistent with the professional standing of its principals, even if no specific Canon or Rule is technically triggered. The Board's conclusion therefore marks a floor of formal code applicability, not a ceiling on ethical conduct.
The Board's conclusion that the ethics code does not apply to sub-professional services creates a structurally significant loophole risk: a PE firm could, over time, systematically reclassify work that contains meaningful engineering judgment as 'sub-professional' in order to escape code-governed constraints on competitive bidding, fee negotiation, and solicitation conduct. The profession must guard against this reclassification abuse by anchoring the sub-professional designation to objective, externally verifiable criteria — such as whether the work requires the exercise of professional engineering judgment, the application of engineering principles, or the assumption of professional liability — rather than allowing the firm itself to self-classify work as sub-professional at its own discretion. Where scope ambiguity exists prior to bidding, the PE firm bears an affirmative obligation to seek clarification from the client before treating the engagement as sub-professional, because the permissibility of competitive bidding under the Board's ruling is contingent on the work being comprised solely of sub-professional services as a verified factual matter, not merely as a self-serving characterization.
The Board's ruling implicitly presupposes that the PE firm's professional identity and its sub-professional commercial identity can be cleanly separated in the marketplace, but this assumption warrants scrutiny. When a firm whose name, reputation, and market recognition are built on its principals' PE credentials submits a bid for sub-professional work under that same identity, there is a material risk that the client and the broader public will attribute to the sub-professional services a level of professional oversight, quality assurance, and engineering accountability that the firm is not, in the context of that engagement, formally obligated to provide. This perception gap creates a transparency obligation: the PE firm should, at minimum, ensure that its sub-professional bid submissions do not affirmatively invoke or implicitly trade upon its PE credentials as a quality signal for the sub-professional work. Where the volume or regularity of sub-professional work is substantial, the Board's reasoning further supports the practical advisability — and potentially the ethical obligation — of establishing a separate organizational entity to conduct that work, so that the professional engineering identity of the firm is not conflated with its commercial sub-professional operations in the minds of clients and the public.
Even though the Canons and Rules formally do not apply to sub-professional services, a PE firm whose principals hold active licenses retains residual ethical obligations rooted in baseline honesty and non-deception that persist regardless of the nature of the work being bid. The professional engineering license is not a hat that can be removed when commercially convenient; the principals' identities as licensed engineers follow them into every commercial transaction conducted under the firm's name. Accordingly, while the firm is free from the specific competitive-bidding restrictions that govern professional engineering solicitations, it remains bound by the general obligation not to misrepresent the nature, scope, or quality of the sub-professional services it is offering. This residual honesty obligation is not derived from the engineering code itself but from the broader professional character that licensure confers and that the public reasonably expects.
There is a genuine and non-trivial risk that clients and the public will conflate a PE firm's professional engineering reputation and credentials with the quality assurance of sub-professional services offered under the same firm name. When a firm whose identity is built on licensed engineering expertise submits a bid for sub-professional work, the client may reasonably—if incorrectly—assume that the professional oversight, liability standards, and ethical accountability associated with licensed engineering practice attach to those services as well. This perception gap creates a disclosure obligation: the firm should make clear, in its bid documentation and any accompanying correspondence, that the services being offered are sub-professional in character and do not carry the same regulatory and ethical framework as professional engineering services. Failure to make this distinction risks a form of implicit misrepresentation even where no explicit false statement is made.
The question of at what volume or regularity of sub-professional work it becomes ethically advisable—or obligatory—for a PE firm to establish a separate organizational entity does not admit of a precise numerical threshold, but a principled answer can be constructed. When sub-professional work transitions from an occasional ancillary activity to a regular and substantial component of the firm's revenue and market identity, the risk of public confusion about the professional standing of its services becomes systemic rather than incidental. At that point, the ethical advisability of organizational segregation crosses into something closer to an obligation, because the firm's continued use of its PE-branded identity as the vehicle for large-scale sub-professional commerce constitutes a structural form of credential exploitation even absent any single deceptive act. A separate entity would allow competitive pricing and market participation in sub-professional work without continuously trading on the professional engineering reputation of the parent firm. Short of full separation, rigorous contractual and correspondence-level segregation—clearly labeling sub-professional engagements as distinct from professional engineering services—represents the minimum acceptable practice for a mixed-mode firm.
The Board's conclusion that the Canons and Rules do not apply to sub-professional services does create a structural vulnerability to reclassification abuse, whereby a PE firm could systematically migrate ethically constrained professional work into a sub-professional classification to escape code compliance. The profession must guard against this by anchoring the sub-professional classification to objective, substantive criteria—specifically, whether the work requires the application of professional engineering judgment, involves public safety implications, or demands the exercise of licensed competencies—rather than allowing the classification to be self-assigned by the bidding firm for competitive advantage. Where scope ambiguity exists, the ethical obligation falls on the firm to resolve that ambiguity conservatively, treating uncertain work as professional in character until clearly established otherwise. Regulators and professional bodies should also periodically audit the boundary between professional and sub-professional classifications to prevent definitional drift that would hollow out the ethical framework over time.
The tension between free and open competition governing sub-professional bidding and the persistence of professional ethics obligations does not resolve cleanly in favor of either principle, but a workable hierarchy can be articulated. The competitive freedom principle properly governs the pricing mechanism and the permissibility of submitting a price-based bid at all—areas where the engineering code's restrictions were designed to address professional service quality, not commercial commodity pricing. However, the ethics obligation persistence principle properly governs the conduct surrounding the bid: the honesty of representations made, the accuracy of scope descriptions, and the avoidance of credential exploitation. These two principles therefore operate on different dimensions of the bidding activity rather than being in direct conflict, and a PE firm can honor both simultaneously by competing freely on price while maintaining scrupulous honesty and transparency in how it presents itself and its services.
From a deontological perspective, a PE firm does not have a categorical duty to apply the full professional engineering ethics code to all its activities merely because its principals hold PE licenses, since the code is specifically scoped to professional engineering practice and its obligations are not infinitely extensible. However, deontological reasoning does support a narrower but firm duty: the firm must not exploit its professional engineering credentials as an instrument to gain competitive advantage in sub-professional bidding, because doing so would involve using the trust and authority conferred by licensure—a public grant premised on professional accountability—in a context where that accountability framework does not apply. This constitutes a form of deception toward the client and a misuse of a public trust instrument, both of which are categorically impermissible regardless of whether a specific code provision addresses them. The duty is therefore not one of full code compliance but of credential integrity.
From a virtue ethics standpoint, a PE firm that competes on price for sub-professional work does not automatically erode its professional character, but it risks doing so if it fails to maintain the habits of transparency, honesty, and client-centered conduct that define a virtuous engineering practice. The virtue ethics concern is not with price competition per se—which is a legitimate commercial activity—but with the disposition the firm cultivates toward its own identity and its clients. A firm that routinely treats its PE credentials as a marketing asset in sub-professional bids, that allows the boundary between professional and sub-professional work to blur in its own self-presentation, or that prioritizes competitive advantage over clarity of scope, is developing institutional habits that will eventually corrupt its professional practice as well. Virtue ethics therefore counsels proactive clarity, consistent identity integrity, and a firm internal culture that treats the professional-sub-professional distinction as meaningful rather than merely formal.
The counterfactual in which the sub-professional work bid is submitted under a separate organizational entity rather than under the PE firm's name substantially mitigates the ethical concerns about credential exploitation and public perception confusion. Under such an arrangement, the client would engage with an entity whose identity does not carry the implicit professional engineering warranty, and the competitive pricing dynamics of the sub-professional market would operate without the distorting effect of PE-branded credibility. The Board's analysis would likely have been simpler and less cautionary under this scenario, since the primary ethical tensions—credential exploitation, public confusion, and the blurring of professional and sub-professional identity—would be structurally resolved rather than merely managed through disclosure. This counterfactual reinforces the conclusion that organizational segregation, while not currently mandated, represents the most ethically clean solution for PE firms with substantial sub-professional operations.
In the counterfactual where sub-professional services are bundled or intermingled with professional engineering services rather than being comprised solely of sub-professional work, the ethics code would apply to the entire engagement. The rationale for the Board's non-applicability conclusion rests critically on the work being comprised solely of sub-professional services—a clean categorical boundary that allows the competitive bidding framework to operate without ethical code interference. Once professional engineering judgment, oversight, or deliverables are introduced into the same engagement, the entire scope becomes subject to the code because the professional elements cannot be ethically quarantined from the sub-professional elements within a single contractual relationship. The firm would be obligated to segregate its conduct, pricing, and representations by service category, and where such segregation is not feasible, to treat the entire engagement as professional in character for ethics code purposes.
In the counterfactual where the PE firm explicitly advertises its professional engineering credentials and licensure status as a selling point in its sub-professional services bid, the Board's conclusion of ethics code non-applicability would become difficult to sustain in its entirety. While the underlying work remains sub-professional in character, the act of invoking PE credentials as a competitive differentiator in that context constitutes a form of misleading solicitation: it implies to the client that the professional engineering accountability framework—including ethical obligations, liability standards, and regulatory oversight—attaches to the sub-professional services being offered, when in fact it does not. This conduct would trigger provisions against misleading representations and credential exploitation regardless of the service classification, because the ethical violation lies in the solicitation conduct itself rather than in the nature of the work. The firm's freedom to compete on price for sub-professional work does not extend to a freedom to misrepresent the professional standing of that work.
Where the scope of sub-professional services is ambiguous enough to potentially encompass professional engineering judgment, the Board's conclusion of ethics code non-applicability would not be sustainable, and the firm would bear an affirmative obligation to resolve that ambiguity before submitting a bid. The non-applicability conclusion is predicated on the work being clearly and solely sub-professional in character—a factual predicate that must be established, not assumed. When scope ambiguity exists, the firm cannot unilaterally classify the work as sub-professional to gain competitive bidding freedom; doing so would constitute a self-serving interpretation of a boundary that exists to protect the public. The firm's obligation in such circumstances is to seek clarification from the client, and if clarification is not forthcoming or the scope remains genuinely ambiguous, to treat the engagement as professional in character and conduct itself accordingly under the full ethics code framework.
The central tension in this case—between the principle that ethics code scope is limited to professional practice and the principle that professional ethics obligations persist through all firm activities—was resolved by the Board through a domain-boundary approach rather than a character-based approach. The Board drew a hard jurisdictional line: the Canons and Rules govern professional engineering services, and where the work is solely sub-professional in character, the code simply does not reach. This resolution prioritizes formal scope limitation over the view that a PE firm's ethical identity is indivisible from its principals' licensure. The practical implication is that the ethics code is treated as a regulatory instrument tied to the nature of the work product, not as a comprehensive character standard governing every commercial act of a licensed firm. What this case teaches about principle prioritization is that when two principles conflict—one defining the outer boundary of a code's jurisdiction and one asserting the persistence of professional obligations—the Board will defer to the jurisdictional boundary principle, at least where the sub-professional character of the work is clear and unambiguous. This deference reflects a concern that overextending the code into commercial activities could itself create antitrust exposure and improperly constrain lawful market participation.
The principle of free and open competition governing sub-professional bidding and the principle of PE identity non-exploitation in sub-professional bid submissions exist in a state of unresolved productive tension that the Board's ruling leaves to the firm's own judgment. The Board's conclusion that the ethics code does not apply formally removes the code as an enforcement mechanism in this space, but it does not eliminate the underlying ethical risk that a PE firm's professional reputation and credentials may implicitly color a client's perception of the quality and reliability of sub-professional services offered under the same firm name. The principle of transparency obligation in mixed professional-sub-professional firm identity therefore emerges as a residual ethical norm that persists even after the code's formal jurisdiction ends. This case teaches that when a formal code withdraws from a domain, it does not extinguish the underlying principles that animated the code—it merely shifts responsibility for honoring those principles from enforceable obligation to voluntary professional dignity. A PE firm that competes freely on price for sub-professional work while trading implicitly on its engineering reputation is not violating the code, but it is navigating a reputational and ethical gray zone that the profession has not fully resolved.
The principle of professional-sub-professional segregation obligation for a mixed-practice PE firm and the principle of sub-professional competitive bidding permissibility interact in a way that reveals an important structural lesson: permissibility of an activity does not dissolve the obligation to maintain clarity about what category of service is being rendered. The Board's ruling permits the firm to bid competitively on sub-professional work, but the broader ethical framework—including honesty in bid representations and transparency about firm identity—implies that the firm must not allow the sub-professional engagement to blur into or be mistaken for professional engineering services. This means that while no separate organizational entity is strictly required by the code, the principle of segregation remains ethically advisable as a prophylactic measure, particularly as the volume of sub-professional work grows. The tension between segregation obligation and bidding permissibility is therefore not truly resolved by the Board's ruling—it is deferred, with the implicit expectation that the firm will self-regulate the boundary through documentation, correspondence, and organizational clarity. The case thus teaches that competitive bidding permissibility and segregation obligation are complementary rather than conflicting principles: the former grants market freedom, while the latter preserves the integrity of the professional-commercial distinction that makes that freedom coherent.
Should the PE firm submit the competitive bid for sub-professional services, recognizing that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding and that the work falls outside the formal scope of the Canons and Rules?
A professional engineering firm whose principals are all licensed PEs has been invited to submit a written competitive bid for work that is sub-professional in character but related to professional engineering services. The firm must decide whether submitting such a bid is ethically permissible under the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct, or whether the invitation must be declined on ethical grounds.
Proceed with preparing and submitting a written competitive bid for the sub-professional work, recognizing that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code prohibitions on competitive bidding and that the Canons and Rules do not govern sub-professional services, while ensuring all bid representations are honest and accurate.
Refuse to submit the competitive bid on the mistaken belief that competitive bidding for any work performed by a PE firm is ethically prohibited under the Canons of Ethics, thereby forgoing a legitimate commercial opportunity based on a misapplication of the ethics code's scope.
Pause the bid process and formally request an advisory opinion from the ethics adjudicatory body to confirm whether submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional services is permissible, delaying the commercial decision pending formal clarification.
PE Firm (Mixed-Practice Principal Decision-Maker)
When submitting the competitive bid for sub-professional services, should the PE firm leverage its PE licensure and professional reputation as a competitive differentiator, compete solely on commercial merit, or actively conceal its PE identity to avoid any appearance of credential exploitation?
Having determined that submitting the competitive bid is permissible, the PE firm must decide how to conduct itself during the bid process with respect to its PE credentials and professional identity. There is a risk that invoking or highlighting its PE licensure status could constitute an unfair competitive advantage over non-PE competitors bidding on the same sub-professional work, while simultaneously the firm has a transparency obligation not to conceal its identity from the procuring client.
Submit the bid competing solely on price, capability, and relevant experience for the sub-professional work, disclosing the firm's identity as a PE firm to the client without invoking PE licensure as an implied quality signal or competitive differentiator in a marketplace where PE credentials are not required for the work.
Prominently feature the firm's PE licensure and professional engineering reputation in the bid submission as a signal of superior quality and reliability, using the professional credential to gain competitive advantage over non-PE competitors bidding on the same sub-professional work.
Submit the bid without disclosing that the firm is a PE firm, omitting the firm's professional engineering identity from bid materials to prevent any possible conflation of PE credentials with the sub-professional work quality, at the cost of transparency with the procuring client.
PE Firm (Bid Preparation and Submission Agent)
How should the PE firm structurally and documentarily segregate its sub-professional commercial work from its professional engineering services to ensure clients and the public are not misled about which category of service is being rendered?
The PE firm regularly engages in both professional engineering services and sub-professional commercial work. It must decide how to organize and present these two categories of work to clients and the public to satisfy the work-category segregation and client transparency obligations. The options range from establishing a fully separate organizational entity with a distinct name to implementing documentation-level segregation measures within the existing firm structure.
Create a distinct organizational entity under a separate name to conduct sub-professional and commercial work, fully separating it from the PE firm's professional engineering practice so that clients and the public encounter clearly differentiated entities when engaging either category of service.
Retain a single organizational structure but adopt rigorous documentation segregation measures—including distinct contracts, separate letterheads, and clearly labeled correspondence—that explicitly identify whether each engagement is professional engineering work or sub-professional commercial work, ensuring no client is misled without the cost of establishing a separate entity.
Continue operating under the existing firm structure without implementing specific segregation measures, relying on clients to understand the distinction between professional and sub-professional services based on the nature of the work requested, without contractual or documentary clarification.
PE Firm (Organizational Structure and Client Communication Decision-Maker)
How should the PE firm and the ethics adjudicatory body address the structural loophole risk that the ethics code's non-application to sub-professional services could be exploited through systematic reclassification of professional engineering work as sub-professional?
The Board's conclusion that the Canons and Rules do not apply to sub-professional services creates a structural vulnerability: a PE firm could, over time, systematically reclassify work that genuinely requires professional engineering judgment as sub-professional in order to escape ethics code constraints and compete on price. The firm and the ethics adjudicatory body must decide how to guard against this reclassification risk while preserving the legitimate commercial freedom recognized by the Board's ruling.
Require the PE firm and the ethics body to conduct a substantive, case-by-case assessment of whether each engagement genuinely constitutes sub-professional work that can be clearly and accurately specified before treating it as outside the ethics code's scope, preventing reclassification of work that actually requires professional engineering judgment.
Allow the PE firm to self-classify engagements as sub-professional based on its own judgment, without requiring independent verification by the ethics body or the procuring client, relying on the firm's good faith to avoid reclassification abuse.
Reject the scope limitation principle and apply the Canons and Rules to all activities of a PE firm whose principals hold active licenses, regardless of whether the work is professional engineering or sub-professional in character, eliminating the reclassification loophole at the cost of overriding the Board's ruling and antitrust considerations.
PE Firm and Ethics Adjudicatory Body (Loophole Risk Management Decision-Makers)
Should the PE firm voluntarily apply baseline ethical standards rooted in honesty, non-deception, and professional dignity preservation to its sub-professional commercial activities, even though the formal Canons and Rules do not require it to do so?
Even though the Canons and Rules formally do not apply to the sub-professional bid and related commercial activities, the PE firm's principals hold active PE licenses and their conduct in commercial domains can still reflect on the engineering profession as a whole. The firm must decide whether and how to apply baseline ethical standards—honesty, non-deception, professional dignity preservation—to its sub-professional commercial conduct, given that the formal ethics code does not directly govern it.
Recognize that residual ethical obligations rooted in honesty, non-deception, fair competition, and professional dignity preservation persist through all commercial activities by virtue of the principals' PE licensure, and voluntarily apply these baseline standards to the sub-professional bid and related commercial work even where the formal Canons do not directly mandate it.
Rely strictly on the Board's ruling that the Canons and Rules do not apply to sub-professional services, treating the firm's commercial activities as entirely free from any ethics-code-derived obligations and subject only to general commercial law and procurement regulations, without voluntarily importing any professional ethical standards.
Voluntarily apply the complete Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct to all sub-professional commercial activities as a precautionary measure, treating the formal ethics code as governing all firm activities regardless of work character, in order to eliminate any risk of conduct that could discredit the profession.
PE Firm Principals (Licensed PE Ethical Conduct Decision-Makers)
PE firm operating in deregulated competitive bidding environment for sub-professional services must still comply with baseline honesty norms
PE firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services
Deregulated Advertising Context Ethics Non-Elimination Constraint
The removal of code-based competitive bidding restrictions from sub-professional services does not eliminate the PE firm's ethical obligations of truthfulness and non-deception in its bid materials; the firm remains constrained to submit a bid that is honest, accurate, and non-misleading regardless of the permissive competitive environment for sub-professional work.
NSPE Code of Ethics; antitrust and commercial free speech developments
At time of bid preparation and submission
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code Provisions on Engineer Solicitation and Competitive Bidding Ethics
Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
Engineering firm principals when deciding whether to submit the bid
Governs the ethical conditions under which the PE firm may submit a written competitive bid, including obligations of honesty, fairness, and non-deception in the procurement process for the sub-professional services contract.
Establish Separate Organizational Entity
Additional legal and financial costs of establishing and maintaining a separate organization
Increased administrative and operational complexity from managing two separate organizational entities
Possible market confusion if clients are unaware of the relationship between the two entities
Avoidance of conduct likely to discredit or injure the dignity and honor of the profession (Canon Section 2)
Obligation to be scrupulously careful to make clear to clients and the public the distinction between professional and sub-professional work categories
Protection of the engineering profession from misrepresentation and misunderstanding (Canon Section 19)
Engineers must be scrupulously careful to distinguish professional from sub-professional work for clients and the public
Organizational separation is the preferred but not the only acceptable means of achieving the required distinction
Where sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, it is desirable to operate through a separate form of organization with a distinct name
Achieve clear organizational and reputational separation between professional engineering services and sub-professional commercial services, thereby protecting both the public and the profession from confusion or misrepresentation
Failure to establish a separate entity when sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities could constitute a failure to adequately segregate and disclose service categories, risking misrepresentation
Business and legal judgment to evaluate the practicability of organizational separation
Strategic planning capability to assess the scale of sub-professional activities relative to the firm's overall practice
Understanding of corporate and organizational structures available for segregating service lines
Ongoing organizational decision; particularly triggered when sub-professional work constitutes a large part of the firm's activities
The firm must decide whether to operate its sub-professional services through a separate organizational entity with a distinct name, as the preferred mechanism for segregating sub-professional from professional engineering activities.
The firm's path to submitting a competitive bid is cleared under the Canons; however, new affirmative obligations regarding transparency and distinction are activated as conditions of permissibility.
During or after the Discussion/analysis phase; prior to or concurrent with bid submission
The applicable Canons of Ethics analysis concludes that competitive bidding is permissible for sub-professional work performed by the engineering firm. This outcome resolves the central legal-ethical question raised by the bid invitation and shifts focus to compliance conditions.
Ethical Permissibility Determined → Professional Distinction Obligation Activated
As an automatic consequence of the ethics analysis concluding that competitive bidding for sub-professional services is permissible, the Professional Distinction Obligation is activated, requiring the firm to clearly distinguish its professional engineering services from its sub-professional services
If ethics analysis had concluded competitive bidding was impermissible, the distinction obligation would not have been activated in this context; the firm would simply be prohibited from bidding
Affirmative ethics determination that competitive bidding is permissible
Canons of Ethics provisions mandating distinction between service types
Existence of both professional and sub-professional service lines within the firm
Firm's status as composed entirely of professional engineers
Affirmative permissibility determination alone is sufficient to automatically activate the distinction obligation as a matter of ethical rule operation
PE firm invited to submit written competitive price-based bid for sub-professional services work
Free and Open Competition Regulatory Deference Constraint
The PE firm must conduct its sub-professional bid in conformance with applicable laws and regulations governing free and open competition; the BER is not positioned to override those laws, and the firm's competitive bidding on sub-professional work is governed by the free competition framework rather than professional code competitive restrictions.
Local, state, and federal laws governing free and open competition; NSPE BER Case 10-8
Implement Documentation Segregation Measures
Administrative burden of consistently maintaining segregation language across all contracts and correspondence
Possible client confusion or concern if they notice the explicit distinction being drawn in documentation
Risk of inadequate segregation if documentation practices are inconsistently applied
Transparency obligation to clients regarding the nature and category of services being rendered
Engineers must be scrupulously careful to distinguish professional from sub-professional work in all client and public communications
The engineer's obligation to protect the public and the profession does not diminish simply because full organizational separation is not feasible
Where organizational separation is not practicable, other means of segregation, including contractual references and correspondence, must be adopted
Ensure clients and the public can clearly identify which services are professional engineering services and which are sub-professional or commercial services, thereby preventing misrepresentation and protecting both the public and the profession
Failure to implement adequate documentation segregation when operating a mixed-practice firm without separate organizational entities would violate obligations to prevent misrepresentation and protect the profession's dignity
Consistent administrative discipline to apply segregation language across all relevant documents
Judgment to determine which communications and contracts require explicit category distinctions
Legal and contractual drafting capability to incorporate clear service-category distinctions
Ongoing operational decision; applies whenever the firm engages in both professional and sub-professional work under a single organizational identity
Where establishing a separate organizational entity is not practicable, the firm must decide to adopt alternative measures, including explicit references in contracts and correspondence, to clearly distinguish professional engineering services from sub-professional services when operating both under the same firm.
The firm's public and market identity is now dual-natured, professional engineering firm and competitive sub-professional service provider, creating ongoing reputational management requirements and potential for public confusion that must be actively managed.
Following submission of competitive bid; ongoing
As an outcome of the firm's submission of a competitive bid for sub-professional services, the firm's identity in the marketplace shifts, it becomes known not only as a professional engineering firm but also as a competitive bidder for sub-professional work. This reputational and market-positioning change is an automatic consequence of bid submission, not a separately decided outcome.
NSPE Canons of Ethics, Sections 2 and 19
Sections 2 and 19 of the Canons limit the engineers' personal conduct in a general frame of reference to his professional work.
Section 2- '... and he will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and honor of his profession.' Section 19- 'The engineer will endeavor to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in its analysis
Cited as the specific provisions limiting engineers' personal conduct in relation to professional work, used to establish that the Canons apply only to professional (not sub-professional or commercial) activities
Historical version (sections subsequently removed from the Code)
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in deliberating the ethical permissibility of the firm's bid submission
Primary normative authority for evaluating whether a PE firm may ethically submit a competitive bid for sub-professional services work; provides Fundamental Canons and Rules of Practice governing professional conduct, competitive bidding, and the scope of permissible engineering firm activities.
It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage
Referenced alongside the Canons of Ethics as the governing normative framework applicable only to professional engineering practice, not to sub-professional or commercial activities
All principals of the firm are licensed PEs; the work being bid is sub-professional in character; competing firms may not hold PE licenses
PE Credential Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Competitive Bid Constraint
The PE firm is prohibited from invoking or leveraging its PE licensure status as a competitive differentiator in its written bid for sub-professional services; it must compete solely on commercial merit and qualifications relevant to the sub-professional work, not on the basis of professional credentials that are not qualifying criteria for the work being bid.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER sub-professional services precedent; antitrust rulings
PE firm with all-PE principals bidding on sub-professional work alongside potentially non-PE commercial competitors
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Identity Transparency Constraint
The PE firm must be transparent with the procuring client about its nature as a professional engineering firm when submitting a bid for sub-professional services — neither obscuring its identity nor exploiting it — ensuring the client has accurate information about the bidding entity without the firm gaining improper competitive advantage from its professional status.
NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; BER sub-professional services precedent
PE Firm Antitrust Scope Recognition in Sub-Professional Bid
NSPE Code Antitrust Constraint Scope Boundary Recognition Capability
The PE firm's principals recognize that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding, and that submitting a written competitive bid for sub-professional services is not ethically prohibited under the current code.
PE firm evaluating whether to submit a competitive bid for sub-professional services in light of antitrust-modified ethics code
Applying knowledge of antitrust-constrained NSPE code scope to determine that competitive bidding for sub-professional work is permissible
PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
PE Firm Antitrust Scope Recognition in Sub-Professional Bid Context
Antitrust and Procurement Law Contextual Awareness Capability
The PE firm possesses the capability to recognize that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding, and that submitting a written competitive bid for sub-professional services is permissible within this legal framework.
PE firm evaluating whether competitive bidding for sub-professional work is permissible under post-antitrust engineering ethics framework
Correct application of antitrust-informed understanding of competitive bidding permissibility for sub-professional services
the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services, and this difference permits competitive bidding
PE Firm Baseline Honesty Persistence in Sub-Professional Bid Despite Code Non-Application
PE firm with all-PE principals submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services while operating under professional engineering identity
PE Firm (all-PE-principal engineering firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services)
Although the formal Canons of Ethics do not apply to the sub-professional bid, the PE firm's principals remain bound by baseline honesty, non-deception, and professional dignity obligations in all representations made in the bid submission.
NSPE BER Case Discussion; NSPE Code of Ethics general principles
Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
Throughout the sub-professional bid submission process and all related commercial activities
PE Firm Ethics Code Individual Non-Waivability Recognition
Ethics Code Business-Form Non-Waivability Individual Engineer Self-Application Capability
The PE firm's principals recognize that the engineering ethics code applies to them as individual licensed engineers regardless of the business form of the firm, and that the firm's engagement in sub-professional commercial activities does not negate their individual ethical obligations.
PE firm principals understanding that their individual ethics obligations persist in all firm activities
Recognizing that individual PE principals remain bound by the ethics code even when the firm is acting in a commercial sub-professional capacity
PE Firm Principal Engaging in Mixed Professional and Sub-Professional Practice
PE Firm Ethics Code Non-Application to Sub-Professional Bid Submission
PE firm with all-PE principals invited to submit written competitive bid for sub-professional services work
Professional Engineering Code Scope Limitation to Professional Practice Constraint
The Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to the PE firm's submission of a competitive price-based bid for sub-professional services; the firm is not constrained by professional code competitive bidding restrictions in this context.
NSPE BER Case Discussion; Canons of Ethics Sections 2 and 19 (now superseded)
It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as his sole activity or in conjunction with his engineering practice.
At the time of and throughout the sub-professional bid submission process
PE Firm Ethics Code Persistence in Sub-Professional Bid Conduct Instance
Ethics Code Persistence Across Service-Type Contexts Capability
The PE firm's principals possess the capability to recognize that their ethical obligations under the engineering code of ethics persist in full force during the submission of a competitive bid for sub-professional services — understanding that while the code does not govern the sub-professional activity itself, the conduct of the firm's principals in all activities remains subject to professional ethics standards.
PE firm principals submitting competitive bid for sub-professional work while maintaining professional ethics obligations
Maintenance of ethical conduct standards throughout the sub-professional bid process, including honest representations and transparency
Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful
PE Firm Ethics Code Scope Confinement Recognition in Sub-Professional Bid Context
Ethics Code Scope Confinement to Professional Engineering Practice Capability
The PE firm and its principals possess the capability to correctly recognize that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct apply only to professional engineering practice and not to the sub-professional bid they are submitting, enabling them to proceed with the competitive bid without ethical violation.
PE firm invited to submit competitive bid for work solely sub-professional in character
Recognition that the ethics code does not govern the sub-professional bid submission, and that competitive bidding for such services is ethically permissible
PE Firm Mixed-Practice Identity Transparency in Sub-Professional Bid Instance
The PE firm possesses the capability to be transparent with the procuring client about its nature as a professional engineering firm when submitting a bid for sub-professional work, ensuring that the client can make fully informed procurement decisions and that the firm's professional identity is not obscured in commercial contexts.
PE firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional work, required to be transparent about its dual professional-commercial nature
Clear disclosure of PE firm status when submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services, enabling client to distinguish between professional and sub-professional service categories
it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work, including references in the contract or in correspondence.
PE Firm Mixed-Practice Organizational Segregation Design
Sub-Professional Work Organizational Segregation Design Capability
The PE firm principal possesses the capability to design and implement appropriate organizational or contractual mechanisms to segregate sub-professional activities from professional engineering activities, including evaluating whether a separate organizational entity is warranted and implementing contractual or correspondence-based segregation when a separate entity is not practicable.
PE firm operating in both professional engineering and sub-professional/commercial domains, required to make clear to clients and public the distinction between the two categories
Ability to evaluate whether to operate sub-professional activities through a separate organizational form with a distinct name, and to adopt contractual or correspondence-based segregation when that is not practicable
It is desirable where the sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, to operate through a separate form of organization, with a distinct name.
Where this is not practicable, and in the case of an operation in both categories by the same firm, the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work, including references in the contract or in correspondence.
PE Firm Mixed-Practice Work Segregation Through Contract and Correspondence
PE firm with all-PE principals submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services while also providing professional engineering services
PE Firm (all-PE-principal engineering firm operating in both professional and sub-professional categories under same identity)
Mixed-Practice PE Firm Work Category Segregation Means Constraint
Where separate organization is not practicable, the PE firm must adopt affirmative means to segregate professional from sub-professional work, including explicit references in contracts or correspondence, to ensure clients and the public can clearly distinguish service categories.
Ongoing; applicable throughout all client engagements involving mixed professional and sub-professional services
PE Firm Professional Dignity Voluntary Preservation in Commercial Bid Activities
Professional Dignity Non-Formal-Code Voluntary Preservation Capability
The PE firm principal possesses the capability to voluntarily preserve the dignity and honor of the engineering profession in sub-professional and commercial activities even though the formal Canons of Ethics do not technically apply to those activities — recognizing that professional identity and dignity obligations persist beyond the formal code's scope.
PE firm engaging in sub-professional commercial activities where former Canons of Ethics Sections 2 and 19 no longer formally apply
Maintaining professional conduct standards and transparency in sub-professional bid activities even when formal code provisions (Sections 2 and 19) no longer apply
Public Transparency Obligated Mixed-Practice Engineer
Note: The following Code sections no longer exist: Canons of Ethics, Section 2- '... and he will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and honor of his profession.'
PE Firm Separate Organization Desirability for Large Sub-Professional Operations
PE firm with all-PE principals operating in both professional engineering and sub-professional service categories
PE Firm (all-PE-principal engineering firm with large sub-professional service component)
Sub-Professional Work Separate Organization Desirability Constraint
Where sub-professional work constitutes a large part of the PE firm's activities, it is desirable — though not absolutely required — to operate that work through a separate organizational form with a distinct name to maintain clear demarcation between professional and sub-professional services.
Ongoing; applicable whenever sub-professional work constitutes a large portion of firm activities
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Antitrust Rationale Distinction Application
Sub-Professional Competitive Bidding Public Protection Rationale Distinction Capability
The PE firm possesses the capability to recognize and articulate that the prohibition on competitive bidding for professional engineering services is grounded in public protection through quality preservation, and that this rationale does not extend to sub-professional services that can be clearly and accurately specified — thereby understanding why competitive bidding for the sub-professional work is ethically permissible.
PE firm evaluating whether competitive bidding for sub-professional work is ethically permissible under the engineering ethics code
Correct application of the rationale-based distinction when evaluating the permissibility of submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional services
This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services, and this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Business Ethics Awareness
Engineering Business Ethics Competitive Context Awareness Capability
The PE firm's principals recognize and navigate the intersection of professional ethics obligations and the competitive business dimensions of submitting a bid for sub-professional services, understanding that business competition does not suspend ethical duties.
PE firm principals managing the dual professional-commercial identity of the firm in a sub-professional procurement context
Applying professional ethics standards to the competitive commercial context of sub-professional service bidding
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Competitive Bidding Antitrust Scope Recognition Instance
Ethics body evaluating whether PE firm with all-PE principals may submit competitive bid for sub-professional services
NSPE and ethics adjudicatory bodies evaluating PE firm sub-professional bid conduct
Antitrust-Constrained Professional Code Guidance Prohibition Constraint
NSPE and ethics bodies are prohibited from applying competitive bidding restrictions from the Canons of Ethics to the PE firm's sub-professional bid, as antitrust rulings have removed the permissibility of such restrictions in non-professional service markets.
NSPE BER Case Discussion; U.S. DOJ antitrust actions; U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment rulings
Applicable to all ethics adjudications involving sub-professional service competitive bidding
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Ethics Code Persistence Recognition
The PE firm's principals recognize that their ethical obligations under the engineering code of ethics persist in full force during the submission of a bid for sub-professional services, and that the sub-professional character of the work does not suspend or reduce those obligations.
PE firm principals recognizing that ethics code applies to their conduct in sub-professional as well as professional service contexts
Maintaining full ethics code compliance in all aspects of bid preparation and submission for sub-professional work
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Honest Representation Ethics
Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
The PE firm ensures that all representations in its written bid for sub-professional services are truthful and accurate, conducting itself honorably and responsibly in the competitive procurement process.
PE firm submitting written competitive bid for sub-professional services while maintaining full ethics code compliance
Submitting a bid that contains only truthful representations about the firm's qualifications, capacity, and the nature of the services offered
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid PE Credential Non-Exploitation Instance
PE Credential Non-Exploitation in Commercial Bid Capability
The PE firm submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional services possesses the capability to compete solely on commercial merit — price, capacity, and relevant experience — without leveraging or invoking its PE licensure status as a competitive differentiator in a non-professional commercial procurement context.
PE firm submitting competitive bid for work solely sub-professional in character
Submission of competitive bid for sub-professional work based on commercial merit without improper exploitation of PE credentials
This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Permissibility Self-Assessment
Sub-Professional Bid Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
The PE firm possesses the capability to recognize that it is ethically permissible to submit a written competitive bid for the sub-professional work to which it has been invited, notwithstanding that all its principals are licensed PEs.
PE firm invited to submit written competitive bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
Correctly determining that antitrust-informed ethics code scope does not prohibit a PE firm from competing commercially for sub-professional services
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Permissibility Self-Assessment Instance
The PE firm whose principals are all licensed PEs possesses the capability to recognize that it is ethically permissible to submit a written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character, understanding that the antitrust-driven removal of ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding applies to sub-professional as well as professional services.
PE firm invited to submit written competitive bid for work solely sub-professional in character
Correct determination that submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional work does not violate the engineering ethics code
This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services, and this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Specification Clarity Self-Assessment
Sub-Professional Service Specification Clarity Assessment Capability
The PE firm possesses the capability to assess whether the sub-professional services for which it is invited to bid are clearly and accurately specified — verifying that the prerequisite condition for ethical competitive bidding is satisfied before submitting its bid.
PE firm evaluating whether to submit competitive bid for sub-professional work
Self-assessment of specification clarity before submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services
this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
PE firm competing against potentially non-PE firms for sub-professional services contract
PE firm competing for sub-professional services contract
Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
The PE firm must conduct its competitive bid for sub-professional services honorably, responsibly, and fairly — prohibiting the use of its PE status, professional relationships, or insider knowledge to gain competitive advantage through means other than demonstrated merit and price competitiveness relevant to the sub-professional work.
Written competitive bid for sub-professional services submitted by PE firm with all-PE principals
PE firm submitting written competitive bid for sub-professional services
Professional Solicitation Misleading Language Avoidance Constraint
The PE firm is constrained to ensure that its written bid for sub-professional services avoids misleading, deceptive, or untruthful language — including any representations about qualifications, capacity, or identity that could mislead the procuring client — grounded in the convergence of truthfulness, non-deception, and competence representation obligations.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3, III.2, III.6
BER Interpretive Framework: Professional vs. Sub-Professional Work Scope and Competitive Bidding
Professional vs. Sub-Professional Work Scope Distinction Framework
the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price. This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services
Applied to determine that competitive bidding prohibitions do not extend to sub-professional or non-professional services, and to provide guidance on organizational segregation of work types
The firm's operational and communicative obligations are permanently expanded; every client engagement and public representation now carries an affirmative duty to clarify the professional or sub-professional nature of the services being rendered.
Concurrent with and subsequent to the permissibility determination; ongoing throughout firm operations
As an automatic consequence of the ethics analysis concluding that competitive bidding for sub-professional work is permissible, an ongoing affirmative obligation is triggered requiring the firm to clearly distinguish professional from sub-professional activities for clients and the public. This is not a decision but an automatic normative consequence of the permissibility ruling.
Professional Distinction Obligation Activated → Establish Separate Organizational Entity
The activation of the Professional Distinction Obligation requires the firm to decide whether to operate its sub-professional services through a separate organizational entity as the primary compliance mechanism for satisfying its ethical obligations
Without the activated distinction obligation, no requirement to consider separate entity formation would arise; if separate entity already existed, this decision point would be moot
Absence of pre-existing organizational separation
Active Professional Distinction Obligation under Canons of Ethics
Firm's operational capacity to establish a separate organizational entity
Practicability of separate entity formation given firm size, resources, and structure
Active distinction obligation + practicability of separate entity formation together sufficient to require the firm to make this structural compliance decision
Do the provisions of the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct, apply in the case of such sub-professional services?
Even if the Canons and Rules technically do not apply to sub-professional services, does a PE firm whose principals hold active licenses retain any residual ethical obligations—such as honesty and non-deception—that persist regardless of the nature of the work being bid?
When a PE firm submits a competitive bid for sub-professional work, is there a risk that the client or public will conflate the firm's professional engineering reputation and credentials with the quality assurance of the sub-professional services being offered, and if so, what disclosure obligations arise?
At what volume or regularity of sub-professional work does it become ethically advisable—or even obligatory—for a PE firm to establish a separate organizational entity to conduct that work, in order to prevent confusion about the professional standing of its services?
Does the Board's conclusion that the Canons and Rules do not apply to sub-professional services create a loophole whereby a PE firm could systematically migrate ethically constrained professional work into a 'sub-professional' classification to avoid code compliance, and how should the profession guard against such reclassification abuse?
Does the principle that free and open competition governs PE firm sub-professional bidding conflict with the principle that professional ethics obligations persist through sub-professional bids, and if so, which should take precedence when a firm's competitive pricing strategy in a sub-professional bid could undermine the perceived integrity of its professional engineering practice?
Does the principle of PE identity non-exploitation in sub-professional bid submissions conflict with the principle of transparency obligation in mixed professional-sub-professional firm identity, given that full transparency about the firm's PE credentials could itself constitute an implicit exploitation of those credentials in a competitive bidding context?
Does the principle of ethics code scope limitation to professional practice conflict with the principle of professional dignity preservation in sub-professional commercial activities, and how should a PE firm reconcile the freedom from code constraints in sub-professional work with the expectation that it still conduct itself in a manner befitting a licensed engineering organization?
Does the principle of professional-sub-professional segregation obligation for a mixed-practice PE firm conflict with the principle of sub-professional competitive bidding permissibility, in that rigorous segregation requirements could impose burdens that effectively deter PE firms from participating in otherwise permissible sub-professional markets?
From a deontological perspective, does a PE firm have a categorical duty to apply professional ethical standards to all its activities simply by virtue of its principals holding PE licenses, regardless of whether the specific work is classified as sub-professional?
From a virtue ethics standpoint, does a PE firm that voluntarily chooses to compete on price for sub-professional work risk eroding the professional character and dignity that defines its identity as an engineering firm, even if no formal ethical rule is technically violated?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the Board's ruling that the ethics code does not apply to sub-professional services produce better outcomes for the public and profession overall, or does it create a harmful precedent that allows PE firms to use the sub-professional classification as a loophole to escape ethical accountability?
From a deontological perspective, does the PE firm have a duty not to exploit its professional engineering credentials and reputation to gain a competitive advantage when submitting bids for sub-professional work, even when the ethics code formally does not apply to that work?
If the sub-professional work bid had been submitted under a separate organizational entity rather than under the PE firm's name and identity, would the ethical concerns about PE credential exploitation and public perception have been substantially mitigated, and would the Board's analysis have differed?
What if the sub-professional services bid had been bundled or intermingled with professional engineering services rather than being comprised solely of sub-professional work — would the ethics code have applied to the entire engagement, and how would the firm have been obligated to segregate its conduct?
If the PE firm had explicitly advertised its professional engineering credentials and licensure status as a selling point in its sub-professional services bid, would the Board's conclusion of ethics code non-applicability still hold, or would that conduct trigger provisions against misleading solicitation and credential exploitation?
If the sub-professional services in question had not been clearly specified in advance by the client, and the scope was ambiguous enough to potentially encompass professional engineering judgment, would the Board's conclusion of ethics code non-applicability have been sustainable, and what obligation would the firm have had to clarify the scope before bidding?
NSPE Board of Ethical Review through accumulated case decisions and code interpretation
Professional Norms Governing PE Firm Participation in Sub-Professional Services Bidding
Sub-Professional Services Bidding Ethics Standard
NSPE Board of Ethical Review; engineering firm principals
Directly addresses the core ethical question of whether a firm whose principals are all licensed PEs may ethically bid on and perform work that is sub-professional in character but related to engineering, grounding the analysis in professional identity, competitive fairness, and the integrity of the engineering profession.
Sub-Professional Competitive Bidding Quality-Sacrifice Rationale Non-Extension
Ethics body evaluating whether PE firm may submit competitive bid for sub-professional services
Ethics bodies, professional societies, and procuring agencies
Sub-Professional Competitive Bidding Quality-Sacrifice Rationale Non-Applicability Constraint
The public-protection rationale for prohibiting competitive bidding for professional services — avoidance of quality sacrifice to lowest price — does not apply to sub-professional or non-professional services, and therefore cannot be used to restrict competitive bidding for such services.
Applicable to all sub-professional service procurement decisions
Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client Specification Clarity Verification
The procuring client possesses the capability to assess whether the sub-professional services for which competitive bidding is invited can be clearly and accurately specified — a prerequisite condition for the ethical permissibility of the competitive bidding process — and to ensure that specifications are sufficiently precise to enable meaningful price competition.
Client inviting PE firm to submit competitive bid for work solely sub-professional in character
Preparation of sufficiently clear and accurate specifications for sub-professional services to enable competitive bidding
Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client Individual
Possible reputational impact on the firm's standing as a professional engineering practice
Potential public confusion about whether the firm is competing on price for professional engineering work
Risk that competitive bidding could be perceived as violating the Canons of Ethics prohibition on competitive bidding for professional services
Participation in fair market competition for commercial services outside the scope of professional engineering ethics constraints
Permissible exercise of competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional services, which may be clearly and accurately specified
Competitive bidding is permissible and appropriate for sub-professional or nonprofessional services that can be clearly and accurately specified
Engineers must be scrupulously careful to make clear to clients and the public the distinction between professional and sub-professional work categories
Prohibition on competitive bidding applies exclusively to professional engineering services to protect public safety and quality
Public protection rationale for anti-competitive-bidding rules does not apply to sub-professional work
Win the sub-professional services contract through competitive pricing, thereby generating business revenue from a legitimate commercial activity
No obligations violated, provided the firm clearly distinguishes this bid as pertaining to sub-professional rather than professional engineering services
Potential violation of Canon Section 2 (dignity and honor of the profession) and Canon Section 19 (protection from misrepresentation) if the distinction is not made clear
Ability to accurately scope and price sub-professional services
Capacity to prepare a written bid that clearly identifies the sub-professional nature of the services
Judgment to correctly classify the work as sub-professional rather than professional engineering
Upon receipt of the invitation to bid; the central decision point of the case
The engineering firm made the decision to submit a written competitive bid for a contract comprised solely of sub-professional services, in response to an invitation to do so.
Submit Competitive Bid → Market Perception of Firm Altered
As an outcome of the firm's submission of a competitive bid for sub-professional services, the firm's market perception is altered, with external stakeholders potentially conflating the firm's professional engineering identity with its sub-professional service offerings
Without bid submission, no market perception alteration occurs in this context; if bid clearly distinguished service types, perception alteration would be mitigated or prevented
Absence of clear distinction between professional and sub-professional service offerings in the bid
Actual submission of written competitive bid
Firm's established identity as a professional engineering firm
Bid submission + market visibility + lack of clear professional distinction together sufficient to alter market perception
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
Professional dignity operates as a background virtue obligation that survives the formal code's scope limitation; it motivates the 'scrupulously careful' standard even in non-regulated commercial activities
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
The tension is resolved by distinguishing formal code provisions (inapplicable) from residual professional virtue obligations (persistent); the engineer must be 'scrupulously careful' precisely because the formal code does not govern
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
The scope limitation is categorical for formal code provisions, but residual honesty and transparency obligations persist even outside formal code jurisdiction
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
Antitrust law limits what the ethics code can prescribe about bidding practices, but it does not eliminate the engineer's character-based obligations of honesty and non-deception that persist independently of code provisions
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
Segregation and transparency obligations complement rather than conflict with competitive bidding permissibility; the firm may bid competitively while still clearly identifying the sub-professional character of the work
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.85
The PE firm is constrained by antitrust law from treating engineering code competitive bidding prohibitions as applicable to its sub-professional services bid; the code's restrictions on competitive bidding do not extend to sub-professional work, and the firm may submit a price-based competitive bid without violating professional ethics.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
Competitive price-based bidding for sub-professional services is ethically permissible only where those services can be clearly and accurately specified; vaguely or incompletely defined sub-professional services cannot be the subject of ethical competitive bidding.
No conflict arises: the rationale-scope analysis resolves the apparent tension between professional anti-competitive-bidding norms and commercial competitive bidding by showing the norms operate in different domains
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
The firm may compete commercially but must not allow commercial competitive pressures to erode its professional integrity obligations in the bid submission
Honesty and non-exploitation are complementary: the firm must be honest about what it is (a PE firm) while not exploiting that identity to gain unfair commercial advantage
Honesty requires accurate disclosure of PE status if asked or if material; fairness requires that this disclosure not be weaponized to gain unfair commercial advantage
Transparency about firm identity is required; exploitation of that identity for competitive advantage is prohibited — the two obligations are compatible and mutually reinforcing
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
The firm's right to bid is preserved while its obligation not to exploit PE status constrains how it presents itself in the sub-professional competitive context
The firm may bid; the ethical question shifts to how it bids and what it discloses, not whether it may participate at all
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.86
ethical obligation to distinguish professional from sub-professional work during any period in which the firm operates in both categories simultaneously
in the case of an operation in both categories by the same firm, the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work, including references in the contract or in correspondence.
ethical obligation to distinguish professional from sub-professional work
any period in which the firm operates in both categories simultaneously
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
receipt of invitation to submit competitive bid (for sub-professional work) after firm's prior provision of sub-professional services on occasion
The firm provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character... The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
receipt of invitation to submit competitive bid (for sub-professional work)
firm's prior provision of sub-professional services on occasion
invokedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
invokedby: Dual-Mode Professional-Commercial Engineering Firm Principal
invokedby: PE Firm Principal Engaging in Mixed Professional and Sub-Professional Practice
The PE firm is obligated to ensure that all representations in its competitive bid for sub-professional services are truthful, accurate, and non-deceptive, consistent with its ongoing ethical obligations as a PE firm
The PE firm is obligated to ensure that all representations in its competitive bid for sub-professional services are truthful, accurate, and non-deceptive, consistent with its ongoing ethical obligations as a PE firm, even though the formal
The PE firm must recognize that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding, and that submitting a written competitive bid for sub-professional services is therefore not an ethics code violation
The PE firm must ensure that all representations in its written bid for sub-professional services are truthful and accurate — including representations about capabilities, experience, personnel, and capacity to perform the sub-professional
The PE firm is obligated to recognize that it is ethically permitted to submit the written competitive bid for the sub-professional work, and must not decline on the false ground that competitive bidding is ethically prohibited, since antit
The PE firm is obligated to recognize that it is ethically permitted to submit the written competitive bid for the sub-professional work
The PE firm is obligated to be scrupulously careful to make clear to its clients and the public the distinction between its professional engineering work and its sub-professional/commercial work, using a separate organizational form with a
The PE firm is obligated to be scrupulously careful to make clear to its clients and the public the distinction between its professional engineering work and its sub-professional/commercial work
Even though the formal Canons of Ethics do not directly apply to the sub-professional bid and related commercial activities, the PE firm and its principals are obligated to avoid conduct likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and h
The PE firm must be transparent with the procuring client about its nature as a professional engineering firm when submitting a bid for sub-professional services, neither concealing its PE identity nor exploiting it to gain unfair advantage
The PE firm and the ethics body are obligated to recognize that competitive bidding for the sub-professional services is ethically permissible because the quality-protection rationale underlying the prohibition on competitive bidding for pr
The PE firm's principals must recognize that their ethical obligations under the engineering code of ethics persist in full force during the submission of a competitive bid for sub-professional services
The PE firm must compete for the sub-professional work on commercial merit alone and must not leverage or invoke its PE licensure status as a competitive differentiator in a marketplace where PE credentials are not required for the sub-prof
The PE firm must compete for the sub-professional work on commercial merit alone and must not leverage or invoke its PE licensure status as a competitive differentiator
The PE firm and the ethics body are obligated to recognize that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to the sub-professional work for which the firm has been invited to bid, because that work is business/comme
The procuring client and the PE firm are obligated to ensure that the sub-professional services for which competitive bidding is invited are clearly and accurately specified, as a prerequisite condition for the ethical permissibility of com
PE-Principal Engineering Firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services
PE firm (all principals are licensed professional engineers)
PE-Principal Engineering Firm and its individual PE principals
PE-Principal Engineering Firm operating in both professional and sub-professional domains
Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client and PE-Principal Engineering Firm
PE-Principal Engineering Firm and ethics adjudicatory body
PE firm principals (licensed professional engineers)
PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work and the ethics adjudicatory body
sub-professional services contract during firm's broader professional engineering practice
An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
firm's broader professional engineering practice
PE firm with all-PE principals invited to submit written competitive bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
NSPE Code of Ethics; DOJ antitrust rulings; BER sub-professional services precedent
At the time of bid submission and throughout the sub-professional engagement
{'procurement_method': 'Written competitive bid', 'work_type': 'Solely sub-professional services related to engineering'}
The entity that invites the PE firm to submit a written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character, thereby triggering the ethical question about whether a PE firm may properly compete for such work.
{'type': 'invites', 'target': 'PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work'}
Competitive Bid Invitation for Sub-Professional Work
From receipt of bid invitation through submission decision
firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
Sub-Professional Work Competitive Bid Eligibility State
Engineering firm invited to submit price-based bid for sub-professional work
Firm receives invitation to submit written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
Dual-Category Work Segregation Obligation
Active whenever a firm simultaneously provides both professional and sub-professional services; specifically addressed in the Discussion section as a continuing obligation
General public relying on professional status signals
Professional-Sub-Professional Work Category Segregation Obligation State
Engineering firm operating in both professional engineering and sub-professional/commercial service modes under the same identity
Establishment of separate organizational entity with distinct name for sub-professional work, or cessation of one category of work, or implementation of adequate contractual/correspondence segregation
It is desirable where the sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, to operate through a separate form of organization, with a distinct name
Where this is not practicable... the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work, including references in the contract or in correspondence
Firm's engagement in both professional engineering services and sub-professional commercial activities without separate organizational structure
Engineering Business-Profession Duality in Sub-Professional Bidding Context
Ethical navigation of mixed-practice engineering firm
Firm's dual professional-commercial operational structure
Ethics Code Non-Applicability to Sub-Professional and Non-Professional Business Activities Principle
Professional Ethics Obligation Persistence in Sub-Professional Practice Principle
The case illustrates the duality of engineering practice as simultaneously a profession and a business: the PE firm's principals operate as licensed professionals in engineering engagements and as commercial competitors in sub-professional markets, requiring the firm to navigate both dimensions with integrity — maintaining professional obligations in engineering work while engaging in legitimate commercial competition for sub-professional services
The duality principle requires the firm to be clear-eyed about which mode it is operating in at any given time, and to apply the appropriate norms — professional ethics for engineering work, commercial ethics and transparency for sub-professional work — without allowing either domain's norms to inappropriately colonize the other
Dual-Mode Professional-Commercial Engineering Firm Principal
Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Principle
There are two basic situations in engineering practice relative to this discussion. Virtually all contracts for professional engineering services require some sub-professional and nonprofessional work to furnish the final professional result. This situation is not relative to the present case which relates only to those contracts which are solely of a sub-professional nature.
The duality principle provides the meta-framework for resolving the tension: professional and commercial norms are both legitimate in their respective domains, and the engineer's task is accurate domain classification and appropriate norm application
There are two basic situations in engineering practice relative to this discussion.
This situation is not relative to the present case which relates only to those contracts which are solely of a sub-professional nature.
Virtually all contracts for professional engineering services require some sub-professional and nonprofessional work to furnish the final professional result.
Persistent background condition throughout the case; the firm's dual-mode operation is the foundational fact pattern
Virtually all contracts for professional engineering services require some sub-professional and nonprofessional work to furnish the final professional result
PE Firm Sub-Professional Service Provision State
Engineering firm whose principals hold PE licenses regularly providing sub-professional commercial services as part of its business activities
an operation in both categories by the same firm
those contracts which are solely of a sub-professional nature
Firm's established practice of providing both professional engineering and sub-professional commercial services
PE Firm Sub-Professional Service Provision Background State
Ongoing — persists as a background condition of the firm's business model
engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services
Firm's establishment of a practice of providing sub-professional services related to engineering
Professional Ethics Obligation Persistence Despite Sub-Professional Activity Classification
Contractual and correspondence documentation
Public representations about service categories
Even though the formal ethics code provisions do not apply to the sub-professional work, the PE firm retains full honesty, transparency, and integrity obligations — particularly the obligation to be scrupulously clear with clients and the public about the distinction between professional and sub-professional services
The ethics code's scope limitation does not create an ethics-free zone for sub-professional activities; residual professional virtue obligations of honesty and transparency persist and are heightened by the risk of client confusion in mixed-practice contexts
Sub-Professional Bid Services Clear Specification Prerequisite for Competitive Bidding Permissibility
PE firm invited to submit written competitive bid for sub-professional services work
Procuring client and PE firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services
Sub-Professional Service Specification Clarity Competitive Bidding Prerequisite Constraint
Prior to and at the time of bid invitation and submission
Engineering Business-Profession Duality in Sub-Professional Bid Context
Submission of competitive bid for sub-professional services
Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
The PE firm simultaneously operates as a commercial bidder in a sub-professional marketplace and as a profession-bound entity whose principals hold engineering licenses; it must navigate both dimensions — competing commercially on price and merit while maintaining professional integrity obligations in how it represents itself and its services
The duality principle requires the firm to engage in the commercial bidding process on commercial terms while ensuring that its professional obligations — honesty, non-deception, transparency — continue to govern its conduct
Free and Open Competition Governs PE Firm Sub-Professional Bidding
Written competitive bid for sub-professional services
Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle
The PE firm's invitation to submit a written competitive bid for sub-professional work is governed by the foundational norm of free and open competition; the firm is not ethically prohibited from participating in this commercial market simply because its principals hold PE licenses
Free and open competition means PE firms cannot be categorically excluded from sub-professional markets, nor can ethics codes be used to restrict their participation in ways that would violate antitrust principles
Antitrust Constraint on Ethics Code Restriction of Sub-Professional Bidding
Written competitive bid submission for sub-professional services
Any attempt by a professional engineering ethics code to prohibit or restrict PE firms from submitting competitive bids for sub-professional work would itself be constrained by antitrust law; the ethics code cannot be used to exclude PE firms from commercial markets
The antitrust constraint means that the ethics code's reach into competitive bidding practices is limited; the firm's participation in the sub-professional bid is legally and ethically permissible as a baseline matter
Antitrust law establishes the floor of permissibility; professional ethics obligations then govern the manner of participation above that floor
Engineering Code Non-Applicability to Sub-Professional Activities
Persistent background condition governing the ethical analysis throughout the case; formally articulated in the Discussion section
Clients engaging firm for sub-professional work
Engineer/firm providing sub-professional services
Public relying on professional status signals
the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage
Engineering Code Scope Exclusion of Sub-Professional Activities State
Professional engineering firm engaging in sub-professional/commercial services alongside professional engineering practice
Not terminated within this case; persists as a standing jurisdictional rule
the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services... is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services
this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services
NSPE Board of Ethical Review determination that Canons of Ethics apply only to professional engineering practice, not to business/commercial activities
Free Competition Framework Governing Sub-Professional Bid
Free and Open Competition Legal Framework Active State
Legal and regulatory environment governing the bid invitation
Bid invitation issued under competitive (price-based) procurement
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Antitrust Scope Recognition
PE firm invited to submit written bid for sub-professional work in a competitive procurement context
Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Recognition Obligation
The PE firm must recognize that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding, and that submitting a written competitive bid for sub-professional services is therefore not an ethics code violation, while procurement laws and honesty obligations remain fully applicable.
Upon receipt of invitation to bid and throughout the bid process
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Honest Representations
PE firm preparing and submitting written competitive bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
Sub-Professional Bid Honest Representation Obligation
The PE firm must ensure that all representations in its written bid for sub-professional services are truthful and accurate — including representations about capabilities, experience, personnel, and capacity to perform the sub-professional work — and must not make any false or misleading statements in the bid.
During preparation and submission of the written bid
Sub-Professional Bid Services Clear Specification Prerequisite Verification
The PE firm has been invited to submit a written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character; the ethics board's permissibility determination is conditioned on the work being clearly and accurately specifiable.
Sub-Professional Service Specification Clarity Prerequisite for Competitive Bidding Obligation
The procuring client and the PE firm are obligated to ensure that the sub-professional services for which competitive bidding is invited are clearly and accurately specified, as a prerequisite condition for the ethical permissibility of competitive bidding on those services.
Prior to and at the time of issuing and responding to the competitive bid invitation
Sub-Professional Competitive Bidding Permissibility for All-PE-Principal Firm
PE Identity Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Commercial Competition Principle
The PE firm whose principals are all licensed engineers is ethically permitted to submit the competitive bid for sub-professional work because the ethics code's competitive bidding prohibition does not apply to sub-professional services, and the firm's PE status does not disqualify it from participating in commercial competitive bidding for clearly specifiable non-professional work
PE licensure does not create a competitive bidding prohibition for sub-professional work; the prohibition is scope-limited to professional engineering services
Sub-Professional Service Competitive Bidding Permissibility Principle
Permissibility of bidding is affirmed, subject to the constraint that the firm must not exploit its PE credentials to gain unfair advantage over non-PE competitors in the sub-professional marketplace
Sub-Professional Services Competitive Bidding Permissibility
Active throughout the case analysis; confirmed as permissible in the Discussion section
Clients procuring sub-professional services
this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified
Sub-professional and non-professional services offered by engineering firm subject to competitive price-based bidding
Not terminated; persists as a standing rule for sub-professional work
Determination that sub-professional services can be clearly and accurately specified, removing the quality-sacrifice rationale for anti-competitive-bidding rules
Competitive Bidding Permissibility for Sub-Professional Services Based on Rationale Scope
Competitive bid for sub-professional services
Procurement process for clearly specifiable non-professional work
The ethics board affirmed that the prohibition against competitive bidding is rationale-bounded: because its purpose is to prevent quality sacrifice to lowest price in professional services, it does not apply to sub-professional or non-professional services that can be clearly and accurately specified, making competitive bidding ethically permissible for the sub-professional work at issue
The permissibility of competitive bidding for sub-professional services is not merely a formal exception but flows from the underlying rationale of the prohibition: where quality cannot be sacrificed to price because the work is clearly specifiable, the prohibition's purpose is absent and the prohibition does not apply
Competitive Bidding Permissibility Rationale Scope Limitation Principle
In applying the distinction noted above, it should be kept in mind that the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
PE Firm Honest Representation in Sub-Professional Bid Submissions
The PE firm submits a written competitive bid for sub-professional work; its ethical obligations of honesty and non-deception persist in full force even in the commercial bidding context.
The PE firm is obligated to ensure that all representations in its competitive bid for sub-professional services are truthful, accurate, and non-deceptive, consistent with its ongoing ethical obligations as a PE firm, even though the formal ethics code canons do not directly govern the sub-professional work itself.
At the time of preparing and submitting the competitive bid
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Permissibility Recognition
PE firm invited to submit written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services related to professional engineering
Sub-Professional Competitive Bid Submission Permissibility Obligation
The PE firm is obligated to recognize that it is ethically permitted to submit the written competitive bid for the sub-professional work, and must not decline on the false ground that competitive bidding is ethically prohibited, since antitrust rulings have removed such restrictions from the ethics code.
Upon receipt of invitation to bid for sub-professional services
PE Identity Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Competitive Bid Submission
Marketing and presentation of sub-professional services
Professional-Sub-Professional Work Segregation and Transparency Obligation Principle
While the PE firm may submit the competitive bid for sub-professional work, it must not exploit its PE credentials, professional reputation, or engineering licensure status to gain an unfair advantage over non-PE commercial competitors who are equally or better qualified to perform the sub-professional work
The ethics code's non-applicability to sub-professional work does not license the firm to weaponize its professional status in the sub-professional marketplace; the firm must compete on equal commercial terms
Ethics Code Scope Limitation to Professional Practice in Sub-Professional Bidding Case
Competitive bid submission for sub-professional services
The ethics board determined that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct apply only to professional engineering practice and not to the sub-professional commercial activities at issue in this case, where the firm was invited to submit a competitive bid for work solely sub-professional in character
In this context, the ethics code's scope limitation means that provisions restricting competitive bidding for professional services do not apply to the sub-professional bid, and the firm is not in violation of those provisions by submitting a competitive bid
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'practice_mode': 'Mixed professional and sub-professional/commercial', 'segregation_obligation': 'Must use separate firm, distinct name, or contractual references to distinguish work types', 'bidding_status': 'May competitively bid for sub-professional work; may not for professional services'}
A professional engineer (or firm of PEs) that engages in both professional engineering services and sub-professional/commercial activities, required by the Discussion to segregate these work types through separate organizational structures, distinct names, or explicit contractual/correspondence references, and to communicate the distinction clearly to clients and the public.
{'type': 'governed_by', 'target': 'NSPE Canons of Ethics (for professional work only)'}
{'type': 'obligated_to_inform', 'target': 'General Public'}
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client'}
in the case of an operation in both categories by the same firm, the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work
PE Identity Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Bid Submission
Competitive relationship with non-PE commercial service providers
When the PE firm submits its written bid for the sub-professional work, it must compete on commercial merit and must not leverage its PE credentials or professional engineering reputation to intimidate or disadvantage non-PE commercial competitors who are equally capable of performing the sub-professional services
The firm's PE status is a fact that may be disclosed honestly, but it must not be foregrounded as a competitive weapon in a market where PE licensure confers no relevant quality advantage over non-PE competitors
Sub-Professional Bidding Permissibility for PE Firm
Written competitive bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
The PE firm is ethically permitted to submit the written competitive bid for the sub-professional work because: (a) the work is related to professional engineering services, (b) the firm has demonstrated capacity to perform such work on occasion, and (c) competitive bidding in this context is lawful and consistent with free market norms
Permissibility is conditional on the firm's honest representation of its capabilities and its refraining from exploiting PE credentials to gain unfair advantage over non-PE commercial competitors
The firm may bid; the ethical obligations that follow concern the manner of bidding and the accuracy of representations made in the bid
Honesty in Sub-Professional Bid Representations
The PE firm must ensure that all representations in its written bid for sub-professional services are truthful and accurate — including representations about its capacity to perform the work, the qualifications of personnel who will perform it, and the nature of the services being offered — without misrepresenting sub-professional work as professional engineering services or vice versa
Honesty in this context requires accurate characterization of the work as sub-professional and accurate representation of the firm's capabilities for that specific type of work, not its engineering capabilities generally
PE Firm Professional Dignity Preservation in Sub-Professional Commercial Activities
The PE firm operates in both professional and sub-professional domains; the historical Canon Sections 2 and 19 (now superseded) established the general frame of reference for personal conduct relative to professional work, and their spirit persists as a residual dignity-preservation duty.
Professional Dignity Preservation in Sub-Professional and Non-Professional Activities Obligation
Even though the formal Canons of Ethics do not directly apply to the sub-professional bid and related commercial activities, the PE firm and its principals are obligated to avoid conduct likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and honor of the engineering profession, and to protect the profession from misrepresentation and misunderstanding, in all their commercial dealings.
Ongoing — applies to all commercial and sub-professional activities of the PE firm and its principals
Note: The following Code sections no longer exist: Canons of Ethics, Section 2- '... and he will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and honor of his profession.' Section 19-'The engineer will endeavor to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.'
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Identity Transparency
PE firm invited to submit written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character
Mixed-Practice Firm Identity Transparency in Sub-Professional Bid Obligation
The PE firm must be transparent with the procuring client about its nature as a professional engineering firm when submitting a bid for sub-professional services, neither concealing its PE identity nor exploiting it to gain unfair advantage over non-PE competitors bidding on the same sub-professional work.
Professional-Sub-Professional Segregation Obligation for Mixed-Practice PE Firm
Client and public communications about service categories
Mixed professional-commercial firm operations
Because the PE firm operates in both professional engineering and sub-professional commercial domains, it is obligated to clearly distinguish the two categories of work for clients and the public — preferably through a separate organizational entity with a distinct name, or alternatively through contractual and correspondence references
The segregation obligation is affirmative and proactive: the engineer cannot passively allow clients or the public to conflate professional and sub-professional services; active steps of organizational or documentary separation are required
Professional Dignity Preservation in Sub-Professional Commercial Activities
Profession's collective reputation in sub-professional markets
Public-facing commercial activities of PE firm
The former Canon Sections 2 and 19 — requiring avoidance of conduct likely to discredit the profession and protection of the profession from misrepresentation — reflect the underlying professional dignity obligation that persists even in sub-professional commercial contexts, informing the board's guidance that engineers must be scrupulously careful to distinguish professional from sub-professional work
Even where formal canon provisions no longer exist or do not apply, the professional dignity and honor preservation obligation informs the engineer's conduct in all public-facing activities, including sub-professional commercial work
Section 2- '... and he will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and honor of his profession.' Section 19-'The engineer will endeavor to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.'
Section 19-'The engineer will endeavor to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.'
Section 2- '... and he will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and honor of his profession.'
Transparency Obligation in Mixed Professional-Sub-Professional Firm Identity
The PE firm must be transparent with the procuring client about its nature as a professional engineering firm when submitting a bid for sub-professional work, ensuring the client understands the character of the entity it is engaging and can make an informed procurement decision
Transparency enables the client to assess whether engaging a PE firm for sub-professional work is appropriate for its needs, whether it triggers any additional obligations, and whether the pricing reflects the firm's actual cost structure for sub-professional versus professional work
Professional Ethics Obligation Persistence Through Sub-Professional Bid
All representations made in the bid document
The PE firm's submission of a bid for sub-professional work does not suspend its ethical obligations under the engineering code of ethics; honesty, transparency, and non-deception obligations continue to govern the content and manner of the bid submission regardless of the sub-professional character of the work being bid upon
The firm's principals remain bound by professional ethics in all their professional activities, including commercial bidding for sub-professional work; the sub-professional nature of the work does not create an ethics-free zone
PE Firm Mixed-Practice Work Category Segregation and Client Transparency
A PE firm whose principals are all licensed engineers engages in both professional engineering services and sub-professional commercial activities; clients and the public must not be confused about which category of service is being rendered.
Professional-Sub-Professional Work Category Segregation and Client Transparency Obligation
The PE firm is obligated to be scrupulously careful to make clear to its clients and the public the distinction between its professional engineering work and its sub-professional/commercial work, using a separate organizational form with a distinct name where sub-professional work is a large part of activities, or otherwise segregating the work through contract references or correspondence.
Ongoing — applies throughout all client engagements and public communications involving both categories of work
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Competitive Bidding Rationale-Scope Permissibility
The PE firm has been invited to submit a written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character; the ethics body must determine whether competitive bidding is permissible.
Sub-Professional Competitive Bidding Rationale-Scope Permissibility Obligation
The PE firm and the ethics body are obligated to recognize that competitive bidding for the sub-professional services is ethically permissible because the quality-protection rationale underlying the prohibition on competitive bidding for professional services does not apply to sub-professional work that can be clearly and accurately specified.
At the time of submitting the competitive bid and at the time of ethics adjudication
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Ethics Code Persistence
PE firm with all-PE principals bidding on sub-professional work related to professional engineering services
Professional Ethics Persistence in Sub-Professional Bid Conduct Obligation
The PE firm's principals must recognize that their ethical obligations under the engineering code of ethics persist in full force during the submission of a competitive bid for sub-professional services, and that the sub-professional character of the work does not suspend or reduce those obligations.
Throughout the bid preparation, submission, and any subsequent performance of sub-professional work
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid PE Credential Non-Exploitation
PE firm submitting written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character
PE Credential Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Bid Obligation
The PE firm must compete for the sub-professional work on commercial merit alone and must not leverage or invoke its PE licensure status as a competitive differentiator in a marketplace where PE credentials are not required for the sub-professional work.
During preparation and submission of the competitive bid
PE Firm Ethics Code Scope Non-Application to Sub-Professional Bid
A PE firm whose principals are all licensed engineers has been invited to submit a written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character; the question is whether ethics code provisions restrict or govern that bid.
Ethics Code Scope Limitation to Professional Engineering Practice Obligation
The PE firm and the ethics body are obligated to recognize that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to the sub-professional work for which the firm has been invited to bid, because that work is business/commercial in character rather than professional engineering practice.
At the time of evaluating whether ethics code provisions apply to the sub-professional bid invitation
{'licensure': 'All principals are Professional Engineers', 'service_scope': 'Occasionally provides sub-professional services related to engineering', 'bid_type': 'Written competitive bid', 'work_character': 'Solely sub-professional in nature'}
A firm whose principals are all licensed PEs that occasionally provides sub-professional services and has been invited to submit a written competitive bid for a contract comprised solely of sub-professional services. The central ethical question concerns whether this firm may properly submit such a bid.
{'type': 'invited_by', 'target': 'Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client Individual'}
PE Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Services