THE ENGINEERING

CODE OF ETHICS AND

ITS APPLICATION
by

MICHAEL O. TETTEH
MICHAEL B. TIMMONS

THE ENGINEERING
CODE OF ETHICS AND
ITS APPLICATION
MICHAEL O. TETTEH
Cornell University, TSS, Systems and Operations, Cornell
Information Technologies, Ithaca, NY 14853

MICHAEL B. TIMMONS
Cornell University, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Department, 302 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Michael Tetteh. Michael O. Tetteh
came to the U.S from his native Ghana
in December 1995, and earned Bachelor
of Science & Master of Engineering
degrees from Cornell Universitys
School of Operations Research &
Industrial Engineering. Tetteh studied
under Dr. Michael Timmons and
subsequently became a Teaching
Assistant for Dr. Timmons course in
Engineering Ethics, Entrepreneurship &
Management.
An avid internationalist, he has
experienced travel in Sweden, Norway,
Germany and Canada. At 16, he was chosen to serve a 1-year stint as
Ghanas cultural ambassador to Denmark. He speaks six languages, loves
writing - he was an op-ed columnist for the Cornell Daily Sun - and enjoys
among other things, reading, dancing, kayaking, swimming and playing
soccer.
He is currently a Technical Services Consultant in Cornell Information
Technologies (CIT) Systems & Operations division, and is en route to law
school, after which he hopes to pursue a career in Intellectual
Property/Technology law.
Contact Information
Cornell University
Technical Services Consultant
TSS, Systems and Operations
Cornell Information Technologies
Ithaca, NY 14853
Phone: (607) 255-3128
E-mail: mot2@cornell.edu

Michael B. Timmons, Ph.D. Dr. Michael

Timmons received his B.S. in Agricultural
Engineering from the Ohio State University,
his M.S. in Agricultural Engineering from the
University of Hawaii, and his Ph.D. from
Cornell University. Dr. Timmons has worked
in aquacultural engineering for 20 years as a
researcher and extension specialist. He has
published widely and has served as primary editor on many of the
Aquacultural Engineering Society meeting proceedings and for the series of
bi-annual meetings sponsored by Virginia Tech on Water Recirculation
Systems. He was one of the founders of the Aquacultural Engineering
Society and has served in several officer positions including being the
current President-elect. Dr. Timmons currently occupies the J. Thomas
Clark Professorship of Entrepreneurship and Personal Enterprise, Biological
and Environmental Engineering Department, Cornell University. Dr.
Timmons has actively participated in the formation of several private
businesses, both for profit and non-profit. Dr. Timmons teaches a course on
aquaculture and a popular course on entrepreneurship and engineering
ethics.
Contact Information
Cornell University
Biological & Environmental Engineering Department
302 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853
Phone: (607) 255-1630
E-mail: mbt3@cornell.edu

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The book authors express their sincere appreciation to Mr. John
Jaquette, Director of the Cornell University Entrepreneurship and Personal
Enterprise (EPE) Program. Besides the financial support for writing the
text, the EPE program provides constant moral support and encouragement
to each of us to continue to provide and improve the educational experience
for Cornell students with an interest in entrepreneurship. Including a
perspective on professional ethics is an important aspect of this experience.
Our highest sense of appreciation goes to Mrs. Brenda L. Marchewka,
who did the final formatting of the book prior to printing. This as we all
know is an extremely tedious job that was done in the highest professional
manner. Thank you Brenda. Our appreciation is extended to our able
teaching assistants for their help and assistance in proofing text. We would
like to thank Jessica Ma and Isaac Klein who assisted in researching, editing
and formatting various portions of this text.
Chapter 1: NSPE Code of Ethics
The assistance of the National Society of Professional Engineers
(NSPE, Alexandria VA; see web site: www.nspe.org ) is
acknowledged in providing much of the material that is
presented in this chapter. The Appendix in Chapter 2 provides
additional background on the NSPE. For additional case
histories involving engineers and the code of ethics, go to the
NSPE website where copies of the opinions since 1976 are also
available electronically at www.nspe.org/ethics. You can also
contact the Deputy Executive Director of the NSPE as follows:
Arthur Schwartz
Deputy Executive Director & General Counsel
National Society of Professional Engineers
1420 King Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Ph: 703-684-2845/Fx: 703-519-3763
URL: www.nspe.org Email: aschwartz@nspe.org

iii

Prologue
In 1962 Stanley Milgram performed an experiment at Yale University
that tested a subjects willingness to inflict pain on another person (called a
learner), when under the supervision of a permissive overseer. To the surprise of
the investigator, 65% of the subjects were willing to administer lethal electric
shocks to the learner, even when allowed to hear the learners simulated
screams. What made these results so shocking was that the subjects so quickly
forfeited than their own moral agenda. Tendencies are often no different in the
professional world, where morality is all too often disregarded in the name of
profits and efficiency. Throughout your professional career you will be
confronted with decisions that involve tradeoffs between ethical responsibilities
and personal advancement or gain. There will be times where you must
question authority, or challenge the simple solution, to find one that is both
ethical and profitable. Therefore, it can be helpful to have an outline of what is
proper moral behavior and what is not; a code of professional ethics provides us
with such an outline.
The goal of this book is to provide aspiring engineers with the ethical
tools necessary to make proper decisions in the face of professional moral
dilemmas. Chapter 1 opens with the NSPEs (National Society of Professional
Engineers) Code of Ethics for Engineers that provides you with the basics of
engineering ethics and details the responsibilities that you will be assuming as a
PE (Professional Engineer). Since this document can sometime seem abstract in
the face of real-life ethical dilemmas, we have also included a series of case
studies which show how the code can be applied. Chapter 2 will provide you
with a background of the field of ethics and explain the scope of and motivation
for a Code of Ethics for Engineers. The remainder of the book addresses some
modern ethical issues such as diversity in the workforce and Green Engineering,
among others. Throughout your career you will be faced with the responsibility
of making important decisions, some of them will be clear cut cases of choosing
right over wrong, some however will not be so obvious. In these situations a
solid background knowledge of ethics will help you reach the appropriate
conclusion. This text will assist you in attaining that background and in
developing the skills necessary to properly confront ethical dilemmas.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
About the Authors ........................................................................ i
Acknowledgements ....................................................................... iii
v
Prologue.....................................................................................
Chapter 1: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers & Case Analyses
1.0 Engineering Ethics: A Search for Solutions ..................... 1
1.1 NSPE Engineers Creed .................................................... 6
1.2 NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers .................................. 7
1.3 Case Analysis: 22 Indexed Cases.................................... 16
1.4 National Society of Professional Engineers ...................... 59
Chapter 2: Scope, Motivation for & Objectives of Engineering
Ethics
2.0 An Introduction to Moral Reasoning, Ethical Theory &
the Structure of Ethical Inquiry ......................................... 65
Chapter 3: Engineering Ethics in Action
3.0 Responsible Experimentation ............................................ 83
3.1 Engineering Ethics as a Social Experiment ....................... 88
Chapter 4: Engineering Ethics in a Multi-Cultural World
4.0 Introduction ....................................................................... 101
4.1 Engineering Ethics and the Role of Women and
Minorities in Science & Engineering (S&E)..................... 101
4.2 The Case for Gender, Ethnic and Cultural Plurality in
the Workplace.................................................................... 109
Glossary......................................................................................
References..................................................................................
Index...........................................................................................

111
127
129

vii

CHAPTER 11

NSPE CODE OF ETHICS FOR ENGINEERS

& CASE ANALYSES2
1.0

ENGINEERING ETHICS: A SEARCH FOR

SOLUTIONS

(By Arthur E. Schwartz, NSPE General Counsel)

As you read this chapter, try to develop a sense of context as to your
role and responsibility as an engineer who endeavors to guard the public
welfare. This section was written by NSPE Council as an introduction to
the ethical issues that are facing today's engineers.
Engineer A is requested to review, sign, and seal a set of
drawings prepared by another design professional not under
the engineers direct personal supervision. Should he sign and
seal the drawings?
Engineer B is requested to serve as an expert witness during
litigation involving a project, which his firm performed
services for another party involved in the same litigation. Is
this acceptable conduct?
Engineer C learns that his employer is violating environmental
regulations relating to acceptable toxicity levels of waste
materials being released by the employers industrial facility.
Does he report this fact to the public authorities or the media?

The assistance of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE,

Alexandria VA; see web site: http://www.nspe.org/) is acknowledged in providing
much of the material that is presented in this chapter. The last section in this
Chapter provides additional background on the NSPE and how to join the NSPE.
2
Case analyses and conclusions presented here are the outcome of years of
deliberations by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review (BER). While preserving the
substantive aspects of their work, we have modified the cases in various ways,
taking into account relevant pedagogical factors best suited to our target readers.
1

Chapter 1

Engineer D, pursuing a Ph.D., deliberately omits certain

information from the doctoral thesis because it might raise
doubts concerning certain conclusions in the theory. Can you
ethically do this?
These are just the tip of the iceberg of the many ethical
issues constantly confronting engineers on a daily basis.
Why Codes of Ethics?
As with law, medicine, etc., engineering is a learned
profession. As a profession, engineering constantly involves
the exercise of expert judgment and discretion in the
performance of services. Engineers are expected to use their
education, training and experience in a manner that comports
with the public health and safety. But where do engineers look
for guidance in determining the most appropriate course of
action to follow in the earlier cited cases? One possible source
is the law. Statutes, regulations, court decisions, etc. certainly
provide a basis to make certain decisions concerning conduct
and behavior. However, the law does not address many issues
concerning appropriate professional conduct.
Another
possible resource might be colleagues, family members or
friends.
While sometimes these sources might be extremely valuable as
a sounding board, in some cases, they might lack the necessary
education and training to provide useful feedback or the
feedback might be biased or prejudiced by some fact or
circumstance. For that reason, professional organizations
develop codes of ethics to assist their members in making
decisions in their everyday practice and employment.
Professional codes of ethics reflect basic norms of conduct
that exist within a particular profession and provide general
guidance relating to a variety of issues. The National Society
of Professional Engineers (NSPE) has done this for the
professional engineering community.
Except in the most basic circumstances, codes of ethics do not
provide answers or solutions to ethical dilemmas faced by
engineers. They do provide guideposts that can be helpful in
assisting engineers in evaluating the circumstances they
encounter and provide possible approaches that may be taken
in addressing the ethical issues involved.
Opinions of the NSPE Board of Ethical Review
While a code of ethics is an essential part of any professions
2

effort to assist practitioners in matters of ethics, it alone is

generally not sufficient to provide precise guidance on specific
questions that arise. Most professions have some deliberative
body that considers ethical questions. For example, most law
and medical associations render opinions on the questions
presented to them. NSPEs Board of Ethical Review has
rendered nearly four hundred formally published ethics
opinions and thousands of informal opinions interpreting the
NSPE Code of Ethics in cases involving actual factual
situations that have been submitted by individual members,
government officials, and members of the public.
History of the NSPE Board of Ethical Review
At the time the NSPE Code of Ethics was developed, there
were continuous requests from individuals as well as from
state societies and local chapters for interpretations of the
Code in specific circumstances. NSPE saw this need as an
opportunity for service to the profession and created in 1954 a
Board of Ethical Review. Composed of seven individuals
representing various areas of employment, and serving threeyear terms, the Board was not charged with evaluating specific
violations, but with taking actual circumstances and
hypothetical situations, and analyzing the ethics involved.
These decisions were to be published in order to achieve
widespread dissemination of the Boards deliberations.
For the final review, a decision of the Board was presented to
the NSPE Board of Directors who then decided whether or not
the decision would be published. In 1963, the governing
bylaw was changed to give the Board of Ethical Review final
authority on its decisions. Many of the decisions were not
unanimous, and in each case a minority commentary was
provided in addition to the majority view.
Recent Opinions of the NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Over the past several years, the NSPE Board of Ethical
Review has decided numerous cases dealing with a variety of
issues ranging from professional competency, duty to protect
the public health and safety, obligation to employees and
employers, signing and sealing drawings, and many other
factual situations. A good example is a recent case related to
the issue of the obligations between employees and employers
in connection with employment. The Board was faced with
the question of whether an employment agreement prepared by
an engineer who was hiring another engineer was ethical
because it contained restrictive provisions making it virtually
3

Chapter 1

impossible for the employee to be re-employed in the event he

left the employers service.
In another case, the Board confronted a situation where an
engineering firm principal denied the right of a licensed
engineer to use the title engineer because the individual did
not possess what the principal deemed as an appropriate
engineering degree prior to becoming licensed.
The Board has also been faced with a situation involving an
engineering expert that was retained by an attorney to serve as
an expert for one party in litigation and then later sought to
represent an adversary party in the same litigation. While
some of these issues are fairly straightforward and simple,
other issues are more complex, requiring careful study and
analysis.
Changes in the Code of Ethics
The NSPE Code of Ethics has always been viewed as a
dynamic document reflecting changes in engineering practice.
While some of the modifications to the Code have come
easily, reflecting a general consensus of opinion within the
profession, other changes have come as a result of conflict.
Some examples quickly come to mind. In the mid-1980s
during the liability insurance crisis, many engineers who had
been performing professional services in connection with
hazardous waste, pollution, and other related services saw their
professional liability insurance policies exclude these areas of
practice from policy coverage. Professional liability insurance
to protect against claims relating to these risks became
impossible to obtain. In response, many engineers sought to
protect their personal and professional resources by employing
indemnification provisions in their contracts with clients,
whereby clients would agree to hold the engineer harmless
for the ordinary negligence by the engineer. This approach
was in direct conflict with then Section III.9 of the Code,
which stated:
Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their
professional activities.
After careful review and deliberation and in response to the
growing need for adequate procedures to safeguard engineers
against unknown professional liability exposure, the NSPE
Board of Directors agreed to modify Code Section III.9 to
4

state: Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their

professional activities; provided, however, that Engineers may
seek indemnification from professional services arising out of
their practice for other than gross negligence, where the
Engineers interests cannot otherwise be protected.
The change shows the Code is not a static document but a
living document reflecting alterations in circumstances and
practice. A Code must adapt with the times; otherwise it risks
losing its legitimacy and acceptance.
Another recent example of a case where the NSPE Code was
modified to reflect changing practice related to the issue of
conflicts of interest and Section II.4.d. That section
admonished engineers in public service not to participate in
decisions with respect to professional services solicited or
provided by them or their organizations in public or private
engineering practice. Because of instances in which the Code
was held not to apply to certain conflicts of interests involving
engineers serving on quasi-governmental bodies, Section
II.4.d was broadened in the late 1980s to add quasigovernmental bodies as areas of public service where
engineers should avoid conflicts of interest.
On the other side of the coin, there have been issues that have
been addressed by the NSPE Code where NSPE was required
as a matter of law to modify the Code to comply with the law.
During the 1970s, the Code of Ethics for several professions
was challenged by the federal government as constituting an
agreement in restraint of trade and therefore violated the
Sherman Antitrust Act.
Following litigation national
architectural and engineering groups, including NSPE,
modified their code of ethics to remove provisions (1)
prohibiting competitive bidding for engineering services and
(2) supplanting of one engineer by another. In addition, NSPE
agreed with federal antitrust officials to eliminate provisions
from the NSEP Code that made it unethical to engage in
certain types of promotional advertising.
Conclusions
Clearly, engineering ethics is an issue that goes to the heart of
engineering practice. It reflects the customs, habits, and
values of engineering as a profession and reflects the timetested experience, seasoning and training of practicing
engineers. In some senses, a code of ethics is a timeline for
the profession because it mirrors the conventions, routines and
5

Chapter 1

patterns of the profession but shifts as those conventions,

routines and patterns change.
As the profession of engineering grows in stature within our
society, engineering and engineers will be increasingly
examined and scrutinized by the public, the media, the
government, and the profession itself on moral and ethical
questions. Having a thoroughly developed code of ethics of
this magnitude, along with members that adhere to the code,
will be vitally useful in the process.

1.1

NSPE ENGINEERS CREED

As a Professional Engineer, I dedicate my professional
knowledge and skill to the advancement and
betterment of human welfare. I pledge:
To give the utmost of performance;
To participate in none but honest enterprise;
To live and work according to the laws of man and the
highest standards of professional conduct;
To place service before profit, the honor and standing
of the profession before personal advantage, and the
public welfare above all other considerations.
In humility and with need for Divine Guidance, I make
this pledge.
(Adopted by National Society of Professional Engineers, June 1954)

Since its inception in 1934, the National Society of Professional

Engineers (NSPE) has remained the sole umbrella [engineering] society
representing individual engineering professionals and licensed engineers
(PEs) across all the engineering disciplines. As its organizational objective,
NSPE seeks to strengthen the engineering profession by promoting
engineering licensure and ethics, enhancing the engineer image, advocating
and protecting PEs' legal rights at the national and state levels, publishing
news of the profession, providing continuing education opportunities, and
6

much more. NSPE serves some 60,000 members and the public through 53
state and territorial societies and more than 500 chapters.

1.2

NSPE CODE OF ETHICS FOR ENGINEERS

PREAMBLE
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of
this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of
honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the
quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by
engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness and equity, and must be
dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that
requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.
I. Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so
as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
II. Rules of Practice
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the
public.
a. If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that
endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client
and such other authority as may be appropriate.
b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are
in conformity with applicable standards.
c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or information without the
prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or
required by law or this Code.
d. Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in
business ventures with any person or firm that they believe are
engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise.
e. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code
7

Chapter 1

shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when

relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper
authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be
required.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their
competence.
a. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by
education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents
dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to
any plan or document not prepared under their direction and
control.
c. Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for
coordination of an entire project and sign and seal the engineering
documents for the entire project, provided that each technical
segment is signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who
prepared the segment.
3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and
truthful manner.
a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports,
statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and
pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony,
which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded
upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.
c. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on
technical matters that are inspired or paid for by interested parties,
unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying
the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by
revealing the existence of any interest the engineers may have in
the matters.
4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or
trustees.
a. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest
that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the
quality of their services.
b. Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise,
from more than one party for services on the same project, or for
services pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are
8

fully disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties.

c. Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable
consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in
connection with the work for which they are responsible.
d. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of
a governmental or quasi-governmental body or department shall
not participate in decisions with respect to services solicited or
provided by them or their organizations in private or public
engineering practice.
e. Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental
body on which a principal or officer of their organization serves as
a member.
5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.
a. Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit
misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications. They
shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for
the subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other
presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not
misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees,
associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.
b. Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit or receive, either directly or
indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by
public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the
public as having the effect of intent to influencing the awarding of
a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable
consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a
commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work,
except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial
or marketing agencies retained by them.
III. Professional Obligations
1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest
standards of honesty and integrity.
a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or
alter the facts.
b. Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe
a project will not be successful.
c. Engineers shall not accept outside employment to the detriment of
their regular work or interest. Before accepting any outside
engineering employment they will notify their employers.
d. Engineers shall not attempt to attract an engineer from another
9

Chapter 1

employer by false or misleading pretenses.

e. Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the
dignity and integrity of the profession.
2. Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest.
a. Engineers shall seek opportunities to participate in civic affairs;
career guidance for youths; and work for the advancement of the
safety, health and well-being of their community.
b. Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or
specifications that are not in conformity with applicable
engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such
unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and
withdraw from further service on the project.
c. Engineers shall endeavor to extend public knowledge and
appreciation of engineering and its achievements.
3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public.
a. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material
misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.
b. Consistent with the foregoing, Engineers may advertise for
recruitment of personnel.
c. Consistent with the foregoing, Engineers may prepare articles for
the lay or technical press, but such articles shall not imply credit to
the author for work performed by others.
4. Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential
information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of
any present or former client or employer, or public body on which
they serve.
a. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties,
promote or arrange for new employment or practice in
connection with a specific project for which the Engineer has
gained particular and specialized knowledge.
b. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties,
participate in or represent an adversary interest in connection with a
specific project or proceeding in which the Engineer has gained
particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or
employer.
5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by
conflicting interests.
a. Engineers shall not accept financial or other considerations,
10

including free engineering designs, from material or equipment

suppliers for specifying their product.
b. Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances, directly or
indirectly, from contractors or other parties dealing with clients or
employers of the Engineer in connection with work for which the
Engineer is responsible.
6. Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or
professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers,
or by other improper or questionable methods.
a. Engineers shall not request, propose, or accept a commission on
a contingent basis under circumstances in which their judgment
may be compromised.
b. Engineers in salaried positions shall accept part-time engineering
work only to the extent consistent with policies of the employer
and in accordance with ethical considerations.
c. Engineers shall not, without consent, use equipment, supplies,
laboratory, or office facilities of an employer to carry on outside
private practice.
7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly
or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or
employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are
guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information
to the proper authority for action.
a. Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of
another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge
of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with
the work has been terminated.
b. Engineers in governmental, industrial, or educational employ are
entitled to review and evaluate the work of other engineers when so
required by their employment duties.
c. Engineers in sales or industrial employ are entitled to make
engineering comparisons of represented products with products of
other suppliers.
8. Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional
activities, provided, however, that Engineers may seek
indemnification for services arising out of their practice for other
than gross negligence, where the Engineer's interests cannot
otherwise be protected.
a. Engineers shall conform to state registration laws in the practice
11

Chapter 1

of engineering.
b. Engineers shall not use association with a non-engineer, a
corporation, or partnership as a "cloak" for unethical acts.
9. Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom
credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary interests of others.
a. Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or persons
who may be individually responsible for designs, inventions,
writings, or other accomplishments.
b. Engineers using designs supplied by a client recognize that the
designs remain the property of the client and may not be duplicated
by the Engineer for others without express permission.
c. Engineers, before undertaking work for others in connection with
which the Engineer may make improvements, plans, designs,
inventions, or other records that may justify copyrights or patents,
should enter into a positive agreement regarding ownership.
d. Engineers' designs, data, records, and notes referring exclusively to
an employer's work are the employer's property. Employer should
indemnify the Engineer for use of the information for any purpose
other than the original purpose.

As Revised February 2001

"By order of the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, former Section 11(c) of the NSPE Code of Ethics prohibiting
competitive bidding, and all policy statements, opinions, rulings or other
guidelines interpreting its scope, have been rescinded as unlawfully
interfering with the legal right of engineers, protected under the antitrust
laws, to provide price information to prospective clients; accordingly,
nothing contained in the NSPE Code of Ethics, policy statements, opinions,
rulings or other guidelines prohibits the submission of price quotations or
competitive bids for engineering services at any time or in any amount."

Statement by NSPE Executive Committee

In order to correct misunderstandings which have been indicated in
some instances since the issuance of the Supreme Court decision and the
entry of the Final Judgment, it is noted that in its decision of April 25, 1978,
the Supreme Court of the United States declared: "The Sherman Act does
not require competitive bidding."
It is further noted that as made clear in the Supreme Court decision:
1. Engineers and firms may individually refuse to bid for
12

engineering services.
2. Clients are not required to seek bids for engineering services.
3. Federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure
engineering services are not affected, and remain in full force and
effect.
4. State societies and local chapters are free to actively and
aggressively seek legislation for professional selection and
negotiation procedures by public agencies.
5. State registration board rules of professional conduct, including
rules prohibiting competitive bidding for engineering services, are
not affected and remain in full force and effect. State registration
boards with authority to adopt rules of professional conduct may
adopt rules governing procedures to obtain engineering services.
6. As noted by the Supreme Court, "nothing in the judgment
prevents NSPE and its members from attempting to influence
governmental action . . ."
NOTE: In regard to the question of application of the Code to
corporations vis--vis real persons, business form or type should not negate
nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code. The Code deals with
professional services, which services must be performed by real persons.
Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business
structures. The Code is clearly written to apply to the Engineer and items
incumbent on members of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions.
This applies to all pertinent sections of the Code.

SUBJECT REFERENCE GUIDE TO NSPE CODE OF ETHICS

Pigeonholing the Engineering Code of Ethics according to specific
subject [area] may seem to undermine the readers appreciation of the code
in its entirety. Nevertheless, we considered it useful to present, as a study
guide, a reference scheme constructed in such a manner as to assist the
reader in efficiently isolating which section(s) of the NSPE code address
issues related to a particular subject within professional engineering
practice.
SUBJECT

CODE SECTION

Advertising

I.5.; II.5.; III.3.a.; III.3.b.

Associating with Others

II.1.d.; III.9.b.

13

Chapter 1

SUBJECT

CODE SECTION

Community Service/Civic Affairs

III.2.a.

Competence

I.2.; II.2.c.

Confidential Information

II.1.c.; III.4.; III.4.a.; III.4.b.

Conflict of Interest

II.4.; II.4.a.; II.4.b.; II.4.c.; II.4.d.;

II.4.e.; III.5.; III.5.a.; III.5.b.

Contingent Fees

III.6.a.

Copyrights and Patents

III.9.c.

Credit for Engineering Work

III.9; III.9.a.

Duty to Disclose

III.1.b.

Duty to the Public

I.1; II.1.a.; III.2.a.; III.2.b.

Employer

I.4.

Employer's Facilities

III.6.c.

Engineering Document

II.1.b.

Errors

III.1.a.

Faithful Agents and Trustees

I.4; II.4.

Firm Name

II.1.d.

Liability

III.8.

Licensure Laws

III.8.a.

Misrepresentation/Omission of
Facts

II.3.a; II.5.a.

Opinions

II.3.b.

Outside
Employment/Moonlighting

III.1.c.; III.6.c.

14

SUBJECT

CODE SECTION

Ownership of Designs, Data,

Records and Notes

III.9.b.; III.9.d.

Plans/Specifications

III.2.b.

Political Contributions, Gifts,

Commissions

II.5.b.

Professional Reports, Statements,

Testimony

II.3.a.

Professional Responsibility

III.8.; III.8.b.

Proprietary Interests

III.9; III.9.b.

Public Awareness of Engineering

III.2.c.

Public Statements and Criticism

I.3.; II.3.; III.7.

Qualifications for Work

I.2.; II.2.a.

Recruiting Engineer from

Another Employer

III.1.d.; III.3.b.

Remuneration

III.6.b.

Reviewing the Work of Other

Engineers

III.7.a.; III.7.b.; III.7.c.

Self-Promotion

III.1.f.; III.3.a.

Signing Plans/Documents

II.2.b.

Statements on Technical Matters

for Interested Parties

II.3.c.

Submission of Articles

III.3.c.

Unethical Practice by Others

II.1.e.; III.7.

Unfair Competition

III.6.

15

Chapter 1

1.3

CASE ANALYSIS

Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
Case 7
Case 8
Case 9
Case 10
Case 11
Case 12
Sit. I
Sit. II
Sit. III
Sit. IV
Sit. V
Sit. VI
Sit. VII
Sit. VIII
Sit. IX
Situation X

Academic and Professional Qualifications and Titles

Issuing Public Statements
Conflicting Confidentiality, Ethical Responsibility
Qualification Statements and Joint Ventures
Bidding and Limited Engagement
Client Sharing and Carryover, Business Formation
Areas of Non-Competence, Design Software
Client Carryover, New Business Formation
Quality Work, Disadvantaged Firms
Hiring and Recruiting New Engineers
Issuing Public Statements, Evaluating Projects
Qualifications and the PE title, Withholding
Services
Compensation for Services Rendered
Altering Anothers Work, Improper Ownership
Consulting Contracts, Maintaining Confidentiality
Recruiting, Accepting Benefits
Public Safety vs. Public Need and Convenience
Proprietary Information, Confronting a Colleague
Disclosing the Basis of Charges to a Client
Projects That Do Not Follow Design Specifications
Misusing Proprietary Information
Abusing Licensed Software

Case 1 (Academic and Professional Qualifications and Titles)

Facts:
You hold a degree in civil engineering from Cornell and have been
employed at that same consulting engineering firm for several years. You
have performed services almost exclusively in the field of civil engineering
for your firm and have just learned that your firm has launched a marketing
campaign designed to establish a foothold within the industry. In its
literature however, youve been listed as an electrical engineer although
there are other electrical engineers also employed at the firm. You bring the
error to the marketing directors attention -- he is also an engineer who
then promises to correct the error. Nearly a whole year has passed and the
16

error in the promotional pamphlet has not been corrected.

Question:
1. What, if anything, should you do about this situation?
The code references1 relevant to this case include the following:
1. Section I.3. - Issue public statements only in an objective and
truthful manner.
2. Section I.5. - Avoid deceptive acts in the solicitation of
professional employment.
3. Section II.3. - Engineers shall issue public statements only in an
objective and truthful manner.
4. Section II.5.a. - Engineers shall not falsify or permit
misrepresentation of their, or their associates', academic or
professional qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or
exaggerate their degree of responsibility in or for the subject matter
of prior assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident to
the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts
concerning employers, employees, associates, joint venturers or
past accomplishments with the intent and purpose of enhancing
their qualifications and their work.
5. Section III.3.a. - Engineers shall avoid the use of statements
containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a
material fact necessary to keep statements from being misleading or
intended or likely to create an unjustified expectation; statements
containing prediction of future success; statements containing an
opinion as to the quality of the Engineers' services; or statements
intended or likely to attract clients by the use of showmanship,
puffery, or self-laudation, including the use of slogans, jingles, or
sensational language or format.
Deliberation:
Engineers are advised to carry out professional services only in the
area(s) in which they have verifiable training and/or expertise. Inherent in
the engineer's contract with his client, employer and the general public is
an expectation that the engineer exercise his fundamental obligation to issue
public statements in an objective and truthful manner (Code Section I.3.).
Furthermore, whenever seeking professional assignments, engineers must
always take all practical steps to refrain from misleading and deceiving acts
1

All references to the NSPE code in this and subsequent cases are to the latest
1996 revision.
17

Chapter 1

in the solicitation of professional employment.

Taken together, these three basic principles imply that in offering
professional services to clients (or potential clients), as well as in
communicating with employers, engineers have a basic ethical duty to take
appropriate steps to ensure that such offers avoid language that is
misleading, deceptive and untruthful.
Referring to the facts of this case, you may fittingly take credit for
having exercised your ethical responsibility, by informing the firms
marketing director, also an engineer, of the inaccuracies in the marketing
brochure. The marketing director, at this point is fully aware that the
marketing brochure contains inaccurate information that could mislead and
deceive a clients (or potential clients). Under these circumstances, the
marketing director has an ethical obligation to take speedy action to correct
the error, barring all basic logistical problems involved in distributing,
correcting and reprinting brochures and other promotional material. The
marketing director, a professional engineer, has an ethical obligation not
only to clients and potential clients, but also to you, to promptly correct the
error in the brochure. This could, for example, take the addition of a quick,
simple and inexpensive errata sheet to the brochure.
While there is no evidence that the error in the promotional document is
anything other than negligent oversight, the fact that the error has still not
been corrected after nearly a year cannot be ignored. This is grounds
enough to raise questions of improper and unethical conduct on the part of
the marketing director and perhaps, even the firm itself. As such, we
conclude that even though you have alerted the appropriate official about
your concerns, after nearly a year, you should have taken the issue up to the
principal of your firm. In taking this step, you should consider putting your
concerns in writing, citing all the appropriate statutes within the state
boards rules of professional conduct.
Case 2 (Issuing Public Statements)
Facts:
You hold a contract position as project manager at a major structural
engineering firm and are currently managing the construction of a new
suspension bridge across River Rowdy. At its completion, the River Rowdy
project was highly successful and has won both you and your firm huge
international recognition. At the end of your contract with the firm, you opt
to move on with your life some place else and therefore, leave the firm to
join another structural engineering firm. Your new employer has also
worked on many successful construction projects around the world, but has
no hand in the River Rowdy bridge project.
Due to your new found fame, you are contacted by a prestigious
18

professional magazine, which exclusively serves the structural engineering

market, and are asked to write an article about your experience on the River
Rowdy project. You accept the offer, and your article is published in the
following months issue of the magazine. In this article however, you list
your name as well as your affiliation with your new firm immediately under
the title of the article, while notably ignoring proper mention of your
previous firm with whom you were employed during the Rowdy project.
Instead, you only briefly refer to your previous employers role in the
project at the end of the article (under "Engineer of Record."), where you
also indicate the nature of your past relationship with that firm.
Question:
1. Is it ethical to have revealed your respective affiliations with the
two firms in the manner described above?
The code references relevant to this case include the following:
1. Preamble engineers are expected to exhibit the highest
standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and
vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the
services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality,
fairness and equity
2. Section I.3. - Issue public statements only in an objective and
truthful manner.
3. Section II.3. - Engineers shall issue public statements only in an
objective and truthful manner.
4. Section II.3.a. - Engineers shall be objective and truthful in
professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include
all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or
testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was
current.
5. Section II.5.a. - Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or
permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications.
They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or
for the subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other
presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not
misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees,
associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.
6. Section III.3.a. - Engineers shall avoid the use of statements
containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a
material fact.
7. Section III.10. - Requires that engineers shall give credit for
engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will
19

Chapter 1

recognize the proprietary interests of others. (Is there a Section

III.10?)
Deliberation:
It may surely be argued that you were not dishonest in describing your
affiliation to both your past and current employers. However, there can be
no principled defense for such an action, which appears so potentially
deceptive and inequitable. Ponder for a second a scenario in which the
author of the article was instead a journalist or some free-lance technical
writer. Without a doubt, your previous firm would have received the full
and appropriate level of recognition for its role in the Rowdy project in the
main body of the article. The article would, in all likelihood, have
conspicuously portrayed your previous employer as being material to the
content within the article, as indeed it should.
Under the ethical standards guiding professional engineering practice,
your failure to fully, and forthrightly include the relevant and material
information in your article can undoubtedly be perceived as intentional and
devious. These are hardly the hallmark of ethical execution of your
responsibilities of a professional engineer. As such your actions in this case
-- listing your name and the two firms names in the manner represented by
the facts of this case were clearly, unethical.
Case 3 (Conflict Between Confidentiality and Ethical
Responsibilities)
Facts:
The local government is considering a dump, which has been closed for
many years after being used for several decades as a commercial waste
disposal site for real estate development. As principal of your own
chemical and environmental engineering consulting firm, you submit a bid
to be considered as consultant for the research and analysis phases of the
project. You are informed by the chief engineer for the municipality of the
possibility of the existence of hazardous and toxic residue resulting from the
possible lack of regulation or control of the site either before or during the
decade or so its been idle.
As a condition of being awarded the contract, the city demands that you
sign a confidentiality clause, which would bar you from disclosing any
information regarding the project without the citys written consent. Eager
to be awarded the contract, you proceed to sign the clause.
Your preliminary examination of the site reveals that the site was
indeed not closed according to the hazardous and solid waste regulations of
the state. Tests of the surface soils on the site are inconclusive but reveal a
possibility of the existence of very high contaminant levels of hazardous
20

and toxic waste. With the likelihood of heavy rains ever so high in this rain
forest climate, you conclude that given the level of contamination it is
conceivable that the contaminated site could be exposed at the surface, due
to erosion of the cover, and even washed into Lake Pristine, which flows
immediately adjacent to the site. Besides being the primary source of
drinking water within the locale, the city is considering plans to embark on
a fundraising campaign for the construction of a recreational area, near the
site.
Upon presenting them with your findings, the city terminates the
contract, claiming instead, that the development projects will be transferred
to another site. The reasons they offer for such a move include first, the
political consequence of revealing the findings and second, the cost of
cleaning up the site. Your position however is that the city fulfill its
responsibility to the public and immediately initiate corrective action,
irrespective of whether the original development projects are relocated.
After flatly rejecting your suggestion, the city proceeds to remind you of the
confidentiality clause you signed and threatens you with legal action if you
insist on going public with your findings.
Questions:
1. As a professional engineer, are you bound by the NSPE Code of
Ethics to reveal to the appropriate regulatory agencies, your
findings and conclusions regarding the potential dangers to the
public health and the environment?
2. You were warned of the potential existence of hazardous and toxic
material in the area long before you started the project. With that
in mind, do you consider it an ethically sound decision to have
signed the confidentiality clause given that its purpose was to bar
you from revealing any information concerning dangers to the
environment and public health?
The code references relevant to this case include the following:
1. Preamble the services provided by engineers require honesty,
impartiality, fairness and equity, and must be dedicated to the
protection of the public health, safety, and welfare
2. Section I.1 - Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional
duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the
public.
3. Section III.1 - Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the
highest standards of honesty and integrity.
4. Section III.1.e - Engineers shall not promote their own interest at
the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession.
21

Chapter 1

5. Section III.2. Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public
interest.
6. Section III.3 - Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that
deceives the public.
7. Section III.4 - Engineers shall not disclose, without consent,
confidential information concerning the business affairs or
technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or
public body on which they serve.
8. Section III.5 - Engineers shall not be influenced in their
professional duties by conflicting interests.
Deliberation:
When it comes to ethical conduct, protecting the public health and
safety is by and large considered the most rudimentary responsibility on the
part of practicing professional engineers. The underlying principle and
reason for engineering licensure is the serious manner in which the impact
of engineering practice is viewed by licensing institutions. The conception
that engineers are often involved in highly technical and specialized
activity, which invariably have a serious impact on the well being of all
members of the general public, is, in other words, the reason why such
massive emphasis is placed on the regulation of engineering activity under
the laws of each state. Increasingly, engineers are involved in new and
complex activities requiring highly specialized knowledge and skill, which
often only they possess. In this regard, it is not at all far-fetched to say that
the practice of engineering is an activity, which should remain steadfastly
respectful of the public trust.
It pays to note however, that the belief that the engineers highest
ethical obligation lies in the protection of the public health and safety is
unfortunately, not shared by all professional engineers (a similar
observation can be made regarding other non-engineering professions as
well). Those who refuse to subscribe to the view of the engineers primary
ethical responsibility in safeguarding the public health and safety, have
traditionally argued that since engineers are usually either employees of
some organization or are retained by clients, their principal ethical
obligation should be to their employer or their client and not to the public.
Despite the signing of the confidentiality clause, you as a professional
engineer are bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics which clearly indicates that
in matters involving the public health and safety, your paramount
responsibility lies in the protection of the public health and safety, not in the
political and/or economic interests of your employer or client. Under the
facts of this case, there is more than enough justification for you to
conclude that a serious public health danger could occur if the wetland
22

project is allowed to proceed as scheduled without remediation of the

hazardous material on the site.
Given that your client has made it clear (after you revealed the results of
you preliminary analysis) that political and economic considerations have
been placed before protection of public health and safety, remaining mute
essentially renders you party to a conspiracy of silence, which is clearly
detrimental to the public health and safety and thus a breach of the NSPE
Code of Ethics. You must immediately identify the appropriate regulatory
officials and proceed to explain your expert findings, conclusions and
recommendations. Under such circumstances, where your professional
judgment has been overruled, you should not hesitate to notify any such
authority as may be appropriately authorized to address the situation.
With regard to your signing the confidentiality agreement, while such
agreements are relatively common and are usually consistent with NSPE
Code Section III.4, you should have refused to sign the agreement as soon
as it became known to you that there was a reasonable likelihood that your
professional activities would result in the discovery of hazardous and toxic
material. It is worth mentioning that, while the confidentiality agreement
itself is not necessarily a bad thing, the mere fact that it prevents you from
reporting risks to the public health and safety is a clear violation of the
NSPE Code of Ethics. As indicated earlier, this provision goes to the very
heart of the NSPE Code of Ethics and provides engineers with the ability to
exercise their judgment and discretion to disclose such actions that imperil
the public health and welfare. You should obviously have done a better job
at carefully considering the signing of the agreement and its possible
implications because the signing of such an agreement, given the prevailing
circumstances, is a clear violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Case 4 (Submitting Qualification Statements and Joint Ventures)
Facts:
Blizak County Public Works Department (BCPWD) has just released
plans to build the largest shopping mall in the state, and has publicly invited
qualification statements from interested engineering firms. According to
state law and a local ordinance, which very much apply to BCPWD:
1. All firms submitting statements of interest must be considered
2. No less than three firms, deemed most highly qualified must be
interviewed in order to determine:
i.
The ability of their professional personnel
ii.
Past performance
iii.
Ability to meet time and budget requirements
iv.
Location of the firm
23

Chapter 1

v.

Recent, current, and projected workloads of the firm and

other qualification factors determined by the agency.

State law further requires that, following these interviews, the agency
must select the "most qualified" firm for negotiation of a contract. In the
event that the parties are not able to agree on the terms of an agreement, the
agency must then pursue negotiations with the second-best firm.
After receiving several bids, BCPWD has narrowed the number of
qualification submissions to the top seven most qualified firms, one of
which, yours, has proposed a joint venture, given the size and complexity of
the project as well as the specialized technical expertise required for its
successful completion.
Following your screening interview, you are advised by the BCPWD
selection committee that your proposed joint venture has been deemed
indicative of insufficient technical expertise needed for certain aspects of
the project. Additionally, the committee found that your joint venture
proposal was suggestive of a lack of desirable backup of specialized
technical personnel.
Upon being informed of the committees findings at a public meeting
held prior to their final selection, you move to quickly arrange for other
participation in your proposed joint venture. With this move, you hope to
overcome the apparent deficiencies in your overall ability to provide the full
range of services needed to be a competitive bidder.
You then petition to the BCPWD selection committee to allow you to
modify your original qualification statement and proposal in order to reflect
the changes you have made in the composition of your technical team. For
the sake of fairness, all competing firms would also be allowed to modify
their statements of qualification if they so desired.
The BCPWD, after discussing your request with legal counsel, found no
legal basis for denying your request, and summarily proceed to permit your
firm to submit a revised qualification statement.
As you might imagine, not everybody is thrilled by this development.
As soon as news of the committees action disclosed, members of the public
and of the city council object to the committees decision allowing your
firm to resubmit a revised qualification proposal. In fact, they further allege
that in doing so the committee violated the very intent of applicable
procurement law, and also that your firm, for its part, acted unethically in
even making such a request to begin with.
Questions:
1. In your own judgment, was it unethical to request resubmission of a
revised statement in order to enhance your firms competitiveness?
24

The code references relevant to this case include the following:

1. Section II.2 -- Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of
their competence.
2. Section II.2.a -- Engineers shall undertake assignments only when
qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields
involved.
3. Section II.2.c -- Engineers may accept assignments and assume
responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign and seal
the engineering documents for the entire project, provided that each
technical segment is signed and sealed only by the qualified
engineers who prepared the segment.
Deliberation:
In order to fully appreciate the analysis and conclusion we are about to
present we must first shed light on what may have been the rationale behind
the BCPWDs decision to allow your firm to resubmit a revised
qualification statement. [We must point out however that ours is not an
attempt to render legal judgment on whether the committees decision to
permit resubmission of a revised statement was a violation of the governing
state law or local ordinance on engineering services procurement.]
That said, we may note that the applicable laws (as described above)
appear similar to the Federal A/E selection law (Brooks Act) and the laws
of other states, which contemplate a procedure whereby an authorized
public entity, may select the "best qualified" firm via a process like the one
described above. Furthermore, in the context of this case the "firm" would
be interpreted by these laws to include a joint venture, which is essentially a
legal entity for the one project. We therefore submit that a joint venture is
indeed a perfectly legitimate entity in which all involved parties are (to be)
held jointly responsible for all activities carried out by or on behalf of said
venture.
We might also add that as long as all competing firms are given equal
opportunity to take advantage of such a procedure, which they clearly were
in this case, we find no basis to deem as unfair, the committees decision to
extend to your firm the opportunity to revise the make up of its technical
team via a joint venture so designed as to meet a higher level of
qualification. Indeed, we posit that it would be a peculiar result, if not an
absurd course of action, that a state or local statute whose sole intent is to
achieve selection of only the "best qualified" applicants be interpreted to
preclude a procedure intended to facilitate each "firms" desire, if they are
so inclined, to present themselves in a most formidable of technical and
other professional qualifications.
25

Chapter 1

In fact, under some reading of Section II.2 (including all subsections), it

would be perfectly rational to interpret your firms actions as grossly
unethical, if not fraudulent, had you failed to make a reasonable effort to
somehow upgrade the scope of your technical expertise (e.g. through the
joint venture) once it became apparent to you that additional technical
support was required by the client. Indeed, it appears that you exercised
what may have been one of only a few ethical alternatives at your disposal
by initiating a joint venture to upgrade your firms qualifications. Short of
that, the only other ethical possibility would have been to withdraw your
firms submission from further consideration. By our account therefore, it
was not unethical for you to seek to upgrade the technical make up as well
as qualification statement in order to improve your firms odds of securing
the contract.
Case 5 (Bidding and Limited Engagement)
Facts:
You have inherited and are principal owner of a
construction/excavation-contracting firm. In addition to this role, you are
also a principal in a local consulting engineering company. Your consulting
firm has been hired by the municipality to prepare plans and specifications
for the design and eventual construction of a dam. The scope of your
services is however limited to the design and specification phase of the
project. The municipality retains the services of another engineering firm to
manage the bidding and construction phases of the project, using the plans
and specifications that you have submitted. The project is later advertised
for public bidding at which point you submit a bid on behalf of your
contracting firm.
Question:
1. Have you acted ethically by bidding as the excavation contractor on
a project you designed?
The code references relevant to this case include the following:
1. Section III.4.a - Engineers shall not, without the consent of all
interested parties, promote or arrange for new employment or
practice in connection with a specific project for which the
Engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
2. Section III.8.a - Engineers shall conform to state licensure laws in
the practice of engineering.
Deliberation:
There are a few inferences that can be made from the facts of the case as
26

it has been presented above. First, by dint of your involvement in the

design and specification of the dam you would posses significantly
thorough knowledge about the plans, specifications, drawings, and
financing of the project, which would arguably put you in a position
whereby you have a material and unfair competitive advantage over other
contractors who submit bids on the project. Secondly, although the facts
presented in this case do not suggest such a possibility, you (and your firm)
could end up being accused of submitting a design/specification proposal,
which specifies and/or includes performance criteria that were generated
with a future bid for the excavation/construction contract in mind.
Finally, one could deduce from the facts of the case that you may have
been hired for design and specification only in accordance with the laws of
the jurisdiction whereby the nature of the work being performed precludes
you from taking on additional responsibilities under a design/build
arrangement, and that your limited engagement effectively permits you to
bid the project as a contractor through a de facto design/build arrangement
(See Code Section III.8.a.).
Though not supported by the facts of this particular case, it is
conceivable that the purpose of this arrangement was merely to serve as a
maneuver allowing you to evade a legal restriction on design/build thereby
handing you a competitive advantage over other bidding parties. If this
turned out to be the case, it would undoubtedly constitute an attempt to
sabotage procedures at least arguably intended for the protection of the
public, in which case such an arrangement would be patently unethical!
Also worth noting is the fact that engaging the services of a separate
engineering firm to administer the bidding and construction phase, will
presumably infuse the process with an appreciable degree of objectivity and
impartiality, thus resulting in an ongoing independent review of the plans
and specifications your firm submitted, all for the benefit of the client.
Furthermore, the benefit of the design engineer's thorough knowledge and
understanding of the plans and specifications as part of the construction of
the dam is an option a client should be able to consider and fully utilize at
their discretion.
In light of this, and under the facts of the case, we are inclined to
conclude that it is quite ethical for you to bid as the contractor on a project
you designed, as long as the process by which you obtain and undertake
such a responsibility was not a ploy to evade the requirements of state and
local procurement, licensure laws, and disclosures or consent of all
interested parties contained.
Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties,
participate in or represent an adversary interest in connection with a specific
project or proceeding in which the Engineer has gained particular
27

Chapter 1

specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer.

Case 6 (Client Sharing and Carryover, New Business Formation)
Facts:
You are in the employ of a fellow consulting engineer, Mr. Split, who
has put you in charge, as project manager, of several project engagements.
Summoning you to his office one morning, Mr. Split discloses to you his
decision to terminate his current general consulting practice in order to
embark on a more specialized engineering (consulting) practice in a more
urban township where he anticipates engagements with bigger industrial
clients.
Mr. Split makes a business proposal to you, the crux of which is as
follows:
You would complete all ongoing (as well as pending) projects on the
basis of an apportionment of all profits pertaining thereto upon completion
of said projects, you would maintain the general practice under the current
firm name, and on his behalf and responsibility, here too, with a division of
profits for all future work performed.
Unfortunately, there were a few sticking points that prevented you from
reaching a consensus on Mr. Spits proposed arrangement, namely, the
terms of profit sharing on all existing and/or future projects, responsibility
for potential liability on projects and finally, the terms under which transfer
of equipment and facilities were to be carried out.
Ensuing the collapse of your negotiations with Mr. Split, you proceed to
advise Mr. Split that if he did in fact carry out his plans (i.e. close his office,
abandon the local projects, and open a new office in another location for a
different type of practice) you for your part, intend to open an office in your
own name after which you would offer services to [the] clients in a bid to
complete the projects. Mr. Split is quite displeased with your intentions and
questions whether you may ethically assume completion of the projects
without his expressed consent.
Questions:
1. Would abandoning ongoing projects constitute ethical behavior on
Mr. Splits part?
2. Would it be ethical for you to offer services in a bid to complete the
projects under your own responsibility and risk without first
obtaining Mr. Splits concurrence?
The code references relevant to this case include the following:
1. Preamble As members of this profession, engineers are
expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and
28

2.

3.
4.
5.

6.

integrityEngineers must perform under a standard of professional

behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical
conduct
Section I.6 Engineers in the fulfillment of their professional
duties shall conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically
and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation and usefulness
of the profession.
Section II.4 Engineers shall act for each client or employer as
faithful agents or trustees.
Section III.1 - Engineer shall be guided in all their relations by the
highest standards of honest and integrity.
Section III.4.a Engineers shall not, without the consent of all
interested parties, promote or arrange for new employment or
practice in connection with a specific project for which the
Engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge
Section III.6 Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or
advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully
criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable
methods

Deliberation:
One would find in many professional service contracts a provision,
which allows the client(s) to endorse transfer of responsibility to an
engineer other than the engineer with whom they had originally contracted.
In this regard, it should be noted that despite the nature of the conflict
between you and Mr. Split, it would be necessary, should you make good
on your plan to open an office in your own name and offer services to [the]
clients, for the respective clients for the projects to agree to a transfer of
responsibility from Mr. Splits firm to yours.
Having said that, we are not told whether the projects in question were
covered by written owner-engineer agreements, and, if so, whether those
agreements contained such a clause as is usually found in professional
service contracts that would render them untransferable without the consent
of the client. Nevertheless, should it indeed be the case that there were
really no written agreements with a reassign clause, it would be ethically
required (under Section III.4.a) that the clients agree to have you assume
responsibility for the completion of the projects.
Our reasoning in this particular case is based largely on our conviction
that Section III.4.a of the NSPE Code, in a broad context, does not bar you
from assuming responsibility for the completion of the projects, if indeed
the clients sanction such action on your part. The essence of Section III.4.a,
as we decipher it, is that an engineer will not instigate self-promotional
29

Chapter 1

efforts to take over projects in which he had been involved while in the
employ of others. In this case however, the facts clearly indicate that you
were not the originator of the idea of assuming the mandate for completing
the projects; in fact, your decision to do so was borne out of Mr. Splits
proposed action.
In this regard, your plan, should you follow through with it, would not
constitute an attempt on your part to engage in unfair competition under the
principles embodied in 11 (unfair competition clause). You should however
neither embark on any negotiation efforts nor make substantive offers of
services while the agreement with Mr. Split is still in force.
Mr. Split, under the NSPE Code of Ethics, may not abandon the
projects under the circumstances presented in this case. Under NSPE Code
Section II.4, he must act for each client or employer as a faithful agent or
trustee." Per this provision, if Mr. Split finds himself unable and/or
unwilling to complete the projects, he is ethically obligated to make other
arrangements geared towards proper completion of work on those projects
under the original contract agreements. Should he fail to do so, he would be
ethically duty-bound to negotiate a termination (abrogation) of the contracts
with the clients in order that they might be free to seek the necessary
engineering services from other sources.
Having the pertinent and specialized knowledge and background on the
projects, you would, in all likelihood, be the engineer of choice for the
clients to consider for new arrangements for completion of the projects. As
a practical matter, it would appear that Mr. Split has little real choice but to
conclude an arrangement with you on the best terms he can negotiate. But
if for any reason such an orderly transfer is not arranged and Mr. Split were
to leave the work uncompleted (exposing him, of course, to liability claims)
you are quite surely not barred from offering your professional services to
the clients.
Against the backdrop of the foregoing, it appears natural to conclude
that any action by Mr. Split to abandon any/all projects currently under way
would constitute a clear violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Furthermore, it would be ethical for you to offer your services to complete
said projects under the burden of your own responsibility and risk without
any approval from Mr. Split. Clearly, this would not be the case if any
agreements or contracts Mr. Split may have signed vis--vis specific
projects were still valid and in effect.
Case 7 (Providing Services in Areas of Non-Competence, Design
Assistance Software)
Facts:
A fellow nuclear engineer colleague of yours has informed you of the
30

release of a phenomenal new software utility. This package, he advises

you, features an all-inclusive interactive library of standard, as well as
custom design templates, which make design and costing of construction
projects a breeze, even for persons with absolutely no training and/or
experience in the facilities design and construction field. The software is so
sophisticated, yet user-friendly, that you could design and cost say,
Californias Golden Gate Bridge in just a matter of minutes using a guided
permutation of mouse clicks and drag-and-drop activity.
After illustrating the alleged prowess of this software to you on his
home computer, you are thoroughly impressed and immediately proceed to
mail order your own copy of the program suite. With the facility of your
newly acquired design and costing software, you plan to keep busy on
your days off, thereby making a little extra money on the side. Soon
enough, you begin to advertise and offer facilities design and construction
services to the general public on a commercial basis.
Question:
1. Is there, in your mind, any ethical justification for your actions as
portrayed in the case above?
The code references relevant to this case include:
1. Section II.2 - Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of
their competence
2. Section II.2.a - Engineers shall undertake assignments only when
qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields
involved
3. Section II.2 - Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans
or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack
competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their
direction and control
4. Section II.2.c - Engineers may accept assignments and assume
responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign and seal
the engineering documents for the entire project, provided that each
technical segment is signed and sealed only by the qualified
engineers who prepared the segment
5. Section III.2.b - Engineers shall not complete, sign or seal plans
and/or specifications that are not in conformity with applicable
engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such
unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and
withdraw from further service on the project
Deliberation:
31

Chapter 1

The issue of whether an engineer possesses the appropriate level of

competence to perform specified services is one of most basic professional
and ethical issues faced by practitioners (See Code Section II.2.a.). NSPE
has been supportive of the concept that a qualified individual engineer,
regardless of his or her particular area of technical discipline, should be
licensed as a professional engineer. This position should however not be
understood to suggest that all engineers are free to practice without
restriction in any and all areas within the practice of engineering. Instead,
all engineers are implored to exercise careful professional judgment and
discretion and practice solely within his or her area(s) of competency2.
It is clear that you, a nuclear engineer by training, have no apparent
substantive background or experience in the area of facilities design and
construction. A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to specify, design
and cost out a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an
individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design
and construction services. An individual seeking to obtain an acceptable
level of competency in the basic elements of facilities design and
construction (e.g., civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering)
should seek and be able to demonstrate appropriate engineering and related
education and experience). Relying on a how to CD-ROM appears to
show a general disregard for the fundamental role that professional
engineers play in protecting the public health and safety and not only
minimizes, but also scorns the high level of knowledge and expertise
necessary to perform these critical responsibilities.
Professional
engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely
upon computers and technical information instead of time-tested
professional experience and engineering judgment.
In a sense, the direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike
mail order certifications offered by so called diploma mills whereby
individuals self certify their competency based upon a perfunctory review
process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice. By
ordering and using the CD-ROM, you in a sense were self-certifying your
own competency (or lack thereof) to perform facilities design and construction
services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and
qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional
2

The NSPE Board of Ethical Review (BER) has for example reiterated this position in
a decision rendered in BER Case 71-2 -- a case involving the brokerage of engineering
services by two firms competing for government work and the question of professional
competence that engineers have an ethical obligation to seek work only in areas
where they possess educational background and experience or to retain individuals who
possess the necessary educational background and experience to perform the work.
32

manner. Such an act stands in blatant and complete contradiction to the basic
ethical principles established in the Code of Ethics.
Notwithstanding the fact that your actions as described above constitute a
clear violation of the Code, we must emphasize that it is not our general
contention that the use of computers, CD-ROMs and other technological tools
as supplemental utilities in engineering practice is bad. Indeed, technological
advancement is largely a self-sustaining process, which thrives on the use,
perfection and metamorphosis of pre-existing technology. It would be wrong to
discourage its use as it clearly plays a seminal role in the practice of
engineering. It is our firm belief however that technology, be it in the form of
CD-ROMs, computers, etc, must never be made a surrogate for sound,
professional engineering judgment.
In conclusion, to the extent you decided to offer facilities design and
construction services, when you clearly lacked the appropriate training,
education and experience, you have violated the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Case 8 (Client Carryover, New Business Formation)
Facts:
You are one of four top-level engineering employees of IntelliTech
Consulting who have all tendered resignations following disagreement with
the boss on certain firm policies. Together with your three colleagues, you
promptly organize and incorporate a new firm, Crush Consulting, with all
four of you as the principals.
With your new firm in place, you contact former clients of IntelliTech
Consulting including those who, at the time, were still negotiating new
project engagements with IntelliTech. All four of you have a history of
involvement with many of these clients dating back to the time when you
were still employed at IntelliTech.
The situation now is such that while you are aggressively making
contact with former IntelliTech clients to indicate the availability of your
new firm for assignments, IntelliTech is also doing the same, further
reiterating its capacity to and interest in still providing consulting services
to its clients, despite the departure of four of its top engineers.
After learning of your attempts to woo its clients, IntelliTech issues a
formal protest on ethical grounds, alleging that your firm has violated NSPE
rules against supplanting. Meanwhile, those of its clients whom you have
contacted have informed IntelliTech that your firm, Crush Consulting, has
systematically cast doubt on the ability of IntelliTech to furnish quality
professional services. In discussions with these clients IntelliTech has in
turn expressed raging doubt that Crush Consulting is qualified to provide
any quality services.
33

Chapter 1

Questions:
1. Do you believe you, including the other three founders of Crush
Consulting, have violated the NSPE Code of Ethics by soliciting
work from former IntelliTech clients?
2. Do you believe Crush Consulting has acted unethically in casting
doubt on the ability of IntelliTech to provide quality services to its
clients?
3. Do you believe IntelliTech was ethically justified in casting doubt
on the ability of your firm, Crush Consulting, to provide quality
services to these clients?
The code references relevant to this case include the following:
1. Section III.4.a -- Engineers shall not, without the consent of all
interested parties, promote or arrange for new employment or
practice in connection with a specific project for which the
Engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
2. Section III.4.b -- Engineers shall not, without the consent of all
interested parties, participate in or represent an adversary interest in
connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the
Engineer has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of
a former client or employer.
3. Section III.6 -- Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or
advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully
criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable
methods.
4. Section III.7 -- Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or
falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects,
practice or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe
others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such
information to the proper authority for action.
Deliberation:
The application of Section III.4.a with regard to Crush Consultings
solicitation of former IntelliTech clients poses somewhat of a unique
challenge to us. As presented in the facts above, it neither appears that you
undertook the solicitation efforts with the former IntelliTech clients, nor
engaged in negotiations for work with these clients while (you and your
colleagues were still) employed at IntelliTech. So although it is quite
conceivable that the four of you, now founders of Crush Consulting,
discussed the idea of soliciting work from former clients of IntelliTech
while still employed there, that degree of activity falls short of a violation of
the Code under a literal reading of Section III.4.a.
34

It is however not quite as clear with regard to the latter portion of

Section III.4.a, as relates to practice in connection with a specific project
for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized
knowledge. Here, we are inclined to conclude that the scope of your
involvement with former IntelliTech clients during the period when you
were employees of the firm was limited to specific projects under
consideration at the time. The facts, as they are presented above would only
allow us to go so far. In this regard, negotiating new contract engagements
with former IntelliTech clients as representatives of Crush Consulting -- is
perfectly in order and does not constitute a violation of Section III.4.a of the
NSPE Code.
Furthermore, we contend that Section III.4.b of the Code is not to be
interpreted to give an engineer or firm the right to prevent other engineers
from having a crack at serving former clients of firms for whom they had
worked. Indeed, for IntelliTech to assert a right to bar you from competing
with them in such a manner, Section III.4.b requires that the facts
unequivocally demonstrate that they (IntelliTech) either had a contract for
the work, or had been selected for negotiation by the client(s) for the
particular work.
Against this backdrop, we can only deduce from the submitted facts that
IntelliTech neither had an existing contract, nor was engaged in negotiations
for projects, vis--vis the pitches made by Crush Consulting to former
IntelliTech clients. To that extent, and under those facts, you had every
right to solicit assignments from the said clients. In short, you did not
violate the Code of Ethics by generally seeking work from former
IntelliTech clients, but were in violation of the Code with regard to projects
for which you had particular knowledge while in the employ of IntelliTech.
Much less murky, is the charge and counter-charge scenario by both
Crush and IntelliTech, regarding the capability of the other to provide
adequate and/or quality services to the client(s). These actions clearly
constitute affronts to Section III.6 (and to somewhat of a slightly lesser
extent, Section III.7). In fact, neither Section III.6 nor Section III.7 entirely
outlaws the right or duty of an engineer to offer adverse comments on the
capacity (or lack thereof) of another engineer or firm to a prospective client
under proper circumstances where such comments are honest, objective and
not tinged by greed and self-interest. Au contraire, Section III.6 and
Section III.7 are both fully applicable when the purpose is undoubtedly to
prevent, hinder, or otherwise obstruct the other party from reaping business,
professional and/or personal benefits from service they might otherwise
have rendered.
The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and
intent of both Crush and IntelliTech Consulting were to injure the prospects
35

Chapter 1

of the other in their respective professional endeavors. It is quite

conceivable and indeed, realistic -- that under such circumstances where
your departure from IntelliTech was on a note of disagreement, both firms
felt compelled to react to the other's claims or statements. The issue of who
might have "cast the first stone," is completely irrelevant and thus not
worthy of any consideration in this case. Both sides were in obvious
violation of the Code by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here,
the mud slinging was carried out with malicious attempt to secure
personal benefits.
Case 9 (Quality Work, Disadvantaged Firms)
Facts:
Your consulting engineering firm, which specializes in
remediation/reclamation of wasteland, is renowned for its large state,
federal and local government contracts. In recent times, a significant
amount of socioeconomic legislation and regulation has been enacted at the
federal, state and local levels to promote the retention of businesses that had
been heretofore underrepresented in the procurement process. As a result,
many engineering firms have been encouraged both by public and private
clients to establish goals to retain qualified employees and consultants
representative of such underrepresented groups. Your firm is amongst
several that have been targeted during this campaign.
In support of this cause, you retain the services of Simplex Consulting,
a disadvantaged firm of the type described above on several public and
private projects. Your partnership with Simplex, which has gotten your
firm a great deal of positive public relations, is ongoing and has remained so
for nearly two years. This is despite the fact that the quality of work
delivered by Simplex, though acceptable, is not of the highest possible
standard. Furthermore, Simplex has in recent months began charging your
firm significantly higher fees, taking advantage of an article in a local
publication which was very flattering of your firms efforts to retain
disadvantaged firms like Simplex.
Question:
1. What, if any, do you believe is the proper course of action under
the circumstances presented above?
The code references relevant to this case include the following:
1. Preamble -- Engineering is an important and learned profession.
The members of the profession recognize that their work has a
direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people.
Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty,
36

impartiality, fairness and equity, and must be dedicated to the

protection of the public health, safety and welfare. In the practice
of their profession, engineers must perform under a standard of
professional behavior, which requires adherence to the highest
principles of ethical conduct on behalf of the public, clients,
employers and the profession.
2. Section II.2.a -- Engineers shall undertake assignments only when
qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields
involved.
3. Section III.1.e Engineers shall not promote their own interest at
the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession.
4. Section III.2.a Engineers shall seek opportunities to participate in
civic affairs; career guidance for youths; and work for the
advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their
community.
Deliberation:
It is our contention that Section III.2.a of the Code of Ethics is
tantamount to (at least) a general endorsement of the establishment of
voluntary programs that afford engineers the opportunity to be of
constructive service in community affairs and to work for its advancement
and well-being. That said however, we believe that the continued retention
of a firm that is not only substandard in terms of the quality of service
rendered, but also abusive of its relationship with its client, effectively
undermines the spirit of goodwill hereby advocated within the Code.
Though not specifically annunciated in the code, such acts as the
unjustified escalation of Simplex Consultings charges, must give way to a
more ethical, careful and methodical interest-based negotiation procedure.
Under the facts presented above this type of negotiation was absent. In
contrast, Simplex unilaterally imposed an escalation of its fees and charges
on your firm, thereby spurning its obligation to negotiate any such future
increases in fees and charges with your firm.
We conclude by saying that in order to enhance the quality and relative
value of Simplex Consultings services, your firm has an obligation to
engage in constructive discussions and negotiations with Simplex.
However, in the event that a mutual agreement on terms and conditions of
service cannot be reached, your firm should discontinue its relationship with
Simplex. Notwithstanding our position on the matter, we believe that your
firm should continue striving to retain qualified employees and consultants
representative of such under-represented, minority groups.

37

Chapter 1

Case 10 (Hiring and Recruiting New Engineers)

Facts:
You have been inundated with junk mail since you begun active
browsing on the Internet. Recently you have received one unsolicited mail
sent to you by a techie placement agency offering you monetary
compensation for providing them with the names (and other contact
information) of qualified engineering and technical personnel in your
county. The compensation, assuming the referred individuals were
eventually hired, ranges from $2000 to $8000 depending on the discipline,
background and experience of the referred individual. The entire scheme
has been advertised in the letter as "a highly novel approach to personnel
recruitment."
The stated purpose of this campaign is to fill current techie openings
in several client companies for whom the agency does work. These
companies, the letter further states, offer very competitive salaries and
exceptional benefits packages.
You may assume for the purposes of this case that the prospective
employing firms have expressed a willingness to employ techies under
the method described above, and that in doing so they have agreed to pay
the finders bonus in addition to other fees charged by the placement
agency.
Question:
1. In your mind, would it be ethical to submit names of prospective
employees in light of the scheme described above?
The code references relevant to this case include the following:
1. Section III.l.d -- Engineers shall not attempt to attract an engineer
from another employer by false or misleading pretenses
2. Section III.l.e -- Engineers shall not promote their own interest at
the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession
Deliberation:
Although the concept of paying a bonus to engineering employees to
induce, entice, or encourage other engineers away from their current
employment appears to have the ring of commercialism to it, the act, in and
of itself, need not be unethical. Under these circumstances however, it pays
to emphasize that while employed engineers (according to the Code) have
the absolute right to change employment as and when they deem fit, the
Code is best honored if the initiative for the change in employment should
come from the employed engineer.
That said, the issue here is the ethics (on your part) of either accepting
38

or declining the offer to submit the names of prospective employees in

return for monetary compensation. In this regard, we contend that unless
there is evidence of "false or misleading" statements in the solicitation
letter, and/or that you are somehow found culpable for "false or misleading
pretenses" in pursuing the scheme, you would pretty much be in the clear of
any allegations of unethical conduct. According to the facts presented to us,
there is neither evidence of "false or misleading" statements in the
solicitation letter, nor any indication that you are guilty of "false or
misleading pretenses."
That said, we must reiterate our disdain for a recruitment procedure,
which perpetuates a sub-professional approach to professional employment.
Despite our full recognition of the competitive aspects of personnel
recruitment among firms, we persist in our view that a proper professional
process is one in which initiative for the change in employment comes from
the employee and that such decisions not be made subject to the crude and
aggressive use of financial bait to any parties directly or indirectly
associated with the process.
Participating in this kind of arrangement for financial gain would
constitute an act on your part for your very own interest. Whether that act
would be at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession may
be in the "gray" area. Conversely, the seemingly ulterior motive of the
scheme, coupled with what is, at best, a questionable practice would most
likely expose the engineering profession to an unfortunate perception and
criticism as such: that its members are willing to sacrifice the principles
noted above for selfish gain. The unpleasant end result here would be the
creation of an image whereby engineers appear to be treated as objects
rather than on their own professional merits, and motivated by their own
selfish enterprise vis--vis employment opportunities. In this regard, we
conclude that it would be unethical for you to submit any names under the
method described above.
Case 11 (Issuing Public Statements, Evaluating Projects)
Facts:
Your successful structural engineering practice has earned you a great
deal of national recognition. About a month or so ago, you were hired by a
prestigious newspaper to visit the site of an ongoing local bridge
construction project and present your assessment of the progress made so
far on project in a written report. Your assignment comes at a time when
the bridge project has suffered several construction delays, cost increases,
and has also been involved in litigation stemming from the many on-site
accidents that have occurred.
As the project oversight authority, the state highway department has
39

Chapter 1

optimistically announced (for the umpteenth time) the date for the opening
of the bridge to public use, and has instructed state engineers to wrap up
last-minute repairs and modifications.
After a few brief visits to the construction site to make visual
observation, you issue a report that broadly identifies potential problems,
offers possible solutions and makes recommendations for additional testing
in the immediate future.
Feature articles published after your report by the newspaper allege,
based on information supposedly gleaned from your report, that the bridge
has major safety problems that need to be thoroughly examined. These
publications cause an indefinite postponement of the project completion
date. Furthermore, the newspaper makes several additional allegations of
misconduct and incompetence against the project engineers, contractors and
the state highway department.
In reaction to questions later posed to you by the state during its
investigation of the matter, you explain that your report was not meant to
paint a conclusive portrait of the safety standards of the bridge, but rather
merely intended to identify what, in your professional opinion, were
potential safety lapses in the construction work.
Question:
1. As a professional engineer, was it ethical to agree to perform this
investigation for the newspaper in the manner described above?
The code references relevant to this case include the following:
1. Section II.3.a -- Engineers shall be objective and truthful in
professional reports, statements or testimony. They shall include
all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements or
testimony."
2. Section II.3.b -- Engineers may express publicly a professional
opinion on technical subjects only when that opinion is founded
upon adequate knowledge of the facts and competence in the
subject matter."
3. Section II.3.c -- Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms or
arguments on technical matters which are inspired or paid for by
interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by
explicitly identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they
are speaking and by revealing the existence of any interest the
engineers may have in the matters."
4. Section III.2.a -- Engineers shall seek opportunities to be of
constructive service in civic affairs and work for the advancement
of the safety, health and well-being of their community."
40

5. Section III.3.a -- Engineers shall avoid the use of statements

containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a
material fact.
Deliberation:
As a professional engineer, whatever technical expertise you have to
contribute to the discussion of public issues is, no doubt, vital to the interest
of the public. Indeed as a professional engineer you are encouraged to
become an active and involved participant in discussions on matters
concerning the well-being of the public. Indeed, as it is clearly indicated by
the language of Section III.2.a. of the NSPE Code of Ethics, engineers
should "seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and
work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their
community."
It goes without saying however that your involvement in these matters
must always be guided by appropriate professional conduct. In situations
where your technical expertise is being sought in the public discussion, you
should by all means offer objective, truthful, and dispassionate professional
advice that is relevant to the prevailing issue(s). Indeed as a professional
engineer, you should only render a professional opinion publicly, when that
opinion is
1. Based upon adequate knowledge of the relevant facts and
circumstances involved, and
2. You possess the expertise to render such an opinion.
Under the facts presented in this case, it doesnt appear that you were
merely an impartial engineer who on your own accord took the initiative to
offer professional public safety concerns with regard to the bridge
construction. Rather, you were retained (and paid) by the newspaper to
provide professional opinion, apparently with the understanding that the
opinion could serve as the basis for news articles concerning the safety of
the bridge. (For what other reason would a newspaper retain an expert like
yourself to offer this type of service?) This fact immediately appends an
ethical dimension to the case and is thus worthy of careful ethical analysis.
That said, it is our view that as a condition of your retention by the
newspaper, you should have, as a matter of professional ethics, required that
the newspaper clearly state in the articles that you had been retained for a
fee by the newspaper to perform the cursory observation of the bridge site.
In fact, under such circumstances where you are being paid by a
newspaper to render a professional opinion concerning a matter of public
concern, you must act with particular care, utmost integrity as well as
41

Chapter 1

dignity, and should take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to

minimize, or better yet, eliminate the possibility that your professional
opinions are inaccurately and/or incompletely reported. You should also
employ the same degree of diligence to ensure that your expert opinion is
not taken out of context. Clearly, there are limits to what you can do in
these areas. By the same token however, we believe that you have an
obligation to the public as well as to the profession to protect the integrity
of your professional opinions and the manner in which those opinions are
disseminated to the public.
There is no greater cause associated with the practice of engineering
than to serve the public interest. When an engineering project such as the
one described above has a direct and substantial impact on the daily life of
the citizenry it is desirable that there be public discussion. The Code does
not preclude engineers, as citizens, from participating in such public
discussion. In fact, it is quite clearly inferable from the Code of Ethics that
engineers who have a particular qualification in the field of engineering
have a responsibility to present public comment and suggestions under the
appropriate circumstances. As a professional engineer, you may and,
indeed in some cases, must ethically offer technical judgment on matters of
public importance, but not without full recognition of your professional
obligations on matters concerning relevance of expertise as well as
adequacy of knowledge.
Your failure to oblige the newspaper to state in any articles (based on
your report) that yours was a fee-based partnership with them to provide
professional opinion concerning the safety of the bridge, amounts to giving
the newspaper a free hand to manipulate your report and/or the public to
suit their own objectives. We therefore conclude that it was unethical to
agree to perform the investigation for the newspaper in the manner
described above.

Case 12 (Qualifications and The PE Title, Withholding Services)

Facts:
Mr. Skip is employed, as draftsman by your medium-sized engineering
consulting firm. Even though he was enrolled in a two-year technical trade
program, he never graduated from it. His work entails the design, signing
and sealing of engineering drawings.
A few years later however, working at your firm and obtaining
acceptable engineering experience, pursuing self-study, etc., he becomes
eligible for and passes both the Fundamentals of Engineering and the
Principles and Practice of Engineering Examinations, thus becoming a
licensed professional engineer.
42

Despite his licensure as a professional engineer, you refuse to permit

him to use the title engineer in relations with clients, on business cards or
for any official firm-related activities. Because you do not believe he
possesses the educational qualifications to be considered or referred to as
engineer, you are only comfortable with (and instruct him to use) the title
technical specialist instead. You, on the other hand, are not only a
professional engineer, but also boast of both accredited bachelors and
graduate degrees in engineering.
Following a lengthy discussion with Mr. Skip on the matter, after which
you still disagree with him and thus stick to your guns, he refuses to sign
and seal drawings until such a time that you change your mind and permit
him to use the title engineer.
Questions:
1. Are you acting ethically by refusing to permit Mr. Skip to use the
title engineer?
2. For his part, is it ethical for Mr. Skip to refuse to sign and seal
drawings unless you permit him to use the title engineer?
The code references relevant to this case include the following:
1. Section II.4 -- Engineers shall act for each employer or client as
faithful agents or trustees.
2. Section III.1 -- Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by
the highest standards of honesty and integrity.
3. Section III.7 -- Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or
falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects,
practice or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe
others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such
information to the proper authority for action.
4. Section III.7.a -- Engineers in private practice shall not review the
work of another engineer for the same client, except with the
knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such
engineer with the work has been terminated.
5. Section III.9.a -- Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the
person or persons who may be individually responsible for designs,
inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.
Deliberation:
The facts and circumstances in this case appear to indicate that you, a
professional engineer yourself, refuse to acknowledge the professional
status of Mr. Skip, another professional engineer in your employ, clearly,
because he does not possess academic credentials that you deem adequate
43

Chapter 1

for and thus worthy of the status of a professional engineer.

The issue of what constitutes appropriate professional engineering
experience is generally considered both a matter of policy and law. Over
the years, various professional organizations, including NSPE, have
developed professional policies that specify what may be considered
acceptable educational qualifications for licensure.
NSPEs basic position on this issue today, is that only individuals who
have graduated from ABET/EAC accredited programs should be permitted
to sit for the FE and PE examinations. This policy would therefore seem to
exclude individuals such as Mr. Skip, as well as others with unaccredited
engineering degrees, engineering technology degrees, etc. Indeed, the
rationale behind these policies is that such unaccredited degrees are not
designed to educate or equip the graduate to practice as a professional
engineer.
We believe that the facts presented in this case raise issues that are
worth highlighting in advance of any ethical analysis. First and foremost, it
appears that there was clearly no attempt or effort on Mr. Skips part to
mislead or deceive either you, or any of the firms clients for that matter,
about the nature of his academic credentials. To the contrary, the facts
seem to suggest that he was direct and up-front with you on this particular
issue.
Second, theres every reason to believe that you hired him on the basis
of his skills as a draftsman and technician. In this regard and to his credit,
Mr. Skip sought to improve himself by obtaining the necessary experience
and education through legitimate means and becoming a licensed
professional engineer. His actions are consistent with the provisions of the
NSPE Code. We find it therefore, hard to fault Mr. Skip on matters
concerning his ambitions, achievements and/or representation of academic
qualifications. Indeed, per the facts of the case, it appears that your position
would be unjustified, see as Mr. Skip has achieved the status of
professional engineer, regardless of his limited academic achievement.
Mr. Skips refusal to sign and seal drawings however, comes across as a
threatening posture that could adversely impact the interests of the firms
clients, for whom both of you -- indeed the entire firm staff -- are
responsible In this regard, his actions would constitute a violation of
Section II.4.of the NSPE Code.
Because your position appears to be based on internal firm policy,
rather than on one that would hold under proper interpretation of the NSPE
Code of Ethics, we reckon that a far better approach for Mr. Skip would be
to continue pursuing appropriate techniques in a bid to point out to you, the
errors in your judgment. In this regard, he may even enlist the support of
other professional colleagues. When all is said and done, Mr. Skips refusal
44

to sign and seal drawings, in reaction to your own extreme actions, is

tantamount to punishing the firms clients and constitutes improper
professional conduct.
It is important to point out that while (as a philosophical proposition) it
is difficult to refute your standpoint that an accredited degree is perhaps the
most appropriate academic credential for engineering licensure, many states
do independently recognize alternative paths for licensure, thereby
affording many individuals, who have otherwise not obtained engineering
degrees or any degree for that matter, professional engineer status.
For you to assume the mandate of personally determining who is
qualified to be called an engineer appears extremely far-fetched and
narrow-minded. On this basis, we believe that as soon as Mr. Skip was
granted professional engineer status by the state, you should have accepted
that as the basis for granting him the title engineer within the firm as well
as any other privileges pertaining thereto.
Furthermore, to confer on a professional engineer, the title technical
specialist in lieu of engineer could be misleading to clients who may
subsequently see Mr. Skips signature and seal on drawings and not
understand or appreciate his professional status or his contributions to the
work performed. This situation would constitute a violation of NSPE Code
of ethics, Section III.9.a. and Section III.7.a.
Finally, while your refusal to permit Mr. Skip to use the title engineer
may indeed be a matter of private, internal policy within your firm, it has
the potential, although unintended, to harm Mr. Skips professional
prospects in direct violation of Section III.7 of the NSPE Code. Having
charged Mr. Skip with the task of responsibly performing engineering
services on the firms behalf, including signing and sealing such work,
refusing to grant him the title that most accurately conveys the nature and
scope of his responsibilities may not only create confusion in the end, but is
also at odds with professional and ethical conduct as advocated by NSPE.
We therefore conclude that while it was unethical for Mr. Skip to refuse
(or threaten not) to sign and seal drawings unless you permitted him to use
the title engineer, it was quite clearly unethical on your part to even
perpetuate such refusal in the first place.
Additional Engineering Case Analyses (From NSPEs You Be the
Judge.). (Printed by Permission from the NSPE, Engineering Times; Mr.
Arthur Schwartz, NSPE Deputy Executive Director, 1420 King Street,
Alexandria VA, 22314-2794)
Situation I (Compensation for Services Rendered)
N. Englaw, P.E., Esq., is an attorney and an engineer who is being
45

Chapter 1

retained by Karl Klient, on a contingency basis, to perform legal services in

connection with an accident that Klient alleges was caused by a
manufactured product.
Englaw interviews a number of experts who are familiar with the
product and the reasons for similar accidents and hires A. Sharpe, P.E., an
expert on the product in question. No written agreement is executed
between Englaw and Sharpe for the services in question. Sharpe reviews
the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident, conducts and
completes study, and issues a report to Englaw. Englaw reviews Sharpe's
report and informs Klient that it appears that no basis exists for a lawsuit.
Sharpe then bills Englaw for his professional services. Englaw refuses to
pay, indicating that since Englaw was not paid for his services, he has no
obligation to pay Sharpe.
What Do You Think?
Was it ethical for Englaw to refuse to pay Sharpe for his services?
What the Board Said
The facts in this case illustrate a situation often presented within the
design and construction industrypayment disputes that occur between
clients that ripple into disputes between design and construction industry
parties.
In this case, the issue relates more to the apparent lack of a written
contract or formal understanding between Englaw and Sharpe, as well as an
apparent disagreement about the protocols of payment when one party has
not been paid. Nevertheless, the case illustrates some of the difficulties
involved in employing contingent contracts in the professional engineering
sphere. The case should cause engineers to carefully scrutinize and be
mindful of the risks associated with such agreements, particularly in cases
such as this, where there appears to be a "chain" of contingency contracts.
The fact that Englaw is a lawyer is not relevant to his obligation as an
engineer dealing with another engineer, although it could be in other cases.
The Board believes that Englaw's failure to inform Sharpe in advance about
the nature of Englaw's arrangement with Klient was at best misleading. If
Englaw intended that compensation to Sharpe would be on a contingency
fee basis, Englaw should have negotiated this up front with Sharpe. Having
not done so, Englaw has a clear obligation to compensate Sharpe in full.
It was not ethical for Englaw to refuse to pay Sharpe for his services.
Situation II (Altering Anothers Work, Improper Ownership)
Dewitt Wright, P.E., is a mechanical engineer employed by Designco, a
company responsible for the design of liquid chillers to be used in a nuclear
46

power plant operated by the PowerCo. The pressure vessels used are
manufactured in accordance with mechanical engineering standards. The
design parameters are specified to ManufactureCo by Wright.
A utilities quality assurance program specifies that, for their records, a
pressure vessel code report stamped and signed by a professional engineer
must accompany each vessel.
Wright receives an initial code report from ManufactureCo entitled
"Revision 0" for submission to PowerCo for review. This code report
contains numerous errors and is not stamped or generated by a professional
engineer. Wright returns it to ManufactureCo, authorizing ManufactureCo
to "Proceed with manufacture with exceptions noted." Wright's engineering
superiors support Wright's actions in requiring ManufactureCo to fix the
errors and to hire a consulting professional engineer to review and rewrite
the report as necessary.
Thereafter, ManufactureCo submits Revision 1 of the code report to
Designco for submission to PowerCo, but the report is returned to
ManufactureCo because the text on the drawing contained in the code report
was not entirely legible. The drawing insert of the code report is clearly
titled with the code report number.
The vice president of Designco requests that Wright replace the text on
the drawing with more legible text and resubmit the code report to
PowerCo. Wright responds that this would not be proper. Following a
contentious discussion, Wright calls the director of engineering and leaves a
voicemail message that he needs to discuss with him the fact that he was
being asked to do an improper act. Thereafter, Wright is called into the vice
president's office. After another contentious discussion, the vice president
acknowledges, "it was technically improper to substitute text." He also
explains that this was "only text on a drawing so that a department secretary
would do it" if Wright continued to refuse to prepare text on the drawing.
The vice president indicates that he does "not want to put ManufactureCo
through the exercise of rewriting another code report requiring a minor
correction."
What Do You Think
Would it be ethical for Wright to make the text in the code report
legible and resubmit the code report to PowerCo?
What the Board Said
Obviously, this situation involves sensitive circumstances, requiring the
engineer to exercise great skill and prudent judgment in dealing with the
employer. Wright may be viewed by management as a "can't do'er" and
damage his promotional prospects. One alternative in this type of situation
47

Chapter 1

is for Wright to obtain a copy of the state engineering licensure board's rules
and discuss them with the employer. Under those rules, the engineer is
legally bound under the rules of professional conduct. In this connection, it
appears that the actions the engineer is being requested to take would be in
direct violation of the state law and rules. Wright might have suggested that
the applicable provisions be reviewed by the company's legal counsel for a
legal opinion.
In sum, ethics should not be a matter of what might be convenient for
the engineering firm, a vendor, or a client. Instead, engineering ethics is
intended to provide guidance to practicing engineers to help navigate
through professional obligations and restrictions. Moreover, a corporate
official who ignores a mandate of licensure laws is acting irresponsibly, and
it would seem as though higher-ranking corporate officials, particularly
those with engineering backgrounds, as well as shareholders, would
presumably be interested in being made aware of that fact.
It would not be ethical for Wright to substitute text in a code report that
supports the design of a component prepared by another engineer. This
conclusion rests on the presumption that the text was too illegible to discern
with certainty the substance and wording.
Situation III (Consulting Contracts, Maintaining Confidentiality)
Industraco is involved in the manufacturing of consumer products,
including certain industrial tools. Cy Lanced, P.E., who has performed
research and is experienced in the design and manufacture of these
specialized industrial tools, is now an engineering faculty member at a
private university. Lanced also owns an independent consulting
engineering practice. Industraco contacts Lanced and requests that he agree
to a consulting contract designed to prevent him from speaking out in public
or testifying in any future litigation involving industrial tools manufactured
by Industraco.
What Do You Think
Would it be ethical for Lanced to agree to a consulting contract (with
Industraco) with the sole purpose of preventing Lanced from speaking out
in public or testifying in any future litigation involving industrial tools
manufactured by Industraco?
What the Board Said
Various provisions in the NSPE Code of Ethics result, at times, in
competing ethical values. One of the more prominent competing values
relates to the ethical obligation of the engineer to maintain the
confidentiality of information provided to Lanced, the engineer's client, or
48

derived as a result of the professional services rendered by the engineer.

There are occasions in which this basic and straightforward ethical
responsibility conflicts with the duty of the engineer to hold paramount the
public health and safety.
However, in this case there do not appear to be any overriding or
legitimate ethical reasons for Lanced to agree to a consulting contract with
the sole purpose of preventing him from speaking out in public or testifying
in any future litigation involving industrial tools manufactured by
Industraco. By signing the contract, Lanced would compromise his
professional judgment and play the role of a "hired gun" bound by "golden
handcuffs" without regard to the individual facts and circumstances
involved in a particular case. In potential future situations, it would be in
the public's interest for Lanced to speak out publicly concerning
information that could have an important bearing on the public health,
safety, and welfare. As a professional engineer with an affirmative
obligation to hold paramount the public health and safety, the Board cannot
see how Lanced is serving this ethical value by executing an agreement that
prevents Lanced from prospectively performing this basic ethical
obligation.
It would not be ethical for Lanced to knowingly agree to a consulting
contract (with Industraco) with the sole purpose of preventing Lanced from
speaking out in public or testifying in any future litigation involving
industrial tools manufactured by Industraco.
Situation IV (Recruiting, Accepting Benefits)
Engineer A is a graduating senior with excellent credentials from X
University. Engineer A has had a series of job interviews with engineering
companies from around the U.S. Following interviews with several
industrial companies, Engineer A decides to accept an offer with ABC
Incorporated located in his hometown of Townville and plans to notify
ABC the following week. In the interim period, Engineer A receives a call
from Engineer B, an executive with XYZ Incorporated, a potential
employer with whom Engineer A interviewed. On behalf of XYZ, Engineer
B offers Engineer A, a position with XYZ and invites Engineer A, at XYZ's
expense, to visit XYZ's headquarters in Mountainville, a city located near a
resort area following Engineer A's graduation. Engineer A had earlier
decided he would not accept a position with XYZ if offered a position by
ABC because Engineer A wanted to live near Townville to be close to
family and friends, and also because ABC provided better long-term
professional opportunities. However, after receiving the call from XYZ,
Engineer A decides to accept the invitation to visit XYZ's headquarters and
combine the trip with a post-graduation vacation, believing that the visit to
49

Chapter 1

XYZ will broaden his knowledge of the employment market, as well as

future professional opportunities with XYZ. A week after the trip, Engineer
A calls ABC and informs the company that he will accept the position with
ABC.
What Do You Think
Was it ethical for Engineer A to accept the invitation to visit XYZ
headquarters?
What Iowa Engineering Society's Northwest Chapter Said
A majority of the difficulty that we had with Engineer A is that he was
not up front with XYZ Incorporated in that he had decided to accept an
offer with ABC Incorporated.
Engineer A's acceptance of the interview trip to XYZ's mountain
headquarters was deceptive in that he had already decided to commit to
ABC, and did not offer that information to XYZ. He tries to justify the trip
to himself reasoning that it will "broaden his knowledge of the employment
market, as well as future professional opportunities." This is in direct
conflict with the reasoning for his decision to go with ABC because "ABC
offered better long-term professional opportunities." He had decided to go
with ABC because of the long-term opportunities, so future opportunities
with XYZ should not have been a factor. We felt that Engineer A was not
being true to himself by trying to justify the trip this way.
Though Engineer A was opportunistic in combining the ski trip with the
interview with XYZ Incorporated, XYZ may have not have had a problem
with his interest in skiing. Given that the trip was scheduled after
graduation, XYZ may have even expected and encouraged a ski trip
depending on how interested they were in Engineer A. Being near a resort
is an amenity for XYZ Incorporated and a positive factor in the decision
making process to work for their company.
A company recruiting engineers has some degree of risk and sunk cost
in bringing them to the headquarters without a commitment from the recruit.
They do have an expectation though, that they have a reasonable (or better
if this is a second interview) chance that the recruit will commit to their
company. XYZ incorporated was not afforded this chance because
Engineer A had made his decision to go with ABC Inc. If Engineer A
would had communicated his decision to go with ABC Inc. to the XYZ
executive after the offer of the trip, XYZ Inc. could have determined if it
was worth it to still fly him out and try to sway his decision. Seeing that he
had "excellent credentials," it may have been worth the risk to XYZ Inc. to
bring him to their headquarters. Though he had decided on ABC Inc. he
had not officially accepted the position with them and was "still on the
50

table."
The Fact situation does not discuss the size of XYZ Inc. If it is a small
company, flying one recruit that has no interest in the company may use up
the recruiting budget for the year, making the deception egregious. Where
if it is a large company recruiting numerous individuals and flying them out
to the headquarters, they know they are taking the chance and will not get
all the recruits they go after. This is a point that Engineer A should have
considered prior to accepting the offer of the trip.
Ultimately, we felt that because Engineer A was not honest and up front
with the XYZ executive, he was deceptive and took advantage of XYZ
Incorporated. It was unethical for Engineer A to accept the invitation to
visit XYZ headquarters.
Situation V (Public Safety vs. Public Need and Convenience)
Hy Standards, P.E., was an engineer with a local government.
Standards learned about a critical situation involving a bridge 280 feet long,
30 feet above a stream. This bridge was a concrete deck on woodpiles that
was built by the state in the 1950s. It was part of the secondary roadway
system given to the counties many years ago.
In June 2000, Standards received a telephone call from the bridge
inspector stating that this bridge needed to be closed due to the large
number of rotten piling. Standards had barricades and signs erected within
the hour on a Friday afternoon, and residents in the area were required to
take a 10-mile detour.
On the following Monday, the barricades were in the river and the
"Bridge Closed" sign was in the trees by the roadway. More permanent
barricades and signs were installed. The press published photos of some of
the piles that did not reach the ground and the myriad of patch work over
the years.
Within a few days, a signed and sealed, detailed inspection report
prepared by a consulting engineering firm indicated that seven pilings
required replacement. Within three weeks, Standards had obtained
authorization for the bridge to be replaced. Several state and federal
transportation departments needed to complete their reviews and tasks
before the funds could be used.
A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures
asking to reopen the bridge to limited traffic was presented to the County
Commission. Standards explained the extent of the damages and the efforts
under way to replace the bridge. The County Commission decided not to
reopen the bridge.
Preliminary site investigation studies then began. Environmental,
geological, right-of-way, and other studies were also performed. A decision
51

Chapter 1

was made to use a design-build contract to avoid a lengthy scour analysis

for the pile design.
A non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge
inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was
made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with
a five-ton limit. No follow-up inspection was performed.
Standards now observes that traffic is flowing and the movement of the
bridge is frightening. Log trucks and tankers cross it on a regular basis.
School buses go around it.
What Do You Think
What is Standards' ethical obligation under these circumstances?
What the Board Said
The obligation of a professional engineer to take action when faced
with a situation involving a direct threat to the public health and safety has
been addressed by the Board on several other occasions. The Board
believes much of the same reasoning in the earlier cases applies to the case
at hand. The facts and circumstances facing Standards involve fundamental
issues of public health and safety, which are at the core of engineering
ethics. For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations
when the engineer believes that great dangers are present would be an
abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation.
Standards should take immediate steps to contact the county governing
authority
and
county
prosecutors,
state
and/or
federal
transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and
other authorities.
Standards should immediately approach his supervisor to press for strict
enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this is ineffective, contact state
and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering
licensure board the director of public works, county commissioners, state
officials, and such other authorities as appropriate. Standards should also
work with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two crutch
pile with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this
information to his supervisor. In addition, Standards should determine
whether a basis exists for reporting the activities of the retired bridge
inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
Situation VI (Proprietary Information, Confronting a Colleague)
Juan Anoyd, P.E., is a small business owner. Filching N. Pilfering, a
licensed engineer formerly employed by Anoyd's firm, makes calls to
Anoyd's employees (at home and at work) requesting that they make him
52

copies of their company's proprietary schematics. Pilfering's request

specifically instructs these individuals to not mention these conversations to
Anoyd. Anoyd's employees alert Anoyd to the problem. However, Anoyd
is concerned about Pilfering's activities and the potential threat these
requests could have on the health of Anoyd's company (if their proprietary
information were to fall into competitor's hands).
Anoyd confronts Pilfering at a seminar and, in front of many other
engineers, architects, contractors, clients, and others, makes several
accusations and angry comments to Pilfering. Pilfering denies the
accusations, and both exchange a series of derogatory comments.
Following this exchange, Anoyd and Pilfering both leave the seminar.
What Do You Think
Was it ethical for Pilfering to contact Anoyd's employees? Was it
ethical for Anoyd to confront Pilfering in the manner described?
What the Board Said
Clearly, Pilfering's conduct is well beyond the pale of ethical conduct
and he should be condemned for his actions. To make calls to Anoyd's
employees at home and at work requesting that they make him copies of
their company's proprietary schematics is more than an ethical violationit
is a legal violation.
There can be no doubt that Anoyd had justification for being angry and
upset over Pilfering's actions. And it is easy to see how, at the seminar,
Pilfering would have taken the actions he took under the circumstances
presented. However, it is the Board's view that Anoyd's actions in
confronting Pilfering in the manner indicated were not ethical or
professional. It is clear that there were other reasonable options for Anoyd
to explore, such as a direct conversation with Pilfering over his actions and,
if necessary, a letter from Anoyd (or Anoyd's attorney) demanding that
Pilfering cease and desist from continuing his improper actions, or else face
legal consequences.
Engineers are often confronted by unprofessional and unethical conduct
by non-engineers and from other engineers. However, all engineers need to
be mindful that their actions and conductgood and badin response to
such unprofessional and unethical conduct reflect upon the entire
profession, and help to shape the public's image and impression of
engineers and engineering.
It was not ethical for Pilfering to contact Anoyd's employees. It was not
ethical or professional for Anoyd to confront Pilfering in the manner
described. Also, it was not professional for Pilfering to engage in
derogatory language at the seminar.
53

Chapter 1

Situation VII (Disclosing the Basis of Charges to a Client)

Bill LeVard, P.E., performs a traffic study for HighYield Enterprises as
part of the client's permit application for traffic flow for the development of
a store. LeVard invoices HighYield for a complete traffic study.
Later, HighYield learns that LeVard created part of the traffic study
earlier for a developer, ProfitTech Industries. High Yield also learns that
LeVard invoiced ProfitTech for the complete traffic study. The second
study on a new project for HighYield used some of the same raw data that
was in the report prepared for ProfitTech. The final conclusion of the
engineering study was essentially the same in both studies.
What Do You Think
Was it ethical for LeVard to charge HighYield for the complete traffic
study?
What the Board Said
This case relates to the direct obligations of truth and honesty that all
engineers owe to their clients in the performance of their services. Under
the facts presented in the case, LeVard was performing the same basic
service for two separate clients and billing HighYield for data that LeVard
had already developed and billed ProfitTech. In this connection, the Board
believes that at some point, HighYield, ProfitTech, or the local code
officials would become aware of LeVard's action, which could ultimately
reflect upon LeVard and potentially the engineering profession in general.
However, the Board does not believe that an ethical violation exists
under the facts. The Board believes that it would have been appropriate for
LeVard to inform HighYield that a similar study had been done for another
client, and that LeVard would contract to review the study to determine
whether any modifications, updates, or other changes would be necessary.
LeVard would then say that HighYield would be charged for full value of
the report. LeVard's intellectual property, expertise, knowledge, and
professional judgment are contained in the report, and LeVard had the
ethical right to be fully compensated for such services. Such an approach
would be in accord with the language and intent of the NSPE Code and
demonstrate good will on the part of LeVard.
It was ethical for LeVard to charge HighYield for a complete traffic
study. It was unethical for LeVard not to disclose the use of propriety data
developed for another client.
Situation VIII (Projects That Do Not Follow Design Specifications)
Dee Sine, P.E., prepares a set of drawings for a client for the design and
54

construction of a building. The client, N. A. Fixx, contracts with Strongwill

Contracting, who is not an engineer, for construction. Fixx does not retain
Sine for construction phase services. Sine is paid in full for his work.
Sine's drawings are filed with town code officials and a building permit is
issued. Strongwill builds the building, but does not follow Sine's design,
relying upon Strongwill's own experience in construction. Following
construction, Strongwill, with the assistance of Tractor, prepares a set of
record "as built" drawings, based upon the actual construction of the
building as reported by Strongwill. Because the design and the construction
drawings are not reconciled, the building official refuses to issue an
occupancy permit to the client. Fixx asks Sine to "reconcile" the original
design and the record drawings. Sine, not wanting to conduct an in-depth
study of the work, agrees to perform the "reconciliation."
What Do You Think
Was it ethical for Sine to perform the design reconciliation?
Was it appropriate for Tractor to prepare a set of record drawings based
on the construction without notifying Sine?
What the Board Said
The facts and circumstances go beyond anything that would be
permitted under the letter or the spirit of the NSPE Code of Ethics. The
Board interprets the facts to suggest that Sine is being asked to adopt a
design that was not prepared by Sine, was not under Sine's direct control or
supervision, and does not reflect the professional judgment and intent of
Sine. Instead, it appears that Fixx is seeking to have Sine seal the drawings
in question merely to satisfy the requirements of the building official,
without regard to actual responsibility for the contents of the drawings. The
work to be "reconciled" was clearly not performed under the responsible
charge (direct control or personal supervision) of Sine. In fact, the work
that was prepared by Sine was essentially ignored or rejected by Strongwill,
in favor of another solution chosen by Strongwill. Since Sine was not
retained for construction-phase services, Sine never had the opportunity to
observe the work, nor did she provide guidance to Fixx or Strongwill on the
relationship of the work to the original design and construction documents
she prepared.
It is critically important that an engineer actually prepares the work or
in responsible charge of the work that she ultimately seals. By contrast, the
facts in this case illustrate an example where an engineer is being asked to
sign and seal work for which she was neither in responsible charge, nor
which she was involved in preparing. In essence, it can be argued that the
facts present the appearance that Sine's services were used by Fixx merely
55

Chapter 1

to gain approval for the project, with no intent on the part of the client or
Strongwill to follow Sine's design intent.
It is not entirely clear under the facts whether Fixx knew or chose to
accept Strongwill's decision and to ignore Sine's designs. In unilaterally
altering Sine's design, Strongwill may have engaged in the unlicensed
practice of engineering. However, since Sine's design was approved by the
building official, and Strongwill's approach was at variance with the
approved design, Fixx may now find that Strongwill's approach will result
in additional design and/or construction costs to obtain the building
official's approval. Clearly, there is a lesson here for clients who fail to
appreciate the importance of publicly approved design drawings.
It was not ethical for Sine to reconcile her original design documents
without an extensive investigation to ensure that all original design intent
was followed. It was not appropriate for Tractor to prepare a set of record
drawings based on the construction without notifying Sine. Moreover, there
is a possibility that Tractor was aiding and abetting the unlicensed practice
of engineering.
Situation IX (Misusing Proprietary Information)
Avery Trusting, P.E., a CEO of a small engineering corporation, teams
up with another small firm in the development and delivery of highway/rail
intersection database management systems for various public and private
enterprises. Trusting is the co-author and the program is patented and
copyrighted.
Abe Using, P.E., a principal in a private firm from State X calls
Trusting and informs Trusting that State X's Department of Transportation
is interested in the highway/rail system and has asked Using to evaluate the
system. Using requests and Trusting agrees to visit with Using in State X.
Prior to the visit, Using requests that Trusting prepare a project proposal,
which Trusting submits. Later, at Using's request, Trusting visits Using's
offices and demonstrates the systems. Project managers, as well as
programmers, from Using's firm are present at the meeting. Trusting
describes in great detail the technical aspects of the system. Following the
meeting, Using requests that Trusting prepare a new proposal with a
detailed breakdown of all costs. Later, Trusting receives a phone call from
a subordinate of Using, advising that Using will not need Trusting's firm's
services because Using's firm now has the capability to design their own
system.
What Do You Think
Was it ethical for Using to obtain Trusting's technology in the manner
described in this case?
56

What the Board Said

The Board is of the view that this case involves much more than a
failure on the part of one engineer to give proper credit to another engineer
for work performed. Instead, this case appears to suggest an outright
misrepresentation and possible misappropriation on the part of Using.
Without addressing the copyright, patent, and other legal issues that are
raised by the facts, it is clear that Using appears to have carelessly or
intentionally created the misimpression that Using's firm was planning to
use Trusting's firm on the project in question. Moreover, it appears that
Using carelessly or intentionally induced Trusting's cooperation and support
in furtherance of this objective. In truth, the Board finds it difficult to
believe that Using's actions were careless because Using solicited and
received a project proposal from Trusting for the project.
While it is clear that in today's highly competitive environment,
engineering firms and companies need to be on guard and protective of
trade secrets and other intellectual property that provide a competitive
advantage, relations among engineers must continue to be based on mutual
trust and cooperation. Where one engineer is asked to cooperate with
another engineer in an activity for their mutual benefit and the benefit of a
client, the cooperating engineer should not have his support and good will
be subjected to abuse and exploitation by the other engineer. As with other
professions, engineering is a collegial enterprise based on mutual respect
and trust. A profession that fails to recognize this basic principle will cease
to be a profession.
It was not ethical for Using to obtain and share details of Trusting's
technology in the manner herein described.
Situation X (Abusing Licensed Software)
Acton Haste, P.E., is employed by SPQ Engineering, an engineering
firm in private practice involved in the design of bridges and other
structures. As part of its services, SPQ Engineering uses a CAD software
design product under a licensing agreement with a vendor. Under the terms
of the licensing agreement, SPQ Engineering is not permitted to use the
software at more than one workstation without paying a higher licensing
fee. SPQ Engineering ignores this restriction and uses the software at a
number of employee workstations. Haste becomes aware of this practice
and calls a hotline publicized in a technical publication and reports his
employer's activities.
What Do You Think
Was it ethical for Haste to report his employer's apparent violation of
57

Chapter 1

the licensing agreement on the hotline without first discussing his concerns
with his employer?
What the Board Said
Haste has an obligation to pursue this matter with SPQ Engineering. If
a satisfactory ethical resolution cannot be reached, he is obligated to report
the violation to the vendor. In addition, Haste should reconsider his further
association with a firm that has shown itself engaged in fraudulent and
dishonest enterprise. The Board recognizes the right and the obligation of
the engineer to report such violations as appropriate. At the same time, the
Board believes that as a professional, an engineer should always exercise
judgment and discretion when confronting a situation such as the one
presented under the facts. Depending on all of the facts and circumstances,
an engineer should take reasonable steps to exhaust all appropriate
alternatives before taking an extreme action, such as reporting an employer
or a client for their actions, particularly where such actions do not appear to
result in physical harm or danger to the public health or safety. At the same
time, engineering managers acting for an employer who knowingly act in an
unlawful manner or who take retaliatory actions against another engineer
who brings such matters to their attention are ignoring the basic principles
contained in the NSPE Code of Ethics and are acting unethically.
It was not ethical for Haste to report his employer's apparent violation
of the licensing agreement on the hotline without first discussing his
concerns with his employer. Engineering firms acting through engineering
managers who willfully ignore licensing agreement restrictions are in
violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.

58

1.4

NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL

ENGINEERS

2002-2004 NSPE Strategic Plan

VISION
NSPE is the premier national organization that promotes and
defends the professional interests of all engineering
professionals.
MISSION
NSPE is the national society of engineering professionals
from all disciplines that promote the ethical and competent
practice of engineering, advocates licensure, and enhances
the image and well being of its members.
VALUES
The core values of NSPE are:
Protection of the public
Ethical conduct
Professionalism
Competency
Fulfillment of member needs
Service to the public
Licensure
Goal 1: Promote the competent, ethical, and professional
practice of engineering.
1.1 Support professional licensure as defined by the various
jurisdictions, including vigorous enforcement of the
statutes.
1.2 Encourage those who are not specifically required by
statutes to be licensed to choose licensure as a legal,
public, and personal declaration of their educational and
professional achievements and as a sense of
responsibility to the engineering profession and to the
public welfare.
1.3 Collaborate with other organizations and seek the
support of engineering educators to continually
59

Chapter 1

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

enhance, standardize, and promote a viable licensure

process, including examination options and formats,
continuing professional competency, national mobility,
international practice, and areas of post-licensure
specialty certification.
Develop and distribute an economical and efficient
licensure examination preparation program and
coordinate with state societies to enhance and publicize
existing programs.
Promote the use of licensure and NSPE membership as
the universally recognized indication of those
committed to the ethical, competent, and professional
practice of engineering.
Continue to develop and implement an effective plan to
communicate the importance of the competent, ethical,
and professional practice of engineering to policy
makers and the public.
Develop and coordinate with the state societies proactive procedures for addressing ethical violations and
member discipline and offer guidance to state societies.

Goal 2: Enhance the image and stature of engineering

professionals.
2.1 Continue to implement, monitor, and evaluate the
image campaign.
2.2 Publicize major achievements of engineers and
engineering professionals.
2.3 Publicize Society activities to the trade and general
media.
2.4 Develop a campaign to enhance the recognition and
stature of engineering professionals in the workplace.
2.5 Develop a program to educate engineers regarding
improvement of their own public image.
2.6 Encourage engineers to participate in civic, educational,
community and governmental activities and projects,
including boards and commissions.
2.7 Promote awareness of engineering and licensure to precollege and college students.
Goal 3: Provide education, career development,
networking opportunities, and other benefits to
engineering professionals and students.
3.1 Improve NSPEs role of serving as an information
resource to members, state societies, and other
engineering societies.
3.2 Provide educational opportunities for students and
60

3.3

3.4
3.5

3.6

engineering professionals.
Create and implement career planning and development
initiatives, including career-growth and licensure
mentoring opportunities and managerial skills
development.
Develop models for encouraging student chapters and
student involvement in chapters and state societies.
Publicize the benefits of NSPE membership with
targeted approaches to the various engineer career
stages.
Develop ideas and programs to facilitate networking
opportunities.

Goal 4: Advocate the interests of engineering

professionals and protect the public through an effective
government relations program.
4.1 Monitor national, state, and local public policy issues
(legislation, regulations, and administrative orders).
4.2 Facilitate efforts of national, state, and local resources
on public policy issues.
4.3 Advocate on behalf of the engineering professionals on
public policy issues.
4.4 Communicate with stakeholders (engineering
professionals, public officials, the general public, et al)
to raise awareness of public policy issues of interest to
engineering professionals.
4.5 Promote political involvement by engineering
professionals.
4.6 Choose strategic alliances to increase NSPEs
effectiveness on legislative and regulatory issues.
Goal 5: Align the structure, activities, and governance of
the society to optimize support and resources for all
programs.
5.1 Improve and mature the streamlined governance model
at NSPE.
5.2 Improve the effectiveness and timeliness of records
management system operations.
5.3 Explore new ways, including the use of distance-access
technology, to optimize participation by members in
NSPE meetings.
5.4 Increase net membership by continuing the
implementation of improved membership marketing.
5.5 Improve
inter-professional
and
inter-society
interactions.
5.6 Strengthen the partnership and communication of
61

Chapter 1

programs, activities, and products/services among

national, regional, state, chapter, and practice division
organizations.
5.7 Improve the use of technology to enhance member
awareness, involvement, participation, and efficiency of
Society operations.
5.8 Commit to the ongoing strategic planning process,
including the allocation of resources, timeline tracking,
and reporting of measures and outcomes, and the
elimination of programs that cannot be linked to the
plan.
5.9 Develop a financial strategy that will ensure a stable
and sustainable financial status for NSPE while
maximizing the investment in critical ongoing programs
and new initiatives called for in the strategic plan.
5.10 Develop a process for identifying and encouraging
future leadership at the chapter, state, regional, practice
division, and national levels.

Facts About NSPE

Founded: 1934
Members: 58,000
State Organizations: 53 state and territorial societies
Local Chapters: more than 500
Budget: $6,000,000
Staff: 49
Executive Director: Patrick J. Natale, P.E., CAE, F.NSPE
Phone: 703/684-2800, Fax: 703/836-4875
E-mail: For general inquiries, memserv@nspe.org or see www.nspe.org
MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES

62

Licensed MemberEngineers licensed in a U.S. state (Professional

Engineers) or international equivalent
MemberEIs (Engineer Interns)/EITs (Engineers-in-Training)
OR graduates of an engineering program accredited by the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) or
international equivalent
Student MemberFull-time students in an undergraduate or
graduate engineering program accredited by ABET, or an
engineering or pre-engineering program that can lead to licensure,
or international equivalent

All memberships are individual; there are no company memberships

(except in relation to certain practice divisions), but click here for
information on our NEW Enterprise Membership Program

ACTIVITY AREAS

Engineering licensure
Government relations
Professional issues
Ethics
Legal issues
Continuing education
Employment
Salaries
Practice areas
Publications
Public relations
Student issues

PRACTICE DIVISIONS

Professional Engineers in Construction

Professional Engineers in Education
Professional Engineers in Government
Professional Engineers in Industry
Professional Engineers in Private Practice

MAJOR PUBLICATIONS

Engineering Times, monthly, with special Practice Division section

"U.S. Engineering Press Review," weekly broadcast e-mail
"NSPE Update," monthly broadcast e-mail
NSPE Income & Salary Survey, annually
Compensation & Benefits in Consulting Engineering Firms,
annually
Engineering Licensure Laws: A State-by-State Summary and
Analysis

63

Chapter 1

WHY JOIN NSPE?

NSPE Membership Gives You the EDGE
If you hold a P.E. license, the Licensed Member category is for you.
NSPE represents graduate and licensed engineers who subscribe to the
Engineers Creed and take the high road. This is your invitation to become a
part of this group and add to your lifetime of respect as a P.E.
If you are an EI/EIT, or a graduate of an engineering program
accredited by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (or
international equivalent), the Member category is for you. Early in your
career, it's important to make the right choices. Professional membership is
one of them. You can use membership to make quantum leaps in your
career. Joining the National Society of Professional Engineers is the right
choice! You are on the fast track. NSPE membership helps you get there.
It is the true mark of the professional. Add NSPE membership to your
resume.
If you are a full-time student in an engineering program accredited
by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (or international
equivalent), the Student Member category is for you.

What is a Professional Engineer?

Like doctors who have passed the medical boards or lawyers who have
passed the bar exam, professional engineers (PEs) have fulfilled the
education and experience requirements and passed the rigorous exams that,
under state licensure laws, permit them to offer engineering services
directly to the public. PEs take legal responsibility for their engineering
designs and are bound by a code of ethics to protect the public health and
safety.
Engineering licensure laws vary from state to state, but, in general, to
become a PE an individual must be a graduate of an engineering program
accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology,
pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, gain four years of experience
working under a PE, and pass the Principles and Practice of Engineering
exam.
A state engineering licensure board regulates the licensed practice of
engineering within a state.
The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), in conjunction
with its state societies and chapters, represents the interests of PEs
nationwide.

64