Facts: Engineer A is the president of WXY Engineers, an engineering firm. For many years, WXY has provided services directly to City H (a small city), and WXY currently has three contracts directly with the city for separate projects with City H. Engineer B, the full-time city engineer, has resigned from his position with City H. City H officials are currently considering whether to replace Engineer B with another full-time city engineer or, as a cost cutting and efficiency measure, to hire a consultant (such as WXY Engineers) as the city engineer to perform general consulting services and be under contract to provide specific design services on individual city projects. One city official has raised a concern that because WXY is under contract with City H, having WXY serve as city engineer would constitute a conflict of interest. WXY does not perform any private work for developers or other private parties within City H and, therefore, if it were designated city engineer for City H, WXY would not be reviewing the work it performed for private clients. Question: Would it be ethical for Engineer A’s firm, WXY Engineers, to serve as city engineer for City H, perform general consulting services, and be under contract to provide specific design services on individual city projects?

II.5.a. – Code of Ethics: 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. FACTS: Engineer A is starting out as a consulting engineer. Engineer A is the first to respond to a notice in the newsletter of a local chapter of an engineering society asking for volunteers to help organize a consultant’s referral network. Engineer B, a society officer, asks Engineer A to help organize the network as well as others who express interest. Some time later, Engineer B calls to ask Engineer A if Engineer A would look at an engineering problem. Engineer A goes to Engineer B’s office expecting to get the particulars of a referral, since some members of the developing network are in the habit of giving one another referrals. Engineer B then accompanies Engineer A to the potential client’s office, but because the referral process is new, Engineer A does not discuss arrangements with to Engineer B. In the middle of the client’s description of the engineering problem, the client asks about the contractual relationship. Engineer B replies that Engineer A will subcontract to Engineer B on the project.
QUESTIONS:
Question 1: Was it ethical for Engineer B to indicate that Engineer A will subcontract to Engineer B on the project?
Question 2: What were Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?

Facts: Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency to build a new dam to be financed in part by a federal grant. Engineer A’s firm’s impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications. The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project, and the project is thereafter duly advertised for bids and a contract is awarded to the low bidder, Hi-Lo Construction. The local public agency does not have the in-house technical resources to review the drawings and specifications. At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are “unbuildable” without major changes. Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo’s characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness. While much of the information was missing from the drawings and specifications, Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs.
Questions:
1. Was it ethical for Engineer A to submit final drawings and specifications for review and approval that he knew were incomplete?
2. Was it ethical for Engineer B to approve a set of incomplete drawings on behalf of the Federal government for competitive bidding?
3. Was it ethical for Engineer C, owner of the Hi-Lo Construction firm, to submit a bid on a construction contract that he later characterized as “unbuildable” without major changes?

FACTS:
Engineer A is a research professor at a major engineering college. He performs important research in connection with certain new technologies in the field of transportation. As part of his work, the university has received a number of grants from major corporations and the federal government. As the principal investigator, Engineer A collaborates with several other research professors at the university as well as graduate students. In addition, he routinely meets with representatives of government agencies and private funding groups and reports on the status of his research, and publishes the results in professional journals and at technical conferences. Engineer A has a long standing relationship with the university and is a tenured professor. He has received multiple honors and awards for his services. Engineer A highly values his reputation as a professor and researcher. Engineer A meets with the major commercial sponsor of his transportation research and present the results of his research in a paper, including charts, graphs, and other illustrative material. The commercial sponsor clearly has a significant interest in the research report and its conclusions and, subsequently, the commercial sponsor makes certain changes in the research report bearing Engineer A’s name without his knowledge and approval. The changes include altering report text, altering tables and removal of figures. Engineer A seeks assistance concerning the appropriate course of action.
QUESTION #1: Would Engineer A be ethical in taking action against the sponsor?
QUESTION #2: Was the sponsor ethical in altering Engineer A’s report?

FACTS:
Engineer A’s firm is retained by a major fuel company to perform site investigations in connection with certain requirements under state and federal environmental regulations. Under the procedures established by Engineer A’s firm, the site visits will be conducted by engineering technicians under direct supervision of Engineer A who will perform all observations, sampling, and preliminary report preparation. Engineering technicians will also take photographs of the sites. No professional engineers will be present during the site visits. Following site visits, all pertinent information and material will be presented to Engineer A who is competent in this field. Following a careful review, Engineer A will certify that the evaluations were conducted in accordance with engineering principles.
QUESTION:
Is it ethical for Engineer A to certify that the evaluations were conducted in accordance with engineering principles?