It was not only ethical for Engineer B to complain to Engineer A, it was ethically required that Engineer B report his belief that statutory obligations were not being followed.It was ethical for Engineer A to investigate City D’s contracting practices, both as a part of A’s own familiarization process and to follow up on Engineer B’s complaints.Since the City D Engineer indicated they have no plans to change the contract arrangement with Firm Z, Engineer A is obligated to take appropriate action.

This case focuses on the engineer's ethical obligation to comply with local and state procurement laws, including state registration board rules of professional conduct, that require consultant selection through a competitive QBS process. This case also discusses how engineers must conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly so as to maintain the public’s trust in professional procurement matters. The Board of Ethical Review (BER) Case 08-8 provides helpful precedent. This case discussed actions by the US Justice Department, in 1977, that required NSPE and other engineering and professional organizations to remove NSPE Code of Ethics (Code) provisions related to professional selection, compensation, restrictions on competitive bidding, free engineering, supplanting, advertising, and other practices, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in National Soc'y of Prof. Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978). BER Case 08-8 concluded that one of the most fundamental outcomes of these antitrust actions and rules was the basic principle that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect. Earlier BER opinions confirm that engineers may, and sometimes must, challenge procurement practices that could compromise the public interest. For example, BER Case 80-1 examined a state agency’s selection method that mixed qualifications screening with a post-scoping meeting price proposal. Firms B and C publicly protested the award to Firm A because they believed a low-cost bid ($70,000-$80,000 less than Firm B and C) was unsafe and could lead to an inadequate design. The BER held that lodging such a protest was not an unfair competitive act under the Code. BER Case 80-1 includes an “Additional Views” section that provides that while those authors agree with the BER conclusions, “we feel that Firms B and C are walking a very thin line of ethical practices when they make a public stat...

Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, joins City D’s engineering department as the Assistant City Engineer, responsible for overseeing department staff, managing capital improvement programs, and supervising private development projects. Shortly after starting, Engineer A is approached by Engineer B, also a licensed professional engineer, the owner of a local civil engineering firm, who raises concerns about City D’s contracting practices. Engineers A and B have no historical relationship. Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process. Engineer B expresses frustration that this practice excludes other qualified firms from competing for City D contracts. City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state’s professional engineering licensure laws.Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B’s concerns. Through the investigation, Engineer A discovers that over the past seven years, City D has awarded consultant contracts exclusively to two firms: Firm X and Firm Z.City D hired Firm X seven years ago through an RFQ process to maintain the citywide traffic model and review traffic studies submitted by private developers. The contract includes an option for annual extensions for up to 10 years. The work provided by Firm X aligns with the original scope of the RFQ and the resulting contract, with four optional extensions remaining.City D has entered into five separate contracts with Firm Z over the past six years, with no recorded issues. Records show the first three contracts were awarded through a competitive RFQ process that attracted, on average, four submissions per advertisement. However, the two most r...

Was it ethical for Engineer B to complain to Engineer A?Were Engineer A’s actions in investigating City D’s contracting practices ethical?Because City D’s Engineer refuses to change the contract arrangement with Firm Z, what steps must Engineer A take?

I.4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Subject Reference Employer Faithful Agents and Trustees I.6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. II.1.e. Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm. Subject Reference Unethical Practice by Others II.1.f. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code 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. 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. Subject Reference Unfair Competition 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. Subject Reference Public Statements and Criticism Unethical Practice by Others III.8.a. Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering. Subject Reference Licensure Laws