ETHICS
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:
- Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.
- Perform services only in areas of their competence.
- Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
- Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
- Avoid deceptive acts.
- Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
II. Rules of Practice
- 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 shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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.
- 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
- 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 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.
III. Professional Obligations
- Engineers shall not actively participate in strikes, picket lines, or other collective coercive action.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests.
a. Engineers shall not accept financial or other considerations, 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.
b. Engineers shall not use association with a nonengineer, a corporation, or partnership as a “cloak” for unethical acts.
- 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 January 2003:
“By order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, former Section 11(c) of the 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 , 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:
- Engineers and firms may individually refuse to bid for engineering services.
- Clients are not required to seek bids for engineering services.
- Federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected, and remain in full force and effect.
- State societies and local chapters are free to actively and aggressively seek legislation for professional selection and negotiation procedures by public agencies.
- 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.
- 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-à-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.
Case Study I – Modification of Signed and Sealed Plans by Other Than Responsible Engineer
Engineer A prepared subdivision plans for a client. These plans included a 5-sheet set of grading plans and a 38-sheet set of public improvement plans. Each set had a cover sheet and all sheets in each set were signed and sealed by Engineer A.
The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans. The client asked Engineer A for his original drawings. Engineer A complied, retaining a set of reproducibles.
Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project. The client gave Engineer B the set of plans produced by Engineer A to use as a guide in the redesign.
Engineer B reviewed the original drawings, made changes on the grading plans, including deletion of one sheet, raising the elevation of the housing pads and changing routing of the street. Engineer B did not note what changes were made nor did he sign any of the sheets, including the cover sheet.
Engineer B also made major design changes to the storm drains, pipe dimensions, sewers and utilities in the public improvement plans. He made no notation of the changes, did not sign the plans, and left Engineer A’s seal and signature intact.
Engineer B placed a note on the title sheet of the public improvement plans, leaving Engineer A’s signature and seal intact, stating that he, Engineer B, is taking responsibility for the “revisions of the plans,” making no notation what those changes were.
At no time after Engineer B was retained were there any communications between the two engineers.
Case Study II – P.E. Requirement for County Surveyor Position
A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E. The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position. The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering. Engineer A accepted the position.
The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents.
Case Study III – Ethical Behavior
Engineer A works full time for a small consulting firm that has been hired by a shopping mall developer to survey an undeveloped land parcel.
Engineer A owns 50% of the land parcel, and only the name “Corporation Z” appears on all ownership paperwork, so the principal of Engineer A’s engineering firm is unaware of the conflict of interest. Engineer A is assigned to survey this land parcel and does not reveal this conflict to his employer.
The other owner of Corporation Z is aware that Engineer A has been given this assignment, and it is certainly in the best interest of Corporation Z for the survey results to be favorable. Engineer A is offered a 60% of the proceeds of the sale by his co-owner if he misrepresents the results of the survey so that the land will appear more favorable for development.
While Engineer A is on the premises to conduct the land survey, he is approached by a representative from the shopping mall development company, and is discreetly offered season tickets for the local NFL franchise if the survey is found to be favorable for development.
There has been a recent drought in the area, and the survey conducted by Engineer A shows a significantly smaller land area designated as wetland than normal weather conditions would indicate. Engineer A’s full time employer provides this survey to the shopping mall developer who is able to secure the land purchase with minimal land use loss due to wetland designation. Engineer A receives 60% of the revenue paid to Corporation Z and season tickets to the local NFL franchise games.
Case Study IV – Whistle-blowing by the City Engineer
Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer Director of Public Works for a medium-sized city and is the only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government. The city has several large food processing plants that discharge very large amounts of vegetable wastes into the city’s sanitary system during the canning season. Part of the canning season coincides with the rainy season. Engineer A has the responsibility for the disposal plant and beds and is directly responsible to City Administrator C. Technician B answers to Engineer A. During the course of her employment, Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions.
Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C. City Administrator C has told Engineer A that “we will face the problem when it comes.” City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys. Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials.
City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system and report directly to City Administrator C. Technician B asks for a clarification and is again instructed via memo by City Administrator C that he, Technician B, is completely responsible and is to report any interference by a third party to City Administrator C.
Engineer A receives a copy of the memo. In addition, Engineer A is placed on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if she does she will be terminated, Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C.
That winter during the canning season, particularly heavy storms occur in the city. It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will overflow the levees and dump all waste into the river. Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers.
Case Study V – Signing and Sealing Plans Not Prepared By An Engineer
Engineer A is the Chief Engineer within a large engineering firm, and affixes his seal to some of the plans prepared by registered engineers working under his general direction who do not affix their seals to the plans. At times Engineer A also seals plans prepared by non- registered, graduate engineers working under his general supervision.
Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, Engineer A finds it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design. He believes that he is ethically and legally correct in not doing so because of his confidence in the ability of those he has hired and who are working under his general direction and supervision.
By general direction and supervision, Engineer A means that he is involved in helping to establish the concept, the design requirements, and review elements of the design or project status as the design progresses. Engineer A is consulted about technical questions and he provides answers and direction in these matters.
Case Study VI – Engineer’s Recommendation For Full-Time, On-Site Project Representative
The client plans a project and hires Engineer A to furnish complete engineering services for the project. Because of the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase, Engineer A recommends to the client that a full-time, on-site project representative be hired for the project.
After reviewing the completed project plans and costs, the client indicates to Engineer A that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired. Engineer A proceeds with his work on the project.
Case Study VII – Gifts to Engineers
Engineers A, B, and C are principals or employees of a consulting engineering firm which does an extensive amount of design work for private developers. The engineers are involved in recommending to the developers a list of contractors and suppliers to be considered for selection on a bidding list for construction of the projects. Usually, the contractors and the suppliers recommended by the engineers for the selected bidding list obtain most of the contracts from the developers. Over a period of years the officers of the contractors or suppliers developed a close business and personal relationship with the engineers of the firm.
From time to time, at holidays or on birthdays of the engineers with whom they dealt, the contractors and suppliers would give Engineers A, B, and C personal gifts of substantial value, such as home furnishings, recreational equipment, gardening equipment, etc.