Case Study on “Conflict of Interest”
Reference: Feasibility Study (adopted from NSPE Case No. 88-1)
Problem Statement
• Engineer A is asked by the county to perform a
feasibility study and make recommendations
concerning location of a new power facility in
the county.
• Two parcels of land have been identified by the
county as the "candidates" for facility sites.
– Land 1 is undeveloped and owned by an individual
who plans to build later.
– Land 2 is owned by Engineer A, is developed.
Other Facts
• Engineer A discloses that he is the owner of the second parcel of
land
Non-disclosure is clearly unethical without doubt
• The county did not object to having Engineer A perform the
feasibility study.
Does that remove the conflict of interest?
Does it matter that the choice is a one-person decision or a committee’s decision?
• A performs the study and recommends that the county build the
facility on the undeveloped parcel of land (option 1) because
– it is a better location for the power facility from an engineering
standpoint, and
– it would be less costly for the county to acquire.
Does it matter that if the decision is reversed?
Questions and Discussion
• Was it ethical for Engineer A to perform a
feasibility study and make recommendations
given all considerations?
• Support your arguments (for or against) based
on established codes of ethics
Case Study 85-6
• An engineer was asked by the state to perform a feasibility study
concerning a possible highway extension through an area where
the engineer lives.
• The engineer disclosed to the state the fact that his residential
property might be affected and fully disclosed the potential
conflict.
• The state did not object to the engineer performing the work.
• Engineer A proceeded with his feasibility study and ultimately
recommended that the extension be constructed.
• The ruling: it was not unethical for the engineer to perform the
feasibility study.
– Section II.4.a requires the full disclosure of conflicts but not necessarily
to completely avoid all potential conflicts.
– Conflict of interest not necessarily equal to unethical act
– Indiscriminately enforce the code would leave engineers without any real
understanding of the ethical issues nor any guidance as to how to deal with
the problem
Case Study 69-13
• An engineer was asked to study and recommend a water and
sewer system in the general area of a land owned by the
engineer.
• The Board ruled that the engineer could not ethically design the
system under those circumstances.
– His study and recommendation could lead to a considerable
appreciation in the value of his land depending upon the
exact location of certain system elements in proximity to his
land.
– A full disclosure was not enough under the Code.
– The real test of ethical conduct is not when compliance with
the Code favors the personal interest, but when compliance
is considered adverse to one’s interest.“
– Section III.1.b public perception is important factor in
consideration of the success of the study/project
Conclusion
• It is considered unethical to perform the
feasibility study to recommend the power
facility.
• Other scenarios to consider:
– Land 2 is owned not by the engineer but his
relative/friend/neighbor/colleagues
– One of the potential power plant sites locates in the
general area of A’s home
Relevant Code of Ethics
• NSPE Code of Ethics- Section II.4.a.:"Engineers shall disclose
all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers
or clients by promptly informing them of any business
association, interest, or other circumstances which could
influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality
of their services.“
• NSPE Section III.1.b.:"Engineers shall advise their clients or
employers when they believe a project will not be successful."
Case Study on “Engineer’s dispute
with client over design”
Reference: Feasability study
(Adopted from NSPE Case No. 84-4)
Problem Statement
• Engineer A is hired by a client to design a
particular project.
• Client and Engineer A are unable to resolve
disagreements on success of design.
– Client feels design is overly complex
– Engineer A has reservations about results/safety of
a simpler solution
Other Facts
• Client demands Engineer A turn over design
drawings so project can be completed by
Engineer B
– Client is prepared to pay Engineer A for his
drawings, plans, etc.
• Engineer A refuses to turn over drawings
Issues for Discussion
• Is it ethically acceptable for Engineer A to turn over
his drawings to the client?
– Engineer A has expressed concerns that a simpler solution
may endanger the public
– Engineer A has made the assumption that Engineer B’s
work will result in a compromise of public safety
– Engineer A does not have factual basis to believe a safety issue actually exists,
nor that a design from Engineer B will result in one
Conclusion
• It was found that it would not be a violation of ethics
for Engineer A turn over his design plans to the client
– Engineer A fulfilled his ethical duty by
• Presenting his plans for a successful design project
• Expressing his concerns over a simplified solution to the problem
– Engineer A would be ethically required to report safety
concerns to proper authorities if there is verifiable evidence
that Engineer B’s designs pose a danger to the public