What Will You Do When Your Work Is Discovered to Be Safe, but Flawed?
Publication: Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 8, Issue 3
You are the owner of a small (twenty employees) structural engineering firm located in Springfield, Illinois. Your firm’s normal mix of work includes the design of building structures of all types, usually as a subconsultant to architectural firms. Occasionally, however, your firm completes work directly for owners, especially in the remodeling and rehabilitation of existing structures and buildings.
A little over a year and a half ago the owner of a local manufacturing facility asked you to prepare plans and specifications for an expansion of the original plant, which was built in 1948. The expansion involved the extension of the runway for an existing twenty-ton capacity bridge crane. Columns that also extend upward to provide support for the roof trusses supported the existing runway girders. The new framing was to be an extension of the existing, with changes in member sizes as required to meet the current building code. Your firm negotiated a fixed price fee to provide the needed design and subsequently completed the assignment.
After your firm’s design had been completed, checked, and delivered, the owner decided to postpone bidding and construction since anticipated business for his firm had not materialized. The owner thanked you for your assistance and promptly paid the agreed upon fee.
About six months ago the owner again called and asked that your firm revise its earlier design by adding two more bays for additional manufacturing and by eliminating the bridge crane runway since all material handling was to be done utilizing a conveyor system. When you presented your firm’s proposed fee to provide the requested changes there was considerable surprise on the owner’s part (he had expected a much lower fee thinking that all that had to be done was to revise the drawings). As you review the work effort required with him you point out that not only have his requirements changed but, effective the first of the year, there was a new building code in effect and the entire design must now be reviewed and revised, as necessary, to comply with this new code. After considerable discussion and with some seeming unhappiness on the owner’s part, your firm’s fee is accepted and you return to your office to complete the assignment.
Your firm has now completed the redesign of the facility and, as it turns out, your estimate of the number of hours necessary to complete the work was considerably lower than was actually required! Further, during the final review of the calculations and design notes it is discovered that the column and footing design still reflects the loads used in the original work; elimination of the bridge crane was neglected in the design of these elements.
After completion of your firm’s quality assurance program it is determined that:
•
The estimated cost to revise the design of the affected elements is $8,000;
•
The estimated cost to revise the drawings and details is $17,500;
•
To date your firm has spent $5,500 more than was budgeted in the agreed upon fee of $50,000; and
•
The project, in its now-completed form, while code compliant, is estimated to have $185,000 in excess construction cost because the bridge crane loads were inadvertently included in the design.
What Will You Do?
If you are a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers I again remind you that you have agreed to conduct your life and complete your work within the guidelines of the Code of Ethics as follows:And, as a part of your decision-making process, I urge you to consider the following questions:Problems of this nature become very “sticky” in their analysis. After all, an error was made and that error stands to cost the owner a considerable sum of money. Your firm, on the other hand, has already paid $5,500 for the privilege of preparing this design for his benefit. Is it ethical that he should expect your firm to lose even more so that he might benefit, even more?
1.
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.
2.
Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.
3.
Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4.
Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.
5.
Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.
6.
Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession.
7.
Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision.
•
Does your definition of ethical behavior require that you prepare designs that are simply safe and code compliant or do you have an obligation to see that they are also cost effective to implement?
•
Do you have an obligation to advise the owner of the design error even though it has yielded a safe and code compliant design?
•
Since there is clear financial reward to the owner for correcting the error, does the owner have an obligation to compensate your firm to correct the error and revise the drawings accordingly?
•
If you advise the owner of the design error should you refuse to correct it unless your firm receives compensation for the work involved?
•
Should the owner be obligated to pay your originally agreed upon fee if you refuse to correct the error based upon his refusal to provide additional compensation?
•
What impact does your expectation of the owner’s response have on your willingness to advise him of the error? What does your response to this question say about your integrity?
•
What is the most powerful force driving your decision in this case? What does the answer to that question say about the authority you give the Code of Ethics in your life?
As you come to a decision regarding your course of action I ask you one final question. “If you were the owner what would you expect the engineer to do?” I believe that the most important tenant of ethical living is embodied in the wisdom of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Since we are all human, we all make mistakes. To err is a part of being human and to deny this is to ignore the totality of human history. The Code of Ethics does not lead me to believe that I am expected to perform my services error free. It leads me to conclude that I am expected to perform my services to the very best of my ability and, when errors are discovered, I am expected to inform all affected parties and mitigate any damages that my error might cause. And this, I believe, I am expected to do, irrespective of the potential financial outcome.
ASCE Business Practice Committee and Michael F. Garrett, P.E., M.ASCE. Michael Garrett has over thirty years’ experience in the design and construction fields. He has been the owner of an engineering and construction management practice in upstate New York since 1985, and is presently licensed to practice in several states. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 8 • Issue 3 • July 2008
Pages: 167 - 168
Copyright
© 2008 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jul 1, 2008
Published in print: Jul 2008
ASCE Technical Topics:
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.