Engineering faculty are urged to be “inclusive” when teaching classes of diverse students. Research has shown that an inclusive approach not only assists the progress of socially and culturally underrepresented students, but it will also broaden the perspectives of all students, and thus improve the overall quality of an engineering program. The writers of this paper have collaborated over a number of years at the University of South Australia to make engineering education more inclusive. This process commenced with an institutionwide project to develop inclusive curricula by improving the understanding and practice of faculty, and developing guidelines to assist them in restructuring their courses to become more inclusive. In the engineering departments, the process was further developed through staff workshops to assist faculty with the redevelopment of course curricula using the university guidelines, as well as the collection and dissemination of material and examples appropriate for engineering programs. This paper describes some of these methods in more detail, as well as the obstacles the writers have encountered and the devices they have used to overcome objections and impediments. Specific examples from civil engineering are included.

The Department of Civil Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology recently modified its Master of Science program in environmental engineering. The thesis requirement has been replaced with a structured design course with real-world projects that are primarily for nonprofit organizations. The design course was modeled after the undergraduate senior design course within the department. In addition to a quality design experience, students now perform a service for the community. This paper emphasizes the service-learning aspects of the course using a case study of a completed project.

This paper presents an approach for implementing sustainability within a university environment, and for helping students become more effective problem solvers and professionals. In a “Sustainable Urban Development” course, taught by the writer, students develop projects to make their campus and community more sustainable. In the process, students learn how to analyze sustainability, work with decision makers, and put classroom knowledge into practice. Further, through this course’s emphasis on problem-based learning, students acquire critical cognitive skills and professional skills as they tackle complex, interdisciplinary, and real-world problems. Systematic evaluations of the course offer useful lessons. One is how to create synergies. For instance, while students benefited from hands-on experience with sustainability, the university benefited from students’ work. Another is how to demonstrate and quantify benefits from sustainability, which is vital to gaining support. Yet another is how to enable students to learn from both successful and unsuccessful attempts to implement ideas. Courses such as this can create important bridges between theory and application, and between education and professional practice.

In October of 1998, the ASCE Board of Direction adopted Policy Statement 465 supporting the concept of the master’s degree or equivalent as a prerequisite for licensure and practice of civil engineering at the professional level. Citing globalization, an intricate and complex infrastructure, and new engineering and information technologies, in October of 2001, the board unanimously voted to move forward with a revised Policy Statement 465, entitled “Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice.” This paper examines the ethical dimensions surrounding the call for additional education. To this end, the ASCE Code of Ethics will be discussed as a living document that governs the practice of safe, effective, and professional civil engineering, and will be brought to bear on the issues surrounding the implementation of ASCE Policy Statement 465.

One of the less understood elements in construction damage claims is the home office expense that is incurred when a project is delayed. In compensable delay cases, there is no doubt that home office overhead is a legitimate expense of the contractor. However, the methodology for the calculation of the expense incurred has been widely debated as well as the circumstances under which the methodology should be applied. The Eichleay formula was born in 1960, and has come a long way over the past 40 years in its use and application. Court and board decisions have shaped the prerequisite criteria for its application and made it what it is today. This paper provides the background concept of compensable damage due to project delay, the effects of delay on home office overhead, the Eichleay formula evolution, precedence for prerequisite criteria for the formulas’ application, and other formulas and methods that have evolved and been used. A “Direct Method” is proposed by the authors, which is straightforward and simple to apply. In the final analysis, obtaining a 100% accurate estimate of home office expenses is practically onerous. Therefore, representative formulas and techniques are used to arrive at a reasonable value for the unabsorbed overhead.

Engineers face a unique situation with respect to reporting unsafe situations that are created by an employer or a client, in that licensed engineers may have a legal or an ethical duty to “blow the whistle” on an employer in certain situations. This paper covers several aspects of whistle-blowing as they relate to practicing engineers. In the first section of the paper, five engineers are presented who have recently sought legal protection as whistle-blowers. This is followed by an analysis of state engineering regulations and professional ethics codes that often encourage, or even mandate that licensed engineers report employers or clients to governmental authorities in certain situations where the public safety is endangered. The next section presents an overview of whistleblower protection laws. Finally, there is a presentation of the potential for civil liability for those engineers who fail to report certain unsafe situations.

In recent years, there have been a number of construction disputes involving no-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts. This paper reviews the legal aspects of the no-damages-for-delay clause and presents in an easy-to-use flowchart the issues that need to be addressed to resolve disputes involving the no-damages-for-delay clause. Analysis shows that the clause presents a formidable obstacle for contractors to overcome if monetary damages are to be recovered. The contractor in most instances needs to show that the owner or the owner’s agent caused active hindrance or the owner demonstrated bad faith toward the contractor. The language of the clause is critical to determining the risk it conveys to the contractor. Examples of minimal, intermediate, and maximum risk language are given.