The Kansas City disaster and the subsequent ASCE‐sponsored Construction Industry Roundtable Meeting focused attention on the relationship and relative roles and responsibilities of the professional engineer and constructor. The public has bestowed on the professional the responsibility for public safety. The constructor's role in the construction of the project can be subdivided into three major areas: (1) Execution of stipulated work; (2) quality control; and (3) project safety. Each of these areas interface with the professional engineer and his public safety trust. Clarity of appropriate roles and responsibilities combined with good communication is essential if the construction industry is to maintain the public's trust and confidence.

The issue of whether or not instructors in the field of engineering should be registered professional engineers has long been debated by both engineers and educators. Because registration represents years of effort, there are many reasons why engineering professors should be PEs in order to teach. Due to the basic differences between science and engineering curriculums, anyone who teaches engineering must be thoroughly grounded in the creative principles of design, which is stressed in the PE exam. Professors also act as links between the academic world and the real world, and therefore their background must be verified. Finally, professors express their commitment to the field by becoming licensed, which strengthens professionalism in engineering, and sets a standard that fulfills the ASCE Code of Ethics.

Recent trends indicate that suits against professionals, including engineers, are on the increase. Laws are more sympathetic to those injured by the actions of various professionals. Until the mid‐1950s, the engineer was relatively immune to that type of lawsuit. Since then, however, courts have attempted to impose, liability on engineers because of their responsibilities in the design and construction processes. Engineers must be aware of that liability. However, it may not be so clear that an engineer who occasionally “moonlights” may be exposed to significant liability. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the potential liability of the moonlighter or the engineer who gives casual or gratuitous advice and to suggest ways in which that liability might be avoided. The various theories of liability are examined and analyzed to determine if they are applicable to the moonlighter or the casual consultant. Finally, the alternatives that might reduce a potential liability are presented.

Our engineering societies' codes of ethics call for a commitment to public service. Holding public office is an excellent way to fulfill our obligation, and several ways to become involved are available. Engineers possess some valuable attributes for public service. Public service training is usually a deficiency in our educational process. Public service experiences are valuable to our profession and are sometimes taxing, sometimes humorous. The challenge is before us to be worthwhile contributors to our communities.

A recent National Science Board report dealing with undergraduate science and engineering education emphasized the importance of undergraduate participation in research. The opportunity to participate in a research project provides a professional growth experience that enhances a student's knowledge, attitude, skills, and awareness of the importance of the engineering profession to society. After spending a summer participating in a research project, I believe that the opportunity enhanced my knowledge of my chosen technical specialty within civil engineering, increased my sense of self‐confidence, contributed to my ability to recognize and solve technical problems, further developed both my oral and written communication skills, enhanced my ability to use then computer for engineering problem‐solving, and showed the relevance of academic topics in solving real‐world problems. Based on my experience, it is recommended that steps be taken by the engineering profession to increase opportunities for undergraduate students to participate in research.

At the feasibility study level, the selection of the optimum site for a plant or a project is one of the most important decisions that will significantly influence the economic viability of the project. Civil engineers can play a major role in the site‐selection study. However, their expertise is often not included in the study team due to lack of awareness of the technical civil engineering parameters that may considerably affect the economic picture. A review of the site selection process is presented. The areas of contribution of the civil engineering profession to the location decision are identified. It can be concluded that the civil engineering expertise should be an integral part of the feasibility study team early in the process. A civil engineer with some basic economics knowledge is the ideal qualification to assume the principal role in the site location study.

Modern society depends upon organizational systems for much of its information, particularly with respect to the assessment of large scale technological projects. It is reasoned that organizations tend to distort information to meet organizational needs. Such distortions do not depend upon dishonest behavior on the part of individuals. Rather, tendencies to distort information are systemic properties of the organizational systems themselves. As the power of modern technology grows, the consequences of distorted assessments become more serious and potentially catastrophic. The shuttle explosion and the nuclear reactor accident at Chernobyl provide tragic lessons.

The Surface Transportation Act of 1982, which increased DBE participation in public construction work, has caused continuing controversy. To determine how best to increase such participation with the least controversy, a study was conducted in Florida. A literature search and interviews with bankers, bonding agents, and government and trade association officers were conducted to obtain more potential solutions for increasing DBE participation. Questionnaires were then designed and sent to both DBE and non‐DBE contractors to determine which suggestions would boost DBE participation the most. This paper reports the research results and describes the methodologies used. Although the research did not result in unanimously accepted suggestions, both DBE and non‐DBE contractors who were surveyed volunteered suggestions that they believed would benefit DBE participation. These suggestions urgently need to be implemented, and their implementation would have the fewest political roadblocks.

A full‐time, 15‐week bridge engineering course has been planned and is being implemented at the University of New South Wales in Australia to upgrade the technical skills of some 60 mid‐career bridge design and construction engineers form the Indonesian Public Service. This course was planned to ensure the relevance of the training to the needs of the engineers involved in an extensive bridge program currently being undertaken in Indonesia. This paper presents in detail the design and implementation of this course. The steps involved in identifying the need for such a course, the evaluation of resources required both within Indonesia and Australia, and the contents of the course are discussed. As well, the various methods for instruction and assessment of the engineers are presented.