Disgraceful behavior from an Engineer 3

[jasonpc]

I find myself in an unsettling position on a project and I am left searching for how to proceed. I work for a public entity that sought qualification-based proposals from engineering firms to study a drainage problem and design a solution for the neighborhood. The work actually hinged on recommendations from a previous study.

Let’s say Firm A was the selected firm and Firm B was the runner up firm that was not selected based on scores given by a proposal scoring committee.

As it turns out, an Engineer from Firm B actually lives in the neighborhood that was part of the study.

Firm A worked diligently and even worked with us to re-work their original proposal within the given budget when there were issues outside of their control related to major changes to the project location due to availability of property and willingness from property owners to sell.

One of the neighbors heard about the change in location and went on a NIMBY petition crusade to end the project even though the changes meant their neighborhood stood to see the biggest benefits.

The neighborhood then sought the input from the engineer from Firm B who lives in the neighborhood. Without formal public records request, he was able to obtain a copy of the report and proceeded to review and critique the work.

He sent me a list of concerns that I re-wrote in bullet point format and sent to Firm A to read and internally address. I kept the identity of the individual from Firm B and their firm anonymous and only told Firm A that the neighborhood had enlisted the help of an engineer who lived in the neighborhood who does in fact work for a competing firm and that he had some concerns.

Firm A addressed these concerns to our satisfaction and explained that there were some tables in the report that could have provided more complete data (it could have been presented better), but that the data was accurate and correct.

I explained to the engineer from Firm B that Firm A had addressed the concerns to our satisfaction and went into some detail of their explanation via a phone call when he had called me to follow up.

Many months go by and work on the project plans continues, and I find a public records request from the engineer at Firm B to obtain the model data. After he obtains it, he sends an email explaining that his employees have found terrible discrepancies in the report and model and all of the results must be invalidated and demands a meeting with Firm A.

Firm A agrees to meet with him to hear him out. At the meeting he is very light on details but acts extremely aggressive and condescending. He insinuates that if his concerns aren’t addressed to his satisfaction that he will recommend the neighborhood file an injunction to stop the project.

From the start, I believe this individual from Firm B should have recused himself from the neighborhood’s request to review this work since they were a competing firm that responded to the solicitation of qualifications. That is just my opinion but obviously they felt not to go that way. Then from a public health and safety perspective I find myself having the duty to review and take into consideration all concerns, especially one from a practicing engineer.

However, I am finding this behavior as unacceptable and likely unethical. I am trying to consider what my future options are to keep the project alive without being held hostage to vindictive behavior.

Any input or insight would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Settingsun]

investigation for fraud

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=495050

 

[Settingsun]

Certain people should avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest in certain circumstances. It isn't an absolute rule.

In this case, it seems that Engineer B's potential conflict of interest was at the bid stage, assuming his personal circumstances could be affected differently by design decisions. Now he's a knowledgeable local resident. If he can get the model data through release of public records, I assume he could also get the bid package whether or not he was invited to bid, so no misuse of the information gained from bidding.

 

[CWB1]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Per Black's and most every other dictionary, its an intentionally false representation of fact. Telling potential clients that they are legally required to hire an engineer when they are not is fraud. A public official approving a glaringly illegal contract is also fraud bc obviously illegal /= legal.

 

[Guest102023]

steveh49,

That sounds to me like splitting hairs, although it happens a lot and the gray area is wide.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

 

[jasonpc]

I fail to see how anything is glaringly illegal. There are several departments and including a legal department full of attorneys who approve every contract and contract amendment. State laws also may vary. In this state any design professional service contract is not considered a bid and must be based only on qualifications and not price. As long as the scope of work of the request for qualifications is followed, there is no wrong doing. The scope of work included all of the phases of work that were followed. The exact location of the improvements was flexible, but a previous study focused on two other locations which were the original basis for the proposal. It is not illegal to amend a contract to add/remove hours of billable work when things don’t go exactly as planned so long as it remains within the original scope of the request for qualifications. That scope of work included a study/conceptual phase, then a preliminary plans stage, and then a final plans stage.

It was very typical of other local/state contracts, but likely different from federal contracts where usually the firm involved in conceptual/feasibility cannot work on the same design contract.

 

[Settingsun]

intentionally false representation of fact

You've skipped the first word IMO, here and in the other discussion. For clarity, who are you suggesting may have committed fraud in the current situation?

That sounds to me like splitting hairs

I don't think so. Engineer B doesn't appear to have a duty to anyone but himself at the moment, so no conflict. It's up to Jasonpc's entity to deal with impacts on their opinion of Firm A (ie the reputation question), and certainly not take the job away from Firm A without solid cause. I don't agree that losing a bid for a job means the engineer then must sit back and let his house be bulldozed (for example), or have to spend money on a consultant when he has the skills himself.


@Jasonpc, I suggest that you (politely) tell Engineer B in writing to put up or shut up from here out. Something along the lines of acknowledge any further calls/submissions from him; set out the background that you've put his concerns to Firm A twice and they've addressed them to your satisfaction on both occasions; there's been 3rd party review; Engineer B's latest submission doesn't contain anything new/specific enough for consideration.

 

[dik]

That should never be done... if an issue, then you need a fresh set of eyes.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[alchemon]

I read through and my advice at this point is to treat Firm B no different than any private property owner. If public records requests are applicable (check with your legal department), then send it out.

Otherwise, if you are prepared to move forward with this project - you will need to be prepared for a court battle. This sounds really no different than condemnation for a drainage easement...

That being said - Firm A and Firm B are neither unbiased - and you should be prepared to hire a Firm C, perhaps from another town, to serve as an expert witness.