Ethics Double Check 9

[KootK]

The situation:

1) I have a contractor client that accounts for 5%-10% of my annual revenue.

2) This contractor did some work on a property and, in the course of that work, may have done some inadvertent damage to the structure. This is the property owner's claim. The contractor doesn't really agree but has done some DIY reinforcement anyhow.

3) The property owner wants a structural engineer to sign off on the damage / repairs before paying the contractor for their services.

4) The contractor has engaged me to help the property owner with this. They see this as a favor that they are trying to do for the property owner. They've not leaned on me to influence my recommendations etc. They just want to do what's right and exit the situation with their reputation in tact as much as possible.

5) The property owner has raised the question as to whether or not this is a conflict of interest for me.

Is this a conflict of interest for me? My instincts are not always great on this stuff. I just like to work and ride my bike(s).

Yes, I do have a vested interest in helping my contractor client to solve their problem. However, I consider that interest to be trumped by my ethical obligations to our profession and the public.

Frankly, I struggle to envision a real world assignment where I would not have some vested interest in helping my clients in ways that would be in opposition to my ethical obligations. It's a constant balancing act. Saving people money and making whacky architectural dreams come true is the cornerstone of my business after all.

What say you?

 

[271828]

The existence of a conflict of interest might be ok if disclosed, but #5 puts it over the line for me.

 

[Rabbit12]

In normal circumstances a builder fixes something, and their engineer approves it, and life goes on.

This isn't normal in my world of engineering. We design something and the builder constructs it. We don't reverse engineer something already constructed to make sure it works.

 

[KootK]

In this situation if KootK doesn't agree with the solution and wants to make the contractor do something more elaborate he risks 5-10% of his business which creates a conflict of interest.

Exactly right. The nature of this is going to be that, if I get involved, I will have to have the contractor do one of two things:

1) Remove their repairs so that I can see the extent of the original damage which was not documented or;

2) Treat the repairs as though the unseen damage rendered the existing structure completely compromised. This likely means more reinforcing.

In this, the contractor has kind of screwed themselves with the initial repair. It does imply guilt and it almost certainly won't result in a "do nothing".

 

[KootK]

We don't reverse engineer something already constructed to make sure it works.

I live in Tomfh's world and do plenty of this.

 

[Greenalleycat]

@Rabbit12 The relevant part of Koot's post there is:
"3) The property owner wants a structural engineer to sign off on the damage / repairs before paying the contractor for their services."
There is no suggestion yet that the homeowner is unhappy with the FIX that the contractor has done: they just want that fix to have all the necessary approvals behind it

The owner wants the contractor to get an engineer so the contractor has supplied one
There is no inherent conflict there: obviously the contractor is going to pick someone he knows, that's exactly what you'd expect anyone to do
Our professional ethics do not allow us to be biased so our opinion can and should be neutral regardless of who engages us

IMO the close connection between Koot and the contractor is only relevant such that he actually is willing to get involved
Because, be honest - how many of us would want to wade into this situation for an inevitable tiny fee and high stress?
If the homeowner is worried then my proposed solution is that the homeowner engages him directly
Alternatively, as suggested by Koot, the homeowner views that the contractor has provided his expert and this leaves him with the option to engage his own expert if required

Completely fine to be involved IMO

 

[KootK]

The existence of a conflict of interest might be ok if disclosed, but #5 puts it over the line for me.

Yeah. At this juncture, I don't think that it would be palatable to withdraw the offer entirely, whether it's me or somebody else.

Given the property owner's posturing, however, I think it unlikely that this exercise will yield anything of benefit to my contractor client. I sense that the owner has a particular outcome in mind here and that the structural concerns are just one point of leverage in a broader negotiation strategy.

 

[Greenalleycat]

IMHO, It's only a conflict if you are lowering your standards to maintain your future livelihood.

I'd tweak this wording: it's only an ethical issue if you are lowering your standards to maintain your future livelihood
The conflict of interest is the fact that this is a consideration
A conflict of interest does not necessarily prevent you from doing something, it just needs to be considered

 

[Enable]

It's a conflict only to the extent that providing engineering services to any client that pays you for your services is a conflict. We always have an interest in producing more economical designs or less demanding details or being as lenient as possible, etc, etc.

I would not frame it in such terms. For me, the critical issue is will your involvement (regardless of your engineering determination) help your client achieve their end? The reason this thread exists is presumably that the home owner doesn't believe you can be fair and/or impartial to a degree that they would like. To me that says if you come back with anything other than "major damage was caused here" they are not likely to accept your determination, and thus, you've really not accomplished much other than getting yourself involved in an annoying situation.

That said, that is your client's call and I would put it back to them. If your client is okay assuming the risk that the owner may not accept your recommendations / report, then by all means march forward. You are on good, solid ethical ground as far as I am concerned. And if not, then at least you brought it up to your client, and they will appreciate that you're looking out for them.

EDIT - I see you've already mentioned you did this in a post made while I was writing this. Then run like the wind good sir. You're all clear as far as ethics go.

 

[KootK]

Regardless, the point for the homeowner is that there is a professional engineer signing off the repair: if you do the dirty on him to help your mate, your insurance is there regardless
He has what he needs, which is someone backing the repair that he can sue

I see it the same as you'll see in my response to the property owner.

what else is he supposed to do? Find someone openly hostile to him to give the homeowner reassurance of independence?

That made me laugh out loud.

But for a good client, that is what you do: you help them using your professional skills

Exactly. Imagine the alternative from a marketing perspective:

Dear mister contractor, I'm just the guy to solve your structural engineering problems. You know, unless you have an ACTUAL problem. Then you should probably call somebody else.

It's not a great look.

 

[phamENG]

@Tomfh, not quite. It's about trust. Do you trust somebody to do something objectively, or do you think they may be influenced by their relationship to the other parties involved?

If a homeowner calls a contractor and says "my house is leaning, please help" and the contractor then calls out an engineer to look at it and design the fix, there may still be a conflict of interest - is the engineer saying the house needs to be torn down because the contractor will get more from rebuilding it, or because they genuinely believe it to be unsafe and beyond repair? That can be vetted and worked through before everyone agrees and signs the contract. Everyone can walk away and nobody really loses - the contractor should have some amount of lead loss built into the business model.

If a contractor is halfway through a project and a mistake is found, the contractor now has a vested interest in making go away as quickly and as cheaply as possible. It's important for the engineer assessing the situation to be neutral - not trying to take the contractor to task or punishing him for his mistake, but also not dismissing the problem. If you were the homeowner, would you trust the engineer on speed dial to make the right call?

3) The property owner wants a structural engineer to sign off on the damage / repairs before paying the contractor for their services.

It seems like there's a lot of jumping from this to "they wanted the contractor to get somebody." @KootK , is that the case? Did they ask the contractor to call somebody? Or did they say that's what they wanted, and the contractor tried to get ahead of things?

 

[GaStruct]

I don't see anything ethically wrong with it. The owner could hire someone else for an opinion if they wanted. The contractor is also allowed to hire someone to check their work and give an opinion too. Similar to how supplements are often third party tested even when they don't need to be.

If the owner wants to accept the work from the guy retained by the contractor, that's his choice.

If this isn't SI then the code line about independence doesn't apply IMO. It's just a business agreement between consenting and informed parties.

 

[mfgenggear]

here is Part of the issue
was there proper permits pulled.
wait no drawings for the fix.
no stress analysis
no documentation of the damage and what the fix should be.
obviously safety issue here, whose responsible for damage, injuries or possible
loss of life.
no this is shaky at best and i am appauled.

 

[KootK]

You wanna help this guy; I get it. You should.

Because, be honest - how many of us would want to wade into this situation for an inevitable tiny fee and high stress?

Spot on. The $$$ / Hassle & Risk ratio here will be crap. I do want to help the property owner but I'd be unlikely to get involved were this not a help to my repeat client contractor.

 

[KootK]

What is the value we are talking here? It sounds like the contractor is fixing it to make the problem go away, so I would expect it is in the thousands.

The value of my services will be next to nothing, per usual.

The vale of the repair work I will likely specify will probably be <10K.

The value of the potential dispute, which is more than just this structural stuff... maybe 50K>$>100K

 

[phamENG]

other than it being a conflict of interest.

Fair. And perhaps I should have said it is a perceived conflict of interest. And, when dealing with homeowners, perception is reality, no matter how distorted.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that to this homeowner, they are not dealing with KootK, the godlike structural engineering master of Olympian status on Eng-Tips. They're dealing with some schmuck this contractor that just broke their house hired.

Should KootK back out on ethical grounds? No. But should KootK advise the homeowner that another engineer may have a different opinion, and that if they don't trust him they should call somebody else? Yes, I think he should.

 

[KootK]

no this is shaky at best and i am appauled.

I appreciate you input but you aerospace guys have a long history of being hard asses over here in structure-land. I'm sad to report that QC and process on your average residential home is a far cry from QC and process on your average 737 over at Boeing.

Well, maybe Airbus would be a better example these days: Downfall. Killer engineering documentary for any interested parties.

 

[phamENG]

Downfall.

Interesting name choice...

 

[KootK]

They're dealing with some schmuck this contractor that just broke their house hired.

You're downright clairvoyant with this stuff sometimes. You'll see.

What I've not mentioned, and need to be a bit cautious about getting into, is that I am not the first engineer to look at this. And the first does have credibility problems to an extend.

 

[KootK]

Interesting name choice...

Will blow your mind that things could go that far off of the rails:

Step 1: Move corporate HQ to a different city from production so you don't have to listen to the engineers whine about QC all the time.

Step 2: Blame plane crashes on colored folks not being good at flying planes.

Seriously... is nuts. They did a great job with the stock price though. Until they didn't.

 

[KootK]

So the homeowner here is also an engineer (electrical I believe). And he's killing this. He wrote a great deficiency report, is keeping his cool, and definitely knows the right questions to ask. This is an exchange from first thing this morning, before I initiated this thread. Totally channeling my inner pHam.

START

Your questions do not offend me in the least. I would be asking similar questions were I in your shoes. While I am eager to help, the exercise has little value if we’re not able to establish trust and credibility. Please see my responses to your questions in red below.

Hi Mr. KootK,

Thank you for your email. I am interested in engaging you to verify that the integrity of my structure has not been compromised, but before proceeding I would like to clarify the following:

1. Are you in any way connected with NaughtyTown construction Inc.? I do not want to put you in a position where you face a conflict of interest.

Indeed I am connected with NaughyTown. While not an employee of NaughtyTown, I typically do a couple of assignments with NaughtyTown as an independent consultant each month. This accounts for something on the order of 5%-10% of my annual income.

I do not feel that this represents a conflict of interest for me. My ethical obligations to the public and to my profession trump my client relationships. That said, it is certainly accurate to say that, always, I am interested in solving problems for my clients when that fits within the framework of my ethical obligations.

More pragmatically, I carry a $2M insurance policy that is my largest annual expense by far. When / if I sign off on your structure, that policy will then cover any damage to your property resulting from any errors or omissions on my part. This represents a risk mitigation benefit to you and a liability for me as such a claim would cause my insurance premiums to increase unpleasantly.

1. Who is paying for your services?

NaughtyTown Construction Inc. is paying for my services on this assignment.

1. Are you recognized by APEGA to be a certified professional structural engineer?

I am but, frankly, it doesn’t mean a whole lot in Alberta since we do not meaningfully distinguish between civil engineers and structural engineers. In Alberta, structural engineers are just civil engineers who have self declared that they have experience with structural.

In other parts of the world, particularly the quaky ones, structural engineering is being spun off as a separate discipline, complete with rigorous specialized testing and experience requirements. I hold a structural engineer’s license in the state of California which is one of the most rigorous jurisdictions around.

I hope my questions do not offend you. I look forward to hearing from you.

END