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?

 

[mfgenggear]

koot good luck.

 

[SWComposites]

KootK - still think you need to be careful with this mess. If the owner is expecting to “engage you”, then that’s potentially setting up a contract relationship with you, even if the contractor is paying you. Which could result in a heap of hassle for you, as the owner sounds like an over-controling, self-declared expert, cheapskate, and you could be caught in the middle being blamed by both sides. You should keep your relationship only with the contractor; make it clear in any discussions (verbal or email) that you are solely working for the contractor; any reports you prepare should only be delivered to the contractor, who can in turn, as appropriate, present them to the owner. And you should have the contractor with you on any site visits you make.

 

[Eng16080]

I haven't read all 4 pages of replies, but to answer the original question:

I would have little problem providing this service to your client (the builder). BUT, given the circumstances, I would make it very clear that I would be scrutinizing their work (in anticipation of the owner hiring their own engineer who would be doing the same). I would conduct this review as if I had instead been hired by the owner to find problems with the contractor's work.

Aren't engineers always signing off on work that somebody may later have a problem with? I don't see how this is any different, provided that you're strictly working for the builder (and not the owner).

 

[Brad805]

Considering <$10k constrcution cost, I would write up your opinion and move on unless some aspect is related to work you did in the past. Here the argument seems to be you have a conflict becuase this is a notable client? A conflict would arise if you had something to do with whatever has happened here. In that case you could be named. Here it seems you are offering what we all know to be sound engineering advice you can defend. If they want their own opinion, fine, they can hire their own as you suggest. Cases like these have a lot more to do with factors other than our technical part as you know. Your client seems to be putting forward good faith to make this go away, so hopefully it does not end up in small claims. This dispute does not have great value to attract a decent conststruction lawyer in Canada. Good luck.

 

[mfgenggear]

Not gonna happen. Firstly, it's just not my style. Secondly, I've played chicken with a number of legal hiccups in the past, sans lawyer, and haven't been burned yet. So I'm emboldened for better or worse. Thirdly, I absolutely love to hear what other engineers have to say about this kind of thing.



Yes, I believe that it will be worth the risk. But who really knows? My ATF engineering books are shown below. They've revolutionized my thinking. As engineers, we're trained to be so risk adverse in our work that we let that spill over into our businesses and lives in unhealthy ways.

All you ever hear about here is how stressed out engineers are, how hard it is for them to make good money, and how they wish that they'd chosen other career paths. This is why. Taking a mature, probabilistic view of uncertainty is the very foundation of mental health. It's how our brains work (large language models). It's trying too hard to be safe that ultimately makes us miserable. Nobody wants to drown but everybody needs to surf.

If I retire without enduring a significant lawsuit, I will consider myself to have played things much too safe. And I don't say that to seem hip and nonchalant. I'm 100% serious. And I'm running out of time.

View attachment 5479View attachment 5480

yes my in my line of work stress was part of the program and as an aerospace engineer I accepted it.
some of my projects have been 35 cent parts and up to to 65 million dollar atlas missile. I believe this owner should have asked these questions before work done and not after, i am following my gut here. and say its a setup. but I am maybe been like you said a hard ass because failure is not in my vocabulary . I think in multiple moves ahead like chess.

 

[gte447f]

I haven't read all the responses yet, but this is not a conflict of interest. The contractor is your client. You owe nothing to the owner other than your obligation to safeguard the public welfare, not even disclosure of your relationship to the contractor, since that relationship is obvious since the owner isn't paying you. Your services are not being performed for the benefit or interest of the owner. The owner should get his own engineer.

 

[jerseyshore]

Lot of great responses both ways. Don't think Koot even thinks twice unless the homeowner emailed that question.

Don't think it's a conflict of interest unless you think your engineering is going to be unfairly one-sided. If you can remain unbiased I don't see how this is an issue at all.

 

[mfgenggear]

as I stated before undocumented damage . undocumented inspection, undocumented repair. in my world is illigal

 

[Rabbit12]

Lot of great responses both ways. Don't think Koot even thinks twice unless the homeowner emailed that question.

Don't think it's a conflict of interest unless you think your engineering is going to be unfairly one-sided. If you can remain unbiased I don't see how this is an issue at all.

In the technical sense even if KootK stays unbiased there is still a conflict. By definition a conflict of interest is defined as when personal or financial interests conflict with professional or fiduciary responsibilities potentially compromising impartiality or judgement. IMO the key word there is potentially. Bias can be implicit in that KootK may not even realize that he is playing favorites but in reality he may be.

One key issue in my mind is he is being retained after the fact by the guy who screwed up. That changes things for me from being a partner to a fix vs. being asked to get the contractor out of a sticky situation.

To take this further if this contractor gave KootK 50% of his income or 75% or 100% does that change this discussion. In my mind it does because KootK likely has more incentive to push the envelope to help out his contractor client. Relationships can go south over small things.

I work for a large firm that does EPC projects. That same pressure and conflict exists here and likely influences decisions made by engineers and project managers. It makes me uncomfortable from time to time.

 

[mfgenggear]

The only way this can be fixed
If the owner and contractor agree to undo the repair. And start over with proper engineering and inspections. Good luck

 

[human909]

In the technical sense even if KootK stays unbiased there is still a conflict.

I haven't read all the comments. But I would say that if the contractor is hiring KootK then there is no conflict of interest.

By definition a conflict of interest is defined as when personal or financial interests conflict with professional or fiduciary responsibilities potentially compromising impartiality or judgement. IMO the key word there is potentially. Bias can be implicit in that KootK may not even realize that he is playing favorites but in reality he may be.

That conflict exists ALL the time in engineering. Most of us surely have had clients, bosses ask ask can't we do it XYZ way because it cheaper/easier/faster and we as professional engineers sometimes have to stand up to those who pay our bills and say NO.

Likewise if you work in design and build every structural sign off you do is a financial conflict of interest.

The home owner needs to recognise that KootK is not the home owners advocate. The home owner needs to either trust KootK's ethics or obtain their own advocate.


I was in a somewhat similar situation when a 'major structural' defect held up the sale of a home. The existing owner was selling engaged me for advice regarding the building inspectors assessment. I wrote a report which was ultimately seen by the home buyer. It was a very awkward situation for me, particularly as it was a low fee job, but potentially high cost should something go awry when a million property was changing hands. The structure issue wasn't a big deal and easy to address, but that really wasn't the challenge in this case.

 

[Smoulder]

"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."

That's saying work for any repeat client is COI. Can't agree. Reason for statutes about public safety first is because same situation is almost universal in capitalist system. Professionals are paid by some*one* but non-clients rely on acting ethically.

 

[Tomfh]

The home owner needs to recognise that KootK is not the home owners advocate

It’s his house. He’s ultimately paying (via the builder). That’s a fairly important factor here. The engineer has a clear duty to the homeowner, regardless of whose name is on the fee agreement.

 

[gte447f]

It’s his house. He’s ultimately paying (via the builder). That’s a fairly important factor here.

If the homeowner wants KootK to be his advocate, then the owner needs to hire KootK directly. As it has been described, KootK, if hired by the contractor, is working for the benefit of the contractor.

This is the way I understand the situation. Contractor made some repairs for damages that he apparently caused. Contractor hires KootK to review and evaluate the repairs for structural integrity, code compliance, or whatever. KootK either informs the contractor that the work is structurally sound, code compliant, or whatever, or informs him that it is not, and advises him of what additional repairs and/or modifications might be necessary. Contractor acts on KootK' s advice and recommendations.

Now the home owner can either trust KootK's evaluation or not. With regard to the ethics of the situation, it's irrelevant whether the Owner trusts KootK or not. KootK does not work for the owner and is not working for the benefit of the owner or as his advocate. If he wants someone to act in his best interest, he has to hire his own engineer.

It should be noted that it is in KootK's and the contractor's best interest for Kootk to honestly evaluate the situation and honestly advise the contractor even if something is wrong with the work. He would be helping himself and the contractor to avoid liability by truthfully advising the contractor. People seem to be assuming that it is in the contractor's best interest for KootK to lie to him. It is not.

 

[mfgenggear]

This is what is " as a resident of California for 68 years " I can tell you, the construction laws are very strict.
Let drop koot issue here , what is the obligation of the contractor to meet the strict standards of the owners county or city laws.
What are proper steps should have been taken.
A home owner who has expectations of the contractor following all laws and permitting requirements.
If the home owner excepted work with out a permit . Then that's an other issue.
It there is a design change to the architecture drawings what is the correct procedure.
Was it required to have approved drawings by the city or county.
Even if koot approved the work it has to be approved by the city or county.
If not the contractor is now involving an engineer
With out permits. That is a quick way to lose a license.

 

[Rabbit12]

This is what is " as a resident of California for 68 years " I can tell you, the construction laws are very strict.
Let drop koot issue here , what is the obligation of the contractor to meet the strict standards of the owners county or city laws.
What are proper steps should have been taken.
A home owner who has expectations of the contractor following all laws and permitting requirements.
If the home owner excepted work with out a permit . Then that's an other issue.
It there is a design change to the architecture drawings what is the correct procedure.
Was it required to have approved drawings by the city or county.
Even if koot approved the work it has to be approved by the city or county.
If not the contractor is now involving an engineer
With out permits. That is a quick way to lose a license.

There are a lot of places in this country where building departments, building officials, and permits do not exist.

 

[gte447f]

mfg, do you work in the AEC industry? Your handle says Aerospace. Structural engineers, myself included, get hired all the time to perform structural condition assessments or evaluations of existing conditions. Such work does not require a permit. Now, what happens after the engineer performs their evaluation might be a different story.

 

[Tomfh]

If the homeowner wants KootK to be his advocate, then the owner needs to hire KootK directly. As it has been described, KootK, if hired by the contractor, is working for the benefit of the contractor.

Regardless of who signs the contract, a duty to the owner remains. Engineering consultants are not there solely for the benefit of their immediate client.

 

[mfgenggear]

No that is probable. That permit is not required. But not california they want their money for fees.
Just look up fiasco with Los Angeles County and antelope valley , all those poor people
We're nicked picked on for structures with out permits.

In aerospace it depends on the contract .
Of there is safety issues with life .
And can be very strict. And there is or could be thousands of qualified engineers, qc , and thousands of support personnel.

 

[mfgenggear]

mfg, do you work in the AEC industry? Your handle says Aerospace. Structural engineers, myself included, get hired all the time to perform structural condition assessments or evaluations of existing conditions. Such work does not require a permit. Now, what happens after the engineer performs their evaluation might be a different story.

No I retired as aerospace gear engineer.
How ever I dealt with san diego county rules for 40 years .