Code of Ethics Guidelines - APEGBC

APPENDIX C CODE OF ETHICS GUIDELINES
Principle 4
4.1 An engineering firm had the assignment for design and field services for
a pulpmill being developed by a large forest products company.
Engineer A was the Resident Engineer. The contract was biased in
favour of the forest company and, among many other things, contained a
clause that said no payment would be made to the contractor for delays
or consequential costs of those delays, whatever the cause of those
delays. During the course of construction the forest company realized it
could not install the designed chlorine bleach process because it would
not meet more rigorous effluent standards that were in stream and likely
to become law in a few months. A ordered the contractor to cease work
on this part of the project while an alternate process was designed.
Work was able to restart after a two-month delay. However, two months
of good weather had been lost and the contractor had to work much
overtime to close in the building before winter. The contractor wrote to
Engineer A explaining the additional unforeseen cost of overtime which
had been imposed on him by the delay. The contractor said a detailed
claim would follow in a few days. A wrote back referring to the delay
clause and said no claim would be considered and any claim received
would be sent back by next mail.
Engineer A had a duty to act with fairness and justice, notwithstanding
the exact wording of the contract. A should have received the claim,
analyzed it carefully and forwarded it to the forest company with his
evaluation of the merits and value of the claim. This would have been
the fair and just course of action. A well knew that the courts do not like
unfair contracts and have often made awards in the face of unfair
language. In fact, the contractor launched a lawsuit and was awarded
these delay costs. The additional costs of mounting and defending the
action, and the consequent deterioration of the relationship between
contractor and engineer, could have been avoided by acting with fairness
and justice in the first place.
4.2 Engineer A was a member of an ad hoc citizens committee which
wanted the municipality to build a small recreation centre in their
neighbourhood. They believed the council would not approve the project
at the realistic likely cost. A then produced an estimate at about 40% of
the realistic likely cost and the committee advanced this estimate to
council. Council accepted the estimate, relying on the professional, and
approved the project without seeking another estimate. When the design
process was part way along it was realized that the estimate was low.
Council was annoyed at A but felt it had gone too far in the process to
stop it without excessive political reaction, and continued the project.
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND GEOSCIENTISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA