F-13: Low Bid on Feasibility Study

Statement of the Case: Engineer A was one of several consultants asked to submit proposals for

a feasibility study for a deep-water bulk-loading facility on the client’s site. To increase the

chances of getting the assignment, Engineer A submitted a proposal with a very low fee, which

was about half the realistic fee for the work. The reasoning behind the low fee was that the

consultant who got the feasibility study would be better placed to win the subsequent—and far more lucrative—design competition (providing, of course, that the client decided to go ahead

with the proposed facility).

Engineer A won the contract for the feasibility study and found that the study required far more

time and expense than originally envisioned. The contract payments covered only about 40

percent of the actual costs. However, the most depressing part was that Engineer A’s study

revealed that

 soil conditions would require very deep piles to support the massive quay-side equipment;

 railway links and highway connections were far from the site;

 the harbour did not have enough depth for bulk carriers without dredging; and

 prevailing winds and wave action would cause constant problems for ships waiting to moor.

In other words, it really was not economically feasible to construct the bulk-loading facility on

the site, and Engineer A’s final report explained this fact. Engineer A had spent several months

on a project that had cost money to complete.

----------------------------------------------

Feasible: “Feasible” means something is possible and practical to do, given the available conditions.

---

Simple definition

Feasible = doable in reality, not just in theory

---

In engineering context

A solution is feasible if it:

• Can be built or implemented

• Meets technical requirements

• Is within budget and time constraints

• Complies with regulations

---

Examples

✔️ Feasible

• A drainage system that:

  • Fits the site conditions

  • Meets design standards

  • Can be constructed with available materials

👉 Practical and achievable

---

❌ Not feasible

• A design that:

  • Requires unavailable technology

  • Costs far beyond the budget

  • Violates site constraints (e.g., no infiltration allowed)

👉 Theoretically possible, but not realistic

---

In plain terms

“Feasible” means you can actually make it happen in the real world.

---

Common engineering usage

• Technically feasible → works from an engineering standpoint

• Economically feasible → affordable

• Operationally feasible → can function in practice

---

Quick exam tip

If you see:

• “Not feasible” → think constraints prevent implementation

• “Feasible alternative” → think practical solution within limits

Question: Was Engineer A’s behaviour ethical?

Authors’ Comments: This practice is unethical. The submission of low bids, in hopes of

landing a bigger contract later, should be strongly discouraged. The main reason is that this

gamble affects the engineer’s judgment of the feasibility of the project. In other words, the

engineer has an interest in seeing that the project is feasible; otherwise, no second contract will

occur. This clearly creates a conflict of interest. In fact, to avoid biased conclusions in a

feasibility study, clients often require that the successful consultant for a feasibility study be

excluded as a consultant for the subsequent project.

Moreover, low bidding is a poor business decision: the professional engineer is gambling on two

events: 

• that the project will be feasible, and 
• that the engineer will win the design contract. 

If either event does not occur, the engineer suffers a financial loss, since the costs and profit for the

feasibility study cannot be recovered from the later work. 

Every Code of Ethics requires professional engineers and geoscientists to insist on appropriate and adequate compensation for their work.

Explain: Every Code of Ethics requires professional engineers and geoscientists to insist on appropriate and adequate compensation for their work.

This statement is about professional responsibility—not greed or profit. It’s often misunderstood, so let’s clarify it properly.

---

Core meaning

Engineers are ethically required to ensure they are paid fairly and adequately for their professional work.

---

Why this is an ethical requirement

Codes of ethics (e.g., Professional Engineers Ontario and similar regulators) include this because:

1) Protects quality of work

If an engineer accepts too little compensation:

• They may not have enough time/resources

• This can lead to cut corners, rushed analysis, or errors

👉 That can compromise public safety

---

2) Maintains professional standards

Underpricing services can:

• Undermine the profession

• Create a “race to the bottom”

👉 Ethical duty = uphold dignity and value of the profession

---

3) Prevents conflicts and pressure

If compensation is inadequate:

• Engineers may feel pressure to:

  • Approve unsafe work

  • Skip proper review

  • Please clients to secure future work

👉 Fair compensation supports independent judgment

---

4) Reflects responsibility and liability

Engineers:

• Take on legal liability

• Make decisions affecting public safety

👉 Compensation should reflect that level of responsibility

---

What “appropriate and adequate” means

• Not excessive or exploitative

• Not underpaid or unsustainable

• Reasonable for the scope, risk, and effort

---

Example

❌ Unethical situation

An engineer agrees to design a complex stormwater system for a very low fee:

• No time for proper modeling

• No peer review

👉 Risk to public → ethical issue

---

✔️ Ethical situation

Engineer negotiates a fee that:

• Covers proper analysis

• Allows time for review and compliance

👉 Protects both client and public

---

In plain terms

Engineers must charge enough to do the job properly, safely, and professionally.

---

Important exam insight (NPPE)

If you see:

• “Low fee” + “complex work”
  👉 Think: Risk to quality → ethical concern

If you see:

• “Engineer insisted on fair compensation”
  👉 Usually correct ethical behavior

---

Bottom line

This rule exists because:

Good engineering requires adequate resources—and inadequate fees can lead to unsafe outcomes.