F-18: Reviewing the Work of Another Engineer

 Statement of the Case: A client hired Engineer A to design a small industrial building and

provide field services (inspection) during the construction. The construction contract went to

tender and was awarded to a contractor who started work immediately. The contractor observed

that the structure appeared to be grossly over-strength, requiring piles and thick concrete pads,

poured separately from the main floors of the building. This part of the structure would be very

expensive, requiring special sub-contracts for the piles and complex concrete formwork.

The

contractor further observed that, based on his experience constructing shopping malls, the costs would decrease significantly. Presumably, the client and the contractor would split any savings,

so it was worth exploring.

To convince Engineer A to change the design, the contractor independently engaged Engineer B

to review the design and prepare a report recommending the change. Engineer B obtained

preliminary design information from the contractor, examined the drawings and specifications,

and then visited the site to examine the footing locations. Engineer B did not contact Engineer A,

who was, in fact, on-site at the time. 

Engineer B, after visiting the site and reviewing the drawings and soil reports, could see no

reason why this portion of the structure had to be so strong. He wrote a report, which he

prudently marked “preliminary,” supporting the contractor’s cost-reduction proposal. The

contractor sent copies of the report to the client and to Engineer A, recommending a deviation

from the original design.

Question: Is it ethical for Engineer B to review the work of Engineer A under these

circumstances?

Outcome: Engineer B received an immediate answer from Engineer A: The client planned to

expand the manufacturing activity over the next 5 to 10 years, and the piles and pads were the

foundation for future installation of two huge stamping presses. The presses were very heavy and

imparted a cyclic impact to the ground, so the pad had to be isolated from the main floor to

prevent the vibration from affecting the rest of the plant. This information had not been included

on the drawings, but would have been immediately available if anyone had contacted Engineer A

to ask about it. Engineer B, somewhat chagrined, withdrew the report and sent an invoice for his

time to the contractor. The contractor never paid the invoice, and Engineer B eventually wrote

the cost off as an expensive lesson.

Authors’ Comments: Most Codes of Ethics include the duty to inform professional engineers or

geoscientists before reviewing their work. Informing them is also common courtesy. Note that

there is no obligation to disclose the results of the review, unless the work includes incorrect,

unsafe, or harmful material.

Engineer B could have avoided this embarrassing episode by contacting Engineer A before

beginning to review the design. An engineer’s work should not be reviewed in secret. 

This

principle does not mean that an engineer’s work should not be reviewed. The truth is quite to the

contrary: engineers and geoscientists should have their calculations and design decisions

reviewed routinely for accuracy by a colleague, employee, or partner; however, such reviews

must be open, with the professional’s full knowledge. Important design or financial decisions

should never be based on unchecked calculations.

[Chagrin: annoyance or distress at having failed or been humiliated

“Write the cost off as an expensive lesson” means
Engineer B lost money (or suffered a setback) and decided to accept it as a learning experience rather than trying to recover it.

---

Breakdown

• “Write off” → treat a cost as a loss (often in accounting)
• “Expensive lesson” → a mistake that cost money but taught something valuable

---

What it implies about Engineer B

• He likely:
  • Made a poor decision
  • Entered a bad agreement
  • Trusted the wrong situation
• Instead of:
  • Fighting it legally
  • Trying to recover the money

👉 He chose to:

• Accept the loss
• Learn from the mistake
• Move forward

---

Example

If an engineer underestimates a project fee and loses money:

They may “write it off as an expensive lesson” and be more careful in future pricing.

---

In plain terms

“I lost money, but I learned something important from it.”

---

Subtle professional insight

This phrase often signals:

• No further dispute or action
• Recognition of personal responsibility or misjudgment
• A shift toward better future decisions

---

]