Group Assignment

MN4900
Professional Ethics

APPLIED ETHICS IN PROFESSIONAL

PRACTICE

A CASE STUDY

By

Index No. Name

100576U Weerasinghe D.L.M
120302X Kasun D.T
120365P Madusanka T.B.T
120593L Seekkuarachchi P.S
120346J Madhuranga B.A.P.D

Advisors’ names, associations and signature

Department of Management of
Mr. Akila Ramanayake Technology,
University of Moratuwa

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Moratuwa
Sri Lanka

8th September 2016

 MN4900 – Professional Ethics

Question 1 – As the President of Nearby Engineers:

As the president of Nearby Engineers, I have a critical responsibility for the continuity
of survival of the company. Also the payrolls of the staff should be met in order and the
company should continually receive contracts with a substantial amount of monetary value to
exist in the business.

As such, I am prepared to undertake a business opportunity for the betterment of the

company and employees as long as I deem that no ethical violations are present as a dutiful
professional engineer. Our company took part in all the emergency engineering work of the
project, and the fact that the County Public Works Department is willing to bestow our
company with such a tremendous responsibility means that they have high regards for the
quality of our work.

However, apart from all that, this is clearly a deviation from the normal Qualifications
Based Selection procedure. A direct acceptance of this offer without considering a detailed
explanation of its underlying causes can set off a chain of events that may act unfavorably for
the company in the future. If our company willingly aid the Public Works Department in
disregarding an accepted QBS procedure, it can set a precedent that might work against our
firm in the future.

As such it should be dutifully sought the reasons for these changes at hand. Maybe there
was something wrong with the proposal of Trueheart Engineers, that did not act favorably for
the minds of board members at County Public Works Department. On the other hand, being
non responsive altogether for the request of the Director of Public Works Department may act
to the detriment of the company’s reputation. It may as well act against obtaining future
contracts from the County Public Works Department.

Therefore, it should be inquired whether the County Public Works Department has
terminated the negotiations with Trueheart engineers and why. And these claims from the side
of County Department should be verified through relations with the Trueheart Engineers to
make sure that both parties have an agreement over termination of the selections process. If
that is so, it would be fine to submit another proposal at the request of County Public Works
Department.

On the other hand, Nearby Engineers have maintained a good relationship with the
County Public Works Department over the years to trust our company with emergency works,

2|Page
 MN4900 – Professional Ethics

as well as for asking secondary proposal submissions. As such it should be taken good care to
not to damage the professional relations with the County Public Works Department. However,
it should also be concerned to maintain healthy relationships with the fellow competitors such
as Trueheart Engineers.

Question 2 – As a member of the Selection Team

The Director of County Public Works Department has overturned the announced QBS
Process as well as our professional judgement. This is clearly a matter of ethical dilemma, and
begs for careful investigation.

First of all, ethical or not, there should be a reason for this deviation in standard
procedure. As such it should be inquired into by trying to find out on what basis the judgement
of the committee was overlooked. If the reasons given were acceptable on the side of the
department, objections should be made onto how the matter was handled. It is not ethical to
suddenly change such a decision that involves considerable financial and human assets.

As we were the board of professionals who recommended Trueheart Engineers for the
contract, we took our decision through utmost scrutiny. We recommended so because we could
justify in doing so in all professional aspects. As such, the Director overriding our decision
cannot have any justifiable cause except any factors that did not come into light while we were
evaluating the submitted proposals. If that was the case, the Director had a duty and
responsibility to convene a meeting, explain the situation and decide any remedial actions
keeping all the board members informed. However, the director taking such a decision without
the consent of the people who had decided otherwise does not depict professionalism in his
practice.

However, whatever the case here, these kinds of matters should not go unnoticed. If
they are allowed to be so, then such discrepancies will continue to occur undermining the
integrity of the authorities responsible for these matters. However, standing against such
practices clearly poses a threat for the professional career and may as well jeopardize our jobs.
However, as a dutiful engineer, it is not good ethical practice to ignore such malpractices in
order to protect one’s career. Since in ignoring these practices, we as well will be aiding and
abetting the corrupt political structure in public authorities.

If relating to the Director or other Senior Employees of the Department does not provide
a satisfactory solution, we should take this to a higher level to obtain a solution. All members

3|Page
 MN4900 – Professional Ethics

who were at the board taking the collective decision pertaining to the acceptance of the proposal
of Trueheart Engineers should reach a consensus on how to proceed with this issue.

Proper actions should be taken according to the consensus reached as per above. Upon
reaching a consensus, all members should act on a professional interest disregarding potential
consequences that may arise as a result of this movement, leading to detriment of their career.
There are various government and non-government bodies that are interested in/responsible for
acting against these kinds of scenarios. The problem can be taken to these figures if ground
level discussions fail. However, the matter should not be overlooked. Disregarding standard
procedure is a serious issue pertaining to further malpractices in future, and thus should be
treated as critical.

Question 3 – As the Director of Public Works

As the Director of the County Public Works Department, I bear the responsibility of
fulfilling my duties according to the standards implemented by the Country Law and Ethical
Practice. As such, overturning the standard procedure of QBS neglecting the recommendations
of the board is clearly disregarding the professionalism in the career.

Supervisory Board Members have no professional right to force a decision pertaining

to a change in standard procedure, which is consented by qualified board of members with no
indication of malpractice during the procedure. However, in this scenario such malpractices by
higher level authorities are present and I should convene the selection committee and declare
the Qualifications Based Selection Process as null and void. Also I will personally advise the
supervisory board member as his behavior to be unacceptable and not standing up to the
standards of his profession.

If the aforementioned member continues to hinder a transparent selection process, I will

appeal to the full board of supervisors and explain them of the present scenario requesting for
advice. These actions may as well cost me with my job, but it is my duty and responsibility to
carry out my task lawfully and ethically.

At this point I will instruct all parties including Nearby and Trueheart Engineers to
resubmit proposals and carry out the selection process again with all parties informed and
transparently. That way, there will be no room for further problematic situations to arise. At
this time, if Nearby Engineers deem qualified for the contract to be awarded, it will be awarded
to them despite of the outlook to an outsider. The outsiders may complain that the process was

4|Page
 MN4900 – Professional Ethics

again cooked, with the contract being awarded to the same concerned party. However, if they
pass through the selection process surpassing Trueheart engineers, they deserve the contract.
The selection process is fine as long as it is done according to the standard practice, regardless
of the outcome; whether it is Nearby Engineers or Trueheart Engineers.

However, I further understand that these are ways of the public sector, when working
in areas related to these kinds of business. Behaving as given above will ruin my job altogether,
but I will have acted according to the standards as a dutiful employee. But in areas where
politics, money and reputation involve; dishonesty, malpractice and unethical behavior are all
present, at least to some extent.

It is the duty of a good employee to minimize such distortions as much as possible while
fulfilling his job. But that is not possible always. I could stand against this situation since only
one member was involved in changing the decision. But what if several of them were involved?
Maybe the whole board could have been involved in the scheme and the selection process was
only a front end as is the case mostly in third world countries.

In such a scenario even the most dutiful and honest employee would snap, in front of
the large forces that act against ethical behavior. Any attempt to restore balance in
professionalism and good conduct will be met with immense opposition. Therefore, if anyone
finds that he/she is unable to follow his/her carrier with conscience, it is better to quit, than be
part in gross misconduct and treachery.

Question 4 – As the President of Trueheart Engineers

Our company has always been a prestigious entity in engineering work. We have
always kept the best interest of our customers in mind and have never failed in meeting up with
the deadlines. As such we have developed a tremendous reputation in the industry by delivering
the promised work with the highest quality, lowest cost and in due time.

As such, we were selected for this contract by the selection committee according to the
standard selection process. We also were expecting to be selected since we have the required
level of experience and expertise and as well as the specialty in providing the required kind of
service.

Therefore, as soon as we were granted the contract, we started on refining our terms
and other criteria related to the contract. And these are specialized work and require time and
trained labor. They cost money. These are the resources that we could have used on some other

5|Page
 MN4900 – Professional Ethics

useful purpose. But they were wasted on a futile purpose; to prepare for a contract that we
would never get.

Giving us the opportunity of the contract or not is up to the County Public Works
Department. And it is clear that there was some sort of distortion in their transparency during
the contract awarding process, emphasized by the sudden change in ownership of the contract.
This has been a huge unexpected event at our end and has caused a great deal of discouragement
in our workforce.

In this situation we can take several actions; actions we doubt indeed would serve of
any useful purpose. We can file a claim at the county department mentioning the monetary
sums we spent during the proposals and negotiations; expecting to claim bad faith on their part.
However, such a claim is very likely to be dismissed altogether and thus result in more time
and money lost in our part. After all, we are trying to go against the government which is almost
always unsuccessful.

Instead of that, we can try filing a case under court of law, against the county
department, director and its board of supervisors. Allegations can be made on the basis of
violation of public policy and law, racketeering and professional misconduct. Attempts can be
made to make claims for Trueheart Engineering’s costs for responding and proceeding with
County Department’s requests and Trueheart Engineering’s total legal costs.

However, proving these allegations in a court of law can be very difficult since none of
the parties concerned (Nearby Engineers, County Department, Director etc.) will provide any
support to the legal proceedings. On the other hand, the most important witnesses of the
situation, the selection committee members will not testify in court (They would rather save
their job than saving Trueheart Engineers). Also the cause of action is also vague (Collusion
between the County Department and Nearby Engineers to corrupt the standard proceedings),
to be viable in sustaining proceedings in court. Most likely the judge will dismiss the case and
if not will rule in favor of the county department.

Contacting Nearby Engineers wouldn’t do anything as they are up for the business and
wouldn’t have any regard for a company who had just lost the opportunity. On the other hand,
it is futile to go against the county department since if they become outrageous on us, we will
have no luck in obtaining any contract at all in the future from the county department.

6|Page
 MN4900 – Professional Ethics

The lesson we have learnt from this incident is that we have to change our legal
proceedings in obtaining a contract. The next time we work with any party for contract, we will
get their signed consent with seal on a legal document prepared by us stating that we have been
awarded with the contract and have been requested to proceed. As such any discrepancies
should occur from there on, we will have actionable material with us.

References
[1] NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. Retrieved from
https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/ code-ethics

[2] Code of Ethics – American Society of Civil Engineers. Retrieved from

http://www.asce.org/ code-of-ethics/

[3] IESL Code of Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.iesl.lk/page-1541842

[4] Engineering Ethics. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_ethics

7|Page