[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-648310-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-648310-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","reconciling-design-drawings-and-record-drawings-case-no-00-2-ethical-review","RECONCILING DESIGN DRAWINGS AND RECORD DRAWINGS - Case No. 00-2 - Ethical Review","","Professional responsibility and ethics in engineering practice are examined through a scenario involving reconciliation between original design drawings and later record “as built” drawings. Engineer A prepares design documents for construction, while Contractor X builds without following the design, then prepares record drawings with Engineer C’s assistance without notifying Engineer A. The owner requests reconciliation. The case addresses whether Engineer A may ethically reconcile the design and whether Engineer C may prepare record drawings without notifying Engineer A, referencing multiple NSPE Code of Ethics sections.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/reconciling-design-drawings-and-record-drawings-case-no-00-2-ethical-review/648310/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/reconciling-design-drawings-and-record-drawings-case-no-00-2-ethical-review/648310.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Kurz","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-23",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":30},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"Was it ethical for Engineer A to perform the design reconciliation requested by the Owner?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The discussion treats the key ethical issue as the engineer’s responsibility for work signed and sealed, implying reconciliation can be ethical if Engineer A performs direction and control with a careful and detailed review and full compliance with relevant NSPE Code provisions.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"Was it ethical for Engineer C to prepare record “as built” drawings without notifying Engineer A?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"The case frames the ethical concerns around compliance with NSPE Code requirements on professional conduct and the conditions under which engineers may associate their name with work prepared without appropriate direction, control, and notification.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What ethical principle does the Board emphasize as central to professional engineering responsibility?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"The Board emphasizes the fundamental issue of the professional engineer’s responsibility for the work the engineer has signed and sealed, guided by NSPE Code of Ethics requirements about competence, direction/control, and conformity with applicable standards.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},648310,1792793055,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":30,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":96,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":79,"read_time":143},2336478945635,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","NSPE Board of Ethical Review 2/21/01 – Approved  \nCase No. 00-2 Pg. 1  \nRECONCILING DESIGN DRAWINGS AND RECORD DRAWINGS  \nCase No. 00-2  \nFacts:  \nEngineer A prepares a set of drawings for a client for the design and construction of a building. Owner contracts with Contractor X, not an engineer, for construction, but does not retain Engineer A for construction phase services. Engineer A is paid in full for his work. Engineer A's drawings are filed with town code officials and a building permit is issued. Contractor X builds the building, but does not follow Engineer A's design, relying upon Contractor X's own experience in construction. Following construction, Contractor X, with the assistance of Engineer C, prepares a set of record “as built”drawings based upon the actual construction of the building as reported by Contractor X. Because the design and the construction drawings are not reconciled, the building official refuses to issue an occupancy permit to the Owner. Owner asks Engineer A to“reconcile” the original design and the record drawings. Engineer A, not wanting to perform additional studies, agrees to perform the “reconciliation.”  \nQuestions:  \n1. Was it ethical for Engineer A to perform the design reconciliation?  \n2. Was it ethical for Engineer C to prepare a set of record drawings based on the construction without notifying Engineer A?  \nReferences:  \nSection II. 1.b. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents which are in conformity  \nwith applicable standards.  \nSection II. 1.d. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm which they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise.  \nSection II.2.b. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control.  \nSection II.3.b. - Code of Ethics: Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge  \nof the facts and competence in the subject matter.  \nSection III.2.b. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not complete, sign or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.  \nSection III. 7.a. - Code of Ethics: Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the  \nsame client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.  \nCopyright © 2000 National Society of Professional Engineer (NSPE) [www.nspe.org . Al](www.nspe.org . Al)l rights reserved. To request permission to reproduce this NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case, please contact the NSPE Legal Department ([legal@nspe.org](legal@nspe.org))  \nNSPE Board of Ethical Review 2/21/01 – Approved  \nCase No. 00-2 Pg. 2  \nSection III.8.a. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.  \nDiscussion:  \nThe facts in this case involve one of the most fundamental issues involved in the practice of engineering – the professional engineer’s responsibility for the work which the engineer has signed and sealed.  \nOver the years, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review (BER) has had occasion to explore this issue in some detail. In BER Case No. 91-8, an engineer’s firm was retained by a major fuel company to perform site investigations in connection with certain requirements under state and federal environmental regulations. Under the procedures established by the engineer’s firm, the site visits would be conducted by engineering technicians under direct supervision of Engineer A who would perform all observations, sampling, and preliminary report preparation. Engineeri","cbCainLT6Y03rTps","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainLT6Y03rTps","pdf",238758,"English","# Facts\n# Questions\n# References\n# Discussion","[{\"question\":\"Was it ethical for Engineer A to perform the design reconciliation requested by the Owner?\",\"answer\":\"The discussion treats the key ethical issue as the engineer’s responsibility for work signed and sealed, implying reconciliation can be ethical if Engineer A performs direction and control with a careful and detailed review and full compliance with relevant NSPE Code provisions.\"},{\"question\":\"Was it ethical for Engineer C to prepare record “as built” drawings without notifying Engineer A?\",\"answer\":\"The case frames the ethical concerns around compliance with NSPE Code requirements on professional conduct and the conditions under which engineers may associate their name with work prepared without appropriate direction, control, and notification.\"},{\"question\":\"What ethical principle does the Board emphasize as central to professional engineering responsibility?\",\"answer\":\"The Board emphasizes the fundamental issue of the professional engineer’s responsibility for the work the engineer has signed and sealed, guided by NSPE Code of Ethics requirements about competence, direction/control, and conformity with applicable standards.\"}]","RECONCILING DESIGN DRAWINGS AND RECORD DRAWINGS - Case No. 00-2 - Ethical Review | PDF",13]