Question

Engineering Ethics Course

Codes of Ethics Assignment

Review the DIA Runaway Concrete case (Case below) and the ASCE code of ethics. Which of the ASCE’s fundamental canons do you believe were violated in this case? For each canon you select, justify your selection with an explanation.

Runway Concrete at the Denver International Airport

In the early 1990s, the city of Denver, Colorado, embarked on one of the largest public works projects in history: the construction of a new airport to replace the aging Stapleton International Airport. The new Denver International Airport (DIA) would be the first new airport constructed in the United States since the Dallas–Fort Worth Airport was completed in the early 1970s. Of course, the size and complexity of this type of project lends itself to many problems, including cost overruns, worker safety and health issues, and controversies over the need for the project. The construction of DIA was no exception.

Perhaps the most widely known problem with the airport was the malfunctioning of a new computer-controlled high-tech baggage handling system, which in preliminary tests consistently mangled and misrouted baggage and frequently jammed, leading to the shutdown of the entire system. Problems with the baggage handling system delayed the opening of the airport for over a year and cost the city millions of dollars in expenses for replacement of the system and lost revenues while the airport was unable to open. In addition, the baggage system made the airport the butt of many jokes, especially on late-night television.

More interesting from the perspective of engineering ethics are problems during the construction of DIA involving the concrete used for the runways, taxiways, and aprons at the airport. The story of concrete problems at DIA was first reported by the Denver Post in early August of 1993 as the airport neared completion. Two subcontractors filed lawsuits against the runway paving contractor, California-based construction company Ball, Ball, & Brosamer (known as 3Bs), claiming that 3Bs owed them money. Parts of these suits were allegations that 3Bs had altered the recipe for the concrete used in the runway and apron construction, deliberately diluting the concrete with more gravel, water, and sand (and thus less cement), thereby weakening it. 3Bs motivation for doing so would be to save money and thus to increase their profits. One of the subcontractors, CSI Trucking, whose job was to haul the sand and gravel used in the concrete, claimed that 3Bs hadn’t paid them for materials that had been delivered. They claimed that these materials had been used to dilute the mixture, but hadn’t been paid for, since the payment would leave a record of the improper recipe.

At first, Denver officials downplayed the reports of defective concrete, relying on the results of independent tests of the concrete. In addition, the city of Denver ordered core samples to be taken from the runways. Tests on these cores showed that the runway concrete had the correct strength. The subcontractors claimed that the improperly mixed concrete could have the proper test strength, but would lead to a severely shortened runway lifetime. The FBI also became involved in investigating this case, since federal transportation grants were used by Denver to help finance the construction of the runways.

The controversy seemed to settle down for a while, but a year later, in August of 1994, the Denver district attorney’s office announced that it was investigating allegations that inspection reports on the runways were falsified during the construction. This announcement was followed on November 13, 1994, by a lengthy story in the Denver Post detailing a large number of allegations of illegal activities and unethical practices with regard to the runway construction.

The November 13 story revolved around an admission by a Fort Collins, Colorado, company, Empire Laboratories, that test reports on the concrete had been falsified to hide results which showed that some of the concrete did not meet the specifications. Attorneys for Empire said that this falsification had happened five or six times in the course of this work, but four employees of Empire claimed that the altering of test data was standard operating procedure at Empire.

The nature of the test modifications and the rationale behind them illustrate many of the important problems in engineering ethics, including the need for objectivity and honesty in reporting results of tests and experiments. One Empire employee said that if a test result was inconsistent with other tests, then the results would be changed to mask the difference. This practice was justified by Empire as being “based upon engineering judgment” [Denver Post, Nov. 13, 1994]. The concrete was tested by pouring test samples when the actual runways were poured. These samples were subjected to flexural tests, which consist of subjecting the concrete to an increasing force until it fails. The tests were performed at 7 days after pouring and also at 28 days. Many of the test results showed that the concrete was weaker at 28 days than at 7 days. However, the results should have been the opposite, since concrete normally increases in strength as it cures. Empire employees indicated that this apparent anomaly was because many of the 7-day tests had been altered to make the concrete seem stronger than it was.

Other problems with the concrete also surfaced. Some of the concrete used in the runways contained clay balls up to 10 inches in diameter. While not uncommon in concrete batching, the presence of this clay can lead to runways that are significantly weaker than planned.

Questions about the short cement content in 3Bs concrete mixture also resurfaced in the November Denver Post article. The main question was “given that the concrete batching operation was routinely monitored, how did 3Bs get away with shorting the cement content of the concrete?” One of the batch plant operators for 3Bs explained that they were tipped off about upcoming inspections. When an inspector was due, they used the correct recipe so that concrete would appear to be correctly formulated. The shorting of the concrete mixture could also be detected by looking at the records of materials delivered to the batch plants. However, DIA administrators found that this documentation was missing, and it was unclear whether it had ever existed.

A batch plant operator also gave a sworn statement that he had been directed to fool the computer that operated the batch plant. The computer was fooled by tampering with the scale used to weigh materials and by inputting false numbers for the moisture content of the sand. In some cases, the water content of the sand that was input into the computer was a negative number! This tampering forced the computer to alter the mixture to use less cement, but the records printed by the computer would show that the mix was properly constituted. In his statement, the batch plant operator also swore that this practice was known to some of the highest officials in 3Bs.

Despite the problems with the batching of the concrete used in the runways, DIA officials insisted that the runways built by 3Bs met the specifications. This assertion was based on the test results, which showed that although some parts of the runway were below standard, all of the runways met FAA specifications. 3Bs was paid for those areas that were below standard at a lower rate than for the stronger parts of the runway. Further investigations about misdeeds in the construction of DIA were performed by several groups, including a Denver grand jury, a federal grand jury, the FBI, and committees of Congress.

On October 19, 1995, the Denver Post reported the results of a lawsuit brought by 3Bs against the city of Denver. 3Bs contended that the city still owed them $2.3 million (in addition to the $193 million that 3Bs had already been paid) for the work they did. The city claimed that this money was not owed. The reduction was a penalty due to low test results on some of the concrete. 3Bs claimed that those tests were flawed and that the concrete was fine. A hearing officer sided with the city, deciding that Denver didn’t owe 3Bs any more money. 3Bs said that they would take their suit to the next higher level.

As of the spring of 2011, DIA has been in operation for many years and no problems have surfaced regarding the strength of the runways. Unfortunately, problems with runway durability might not surface until after several more years of use. In the meantime, there is still plenty of litigation and investigation of this and other unethical acts surrounding the construction of this airport.

ASCE code of ethics

Canon 1.

Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.

a. Engineers shall recognize that the lives, safety, health and welfare of the general public are dependent upon engineering judgments, decisions and practices incorporated into structures, machines, products, processes and devices.

b. Engineers shall approve or seal only those design documents, reviewed or prepared by them, which are determined to be safe for public health and welfare in conformity with accepted engineering standards.

c. Engineers whose professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety, health and welfare of the public are endangered, or the principles of sustainable development ignored, shall inform their clients or employers of the possible consequences.

d. Engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that another person or firm may be in violation of any of the provisions of Canon 1 shall present such information to the proper authority in writing and shall cooperate with the proper authority in furnishing such further information or assistance as may be required.

e. Engineers should seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their communities, and the protection of the environment through the practice of sustainable development.

f. Engineers should be committed to improving the environment by adherence to the principles of sustainable development so as to enhance the quality of life of the general public.

Canon 2.

Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.

a. Engineers shall undertake to perform engineering assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the technical field of engineering involved.

b. Engineers may accept an assignment requiring education or experience outside of their own fields of competence, provided their services are restricted to those phases of the project in which they are qualified. All other phases of such project shall be performed by qualified associates, consultants, or employees.

c. Engineers shall not affix their signatures or seals to any engineering plan or document dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence by virtue of education or experience or to any such plan or document not reviewed or prepared under their supervisory control.

Canon 3.

Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

a. Engineers should endeavor to extend the public knowledge of engineering and sustainable development, and shall not participate in the dissemination of untrue, unfair or exaggerated statements regarding engineering.

b. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony.

c. Engineers, when serving as expert witnesses, shall express an engineering opinion only when it is founded upon adequate knowledge of the facts, upon a background of technical competence, and upon honest conviction.

d. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on engineering matters which are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they indicate on whose behalf the statements are made.

e. Engineers shall be dignified and modest in explaining their work and merit, and will avoid any act tending to promote their own interests at the expense of the integrity, honor and dignity of the profession.

Canon 4.

Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.

a. Engineers shall avoid all known or potential conflicts of interest with their employers or clients and shall promptly inform their employers or clients of any business association, interests, or circumstances which could influence their judgment or the quality of their services.

b. Engineers shall not accept compensation from more than one party for services on the same project, or for services pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed to and agreed to, by all interested parties.

c. Engineers shall not solicit or accept gratuities, directly or indirectly, from contractors, their agents, or other parties dealing with their clients or employers in connection with work for which they are responsible.

d. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a governmental body or department shall not participate in considerations or actions with respect to services solicited or provided by them or their organization in private or public engineering practice.

e. Engineers shall advise their employers or clients when, as a result of their studies, they believe a project will not be successful.

• Professional cards in recognized, dignified publications, and listings in rosters or directories published by responsible organizations, provided that the cards or listings are consistent in size and content and are in a section of the publication regularly devoted to such professional cards.

• Brochures which factually describe experience, facilities, personnel and capacity to render service, providing they are not misleading with respect to the engineer's participation in projects described.

• Display advertising in recognized dignified business and professional publications, providing it is factual and is not misleading with respect to the engineer's extent of participation in projects described.

• A statement of the engineers' names or the name of the firm and statement of the type of service posted on projects for which they render services.

• Preparation or authorization of descriptive articles for the lay or technical press, which are factual and dignified. Such articles shall not imply anything more than direct participation in the project described.

• Permission by engineers for their names to be used in commercial advertisements, such as may be published by contractors, material suppliers, etc., only by means of a modest, dignified notation acknowledging the engineers' participation in the project described. Such permission shall not include public endorsement of proprietary products.

f. Engineers shall not use confidential information coming to them in the course of their assignments as a means of making personal profit if such action is adverse to the interests of their clients, employers or the public.

g. Engineers shall not accept professional employment outside of their regular work or interest without the knowledge of their employers.

Canon 5.

Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.

a. Engineers shall not give, solicit or receive either directly or indirectly, any political contribution, gratuity, or unlawful consideration in order to secure work, exclusive of securing salaried positions through employment agencies.

b. Engineers should negotiate contracts for professional services fairly and on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of professional service required.

c. Engineers may request, propose or accept professional commissions on a contingent basis only under circumstances in which their professional judgments would not be compromised.

d. Engineers shall not falsify or permit misrepresentation of their academic or professional qualifications or experience.

e. Engineers shall give proper credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and shall recognize the proprietary interests of others. Whenever possible, they shall name the person or persons who may be responsible for designs, inventions, writings or other accomplishments.

f. Engineers may advertise professional services in a way that does not contain misleading language or is in any other manner derogatory to the dignity of the profession. Examples of permissible advertising are as follows:

g. Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another engineer or indiscriminately criticize another's work.

h. Engineers shall not use equipment, supplies, laboratory or office facilities of their employers to carry on outside private practice without the consent of their employers.

Canon 6.

Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.

a. Engineers shall not knowingly engage in business or professional practices of a fraudulent, dishonest or unethical nature.

b. Engineers shall be scrupulously honest in their control and spending of monies, and promote effective use of resources through open, honest and impartial service with fidelity to the public, employers, associates and clients.

c. Engineers shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption in all engineering or construction activities in which they are engaged.

d. Engineers should be especially vigilant to maintain appropriate ethical behavior where payments of gratuities or bribes are institutionalized practices.

e. Engineers should strive for transparency in the procurement and execution of projects. Transparency includes disclosure of names, addresses, purposes, and fees or commissions paid for all agents facilitating projects.

f. Engineers should encourage the use of certifications specifying zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption in all contracts.

Canon 7.

Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision.

a. Engineers should keep current in their specialty fields by engaging in professional practice, participating in continuing education courses, reading in the technical literature, and attending professional meetings and seminars.

b. Engineers should encourage their engineering employees to become registered at the earliest possible date.

c. Engineers should encourage engineering employees to attend and present papers at professional and technical society meetings.

d. Engineers shall uphold the principle of mutually satisfying relationships between employers and employees with respect to terms of employment including professional grade descriptions, salary ranges, and fringe benefits.

Canon 8.

Engineers shall, in all matters related to their profession, treat all persons fairly and encourage equitable participation without regard to gender or gender identity, race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, or family, marital, or economic status.

a. Engineers shall conduct themselves in a manner in which all persons are treated with dignity, respect, and fairness.

b. Engineers shall not engage in discrimination or harassment in connection with their professional activities.

c. Engineers shall consider the diversity of the community, and shall endeavor in good faith to include diverse perspectives, in the planning and performance of their professional services.

Answer 1

In this case, we believe the engineers are of 3B company and were taking up the project for Denver City

Canon 1-

1. Safety and welfare of the public was put at risk as faulty runways would lead to higher chances of accidents

2. The engineers did not inform the higher authorities about the wrong-doings at 3B, this put the safety and health of people at risk

3. The engineers did not prove to be effective or constructive in civic affairs

Canon 2

No rule can be said to be violated in this case

Canon 3

1. Engineers were guilty of participating in the dissemination of untrue, exaggerated, and unfair statements – as the reports were falsified regarding the strength of the concrete

2. Engineers were not truthful in professional reports – same reason as above

3. Engineers did not act with dignity and modesty regarding their work – they were dishonest with reports and construction material

Canon 4

1. Engineers did not inform their clients regarding the practices being undertaken which affected the quality of service

2. Engineers did not inform the clients regarding the fact that project might be unsuccessful – as the concrete used was of inferior quality.

Canon 5

No violation of canon 5 rules can be found in the case

Canon 6

1. Engineers were involved in fraudulent practices – mixing wrong and cheap materials in concrete

2. Engineers were not true in the spending of monies, and the use of resources – procured cheap material to increase profits

3. Engineers tolerated fraud in construction activities – they were quiet of the wrong activities

4. Engineers were not vigilant to maintain ethical behaviour

5. Engineers did not show transparency in carrying out projects

Canon 7

No violation can be found here

Canon 8

No violation can be found here