Preliminary Engineering Reports- Protecting Public Money

[Sanitary Stache]

Can anyone point me toward the language that describes a civil engineers responsibility to ensure public money isn't spent in support of corruption?

I am hoping to coherently explain why it is important that civil engineers complete alternative analysis and life cycle cost comparisons when making a project recommendation at the planning phase using public money.

I know this happens in the water utility field to some degree and imperfectly, but am less familiar with how strictly this is controlled/honored in the energy sector and I assume it doesn't matter at all with military dollars.

I am hoping there is aspirational language about why it is important to always consider alternatives even when the solution seems obvious.

Thanks!

[FIRE Artist]

Well, in Canada, all professional engineers have on code of ethics which doesn’t state public funds explicitly, but it would be covered if your job is working with public funds. 

Code of Ethics of Canadian Professional Engineers

Professional engineers shall conduct themselves in an honourable and ethical manner. Professional engineers shall uphold the values of truth, honesty and trustworthiness and safeguard human life and welfare and the environment. In keeping with these basic tenets, professional engineers shall:

Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and the protection of the environment and promote health and safety within the workplace;
Offer services, advise on or undertake engineering assignments only in areas of their competence and practise in a careful and diligent manner;
Act as faithful agents of their clients or employers, maintain confidentiality and avoid conflicts of interest;
Keep themselves informed in order to maintain their competence, strive to advance the body of knowledge within which they practise and provide opportunities for the professional development of their subordinates;
Conduct themselves with equity, fairness, courtesy and good faith towards clients, colleagues and others, give credit where it is due, and accept, as well as give, honest and fair professional criticism;
Present clearly to employers and clients the possible consequences if engineering decisions or judgements are overruled or disregarded;
Report to their association or other appropriate agencies any illegal or unethical engineering decisions or practices by engineers or others;
Be aware of and ensure that clients and employers are made aware of societal and environmental consequences of actions or projects and endeavour to interpret engineering issues to the public in an objective and truthful manner; and
Treat equitably and promote the equitable treatment of all clients, colleagues and coworkers, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental ability, marital or family status, and national origin.
Source: Engineers Canada (Guideline on the Code of Ethics)

[Sanitary Stache]

@FIRE Artist That is very similar to the ethics expected of Professional Engineers in the US.

Thanks for sharing that.

I am thinking the answer I am looking for is found in the base of knowledge taught to civil engineers at an accredited university and not a strictly ethical consideration.

I guess I should query my professional association rather than this personal financed focused group partially made up of a much broader category of engineer.

[katsiki]

I bet this guy will know @Exflyboy   :)

[Michael in ABQ]

Can anyone point me toward the language that describes a civil engineers responsibility to ensure public money isn't spent in support of corruption?

I am hoping to coherently explain why it is important that civil engineers complete alternative analysis and life cycle cost comparisons when making a project recommendation at the planning phase using public money.

I know this happens in the water utility field to some degree and imperfectly, but am less familiar with how strictly this is controlled/honored in the energy sector and I assume it doesn't matter at all with military dollars.

I am hoping there is aspirational language about why it is important to always consider alternatives even when the solution seems obvious.

Thanks!

Can confirm. As long as the budget is there, no one in the DoD seems to give a damn about saving taxpayer dollars. At least nothing beyond some lip service. I spent a few years working in the civil engineering division for the Air Force and the amount of waste (to say nothing of potential fraud and abuse) was sickening. For example, spending $300,000+ to build a glorified shade structure that would cost $50,000 max if you moved it outside the fence line.