Original question written by FE Exam AI Prep from the public FE Civil exam specification. Before release, a solver model re-derived the answer twice from the question alone, without its answer key, and a critic model checked the result. No licensed engineer reviews these questions. It is not an NCEES question and does not come from any NCEES practice exam. FE Exam AI Prep is an independent study tool and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by NCEES.
Professional Ethics and Public Welfare: FE Civil practice problem 5
A geotechnical engineer of record for a levee rehabilitation project reviews updated boring logs and concludes that the design factor of safety against slope instability falls below the code-required minimum under a credible flood loading case. There is no indication of imminent failure under current conditions. The engineer's employer directs that the finding not be shared with the owner until the current billing milestone is invoiced, citing contractual sensitivities. What is the most appropriate professional action?
- APromptly notify the owner-authorized reviewer of the deficiency in writing regardless of the billing schedule, and escalate further only if the finding is not addressed.
- BImmediately report the deficiency to the state dam-safety regulator and local emergency management before notifying the responsible owner or employer.
- CWithhold the finding until the current billing milestone is invoiced, since raising it earlier could expose the firm to a contract dispute with the owner.
- DRecord the deficiency in internal project files and raise it at the next regularly scheduled peer-review meeting, since no imminent failure is indicated.
Show the answer and worked solution
Answer: A — Promptly notify the owner-authorized reviewer of the deficiency in writing regardless of the billing schedule, and escalate further only if the finding is not addressed.
Worked solution
- Step 1. Identify the governing duties in tension
The overriding duty is protecting public health, safety, and welfare through timely disclosure of a code-level deficiency to the responsible party; a contractual billing schedule does not suspend that duty.
- Step 2. Determine the appropriate escalation channel
Because the finding indicates no imminent failure under current conditions, the standard duty structure calls for prompt notification of the owner-authorized reviewer first, with direct escalation to external authorities reserved for cases where the responsible party fails to act or an imminent hazard exists.
- Step 3. Select the response that satisfies both duties without over- or under-escalating
Prompt written notice to the owner-authorized reviewer, with further escalation only if the concern goes unaddressed, discharges the disclosure duty while respecting the proper channel for a non-imminent hazard.
- Step 4. Evaluate why the other responses fall short
Reporting to the state dam-safety regulator ahead of the responsible party skips the internal notification step that applies when no imminent-failure indication exists; withholding the finding until the billing milestone closes subordinates public welfare to a contractual and financial concern; and deferring the deficiency to the next routine peer-review meeting treats a code-level safety finding as ordinary business rather than a matter requiring prompt notice.
Why the other choices are wrong
- Choice B
- Escalating straight to the state regulator before giving the owner-authorized reviewer a chance to respond skips the internal notification step that applies whenever there is no imminent-failure indication.
- Choice C
- Letting a billing milestone determine when a safety-relevant deficiency is disclosed places contractual and financial considerations ahead of the duty to protect public welfare.
- Choice D
- Treating a code-level factor-of-safety deficiency as an item for the next routine peer-review meeting delays notice of a public-welfare concern well beyond what prompt disclosure requires.