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 2
For the North Channel airport access road, a geotechnical reviewer preparing a basis-of-design update is asked to seal a retaining wall design prepared outside the engineer's area of competence. What is the proper response?
- ASeal the work if the client accepts responsibility for any future corrections.
- BSeal only the cover sheet and leave the calculations unsigned.
- CUse a prior project seal because the wall height is similar.
- DDo not seal the work unless it is brought under competent responsible charge and adequately reviewed.
Show the answer and worked solution
Answer: D — Do not seal the work unless it is brought under competent responsible charge and adequately reviewed.
Worked solution
- Step 1. Identify the professional obligation
Public welfare, competence, honesty, and conflict disclosure control the decision.
- Step 2. Select the defensible action
The correct response preserves transparent review and avoids misleading reliance.
Why the other choices are wrong
- Choice A
- Sealing the work based on the client accepting future responsibility attempts to shift the engineer's personal, non-delegable duty of care onto someone else's promise. A client's indemnification does nothing to establish that a competent engineer actually reviewed the retaining wall calculations before the seal was applied.
- Choice B
- Sealing only the cover sheet separates the certification from the calculations that actually govern the wall's stability, leaving the substantive engineering unverified. The seal implies review of the whole package even though the numbers establishing safety receive no competent check under this approach.
- Choice C
- Reusing a seal from a prior project certifies work that was never reviewed for this site's specific soil, surcharge, and drainage conditions. Similar wall height does not mean the governing design parameters match, so applying an old seal here misrepresents what was actually checked.