It is apparent that the Engineer was acting outside the law by failing to disclose that she has a conflict of interest that would hinder her capacity as the engineer in charge of the project.
By expressing interest in a construction project that she was in charge of its design, billing, tendering and inspection puts her in a compromising situation. This is because; any person expressing interest in a public project should not have any involvement whether directly or indirectly in the preparation of the bid documents.
By failing to declare that she has a stake in one of the companies that would be interested in the bidding for the project once the tendering process began, she ignored the conflict of interest that would arise later on.
In failing to declare the conflict of interest at the beginning of the project, she/ would have:
Breached her employment contractWhen she agreed to take on the job at the capacity of the head engineer, her roles included; designing the modifications, preparing construction documents, evaluating the contractors’ bids and providing field inspection services during the construction. As such, declaring mid-way that she would rather bid on the project than remain the engineer in-charge, was a breach of her employment contract. When she took on the project, she would have chosen to abstain herself and her affiliate construction company from bidding for it as there were other companies in the area that were capable of handling the project. Or she wouldn’t have taken the design of the project if she knew she would have an interest in it its implementation.
- Knowingly gave her company an upper hand in the bidding process
As the former head engineer, she was privy to information that will not be accessible to the rest of the bidders during the tendering process, which might inform her bid amount and other bidding details.
Even though the new engineer draws up new contract documents, estimates and designs, the previous engineer still has an upper hand as she knows information like the specifications required by the client. As a result, the bidding process may not be entirely fair. Although the bidding and tendering process may be conducted legally, the Engineer’s company may win the tender because of this inside information that she possesses.
- Compromised the project
- Project time
Declaring her interest in bidding for the project implies that the Ward Administrator would have to go back to the drawing board and recruit a new engineering firm to take her place. This means that the project would have to stall for some time as the Administrator went through the rigorous process of recruiting an appropriate replacement from the remaining three engineering firms. The new engineer would have to counter-check the initial documents and designs or start afresh, which would also take a considerable amount of time to do.
- Project cost
This employee turn-over will result in additional costs for the client because both engineers would require compensation for their involvement in the project. Some of this compensation would involve payment for overlapping or repeated tasks.
- Project quality and standards
Moreover, this change of engineers midway through the project can also have a negative effect on the quality of the outcome of the project. Since the Engineer prepared the tender documents with her company in mind, she might have skewed the project specifications to match the capabilities of her company. For example, she might list equipment, techniques and know-how within her own company’s wheelhouse, regardless of whether it would be beneficial or detrimental to the project. If the contract documents are not re-written, she would have essentially drawn up the documents for her own company, which will inevitably lead her to secure the contract.
Resolution
Even though she declared her interest in the project before bidding had begun, she is still complicit for being involved in such a major capacity in a project she knew she would bid for eventually. Inasmuch as she didn’t want to win the tender fraudulently, her omission of facts during the procurement process is unprofessional and makes her an unsuitable to handle the project. The courses of action at this point are;
- Withdraw from the project entirely.
Engineer A withdrawing from the project would mean that, the Ward would compromise the project quality and standards and Engineer A will also lose the projects.
If the moral ethics and law of being ethically or unethically acceptable is considered, then what the Engineer A did was unethical and must face the consequences of not declaring interest at the beginning of the project. She must therefore withdraw from the project. In which case, she will have lost and her company won’t also be able to apply during tendering. In addition, the ward will have compromised their project.
- Drop the motive of the company he has shares in from bidding and continue with the previous duly assigned duty.
This implies that Engineer A will continue with evaluation of bidders and subsequently routine inspection.
A utilitarian analysis would show that the Ward Administrator would be saved from additional unplanned costs and time of securing a new firm. However, Engineer A’s construction company will not be able to bid for it therefore not benefiting from her construction company, which is good in a way because there is no unethical conflict of interest, but in the long run she will have benefited as she is the designer. The consequences of law on procurement act will also not have been violated.
In conclusion, it is arguable that applying a utilitarianism approach can help save both parties involved from the adverse consequences of what can possibly happen when the Engineer’s suggestion is executed.