THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 17-010-RDO continued
this deficiency in a revised PPMP should work towards ensuring more meaningful communication takes place between SE Design and their clients, particularly in matters relating to differing interpretations of key items, as well as dispute/ conflict resolution. C. CONDUCT 18. SE Design's primary contact freely and voluntarily admits that: a. SE Design’s Professional Practice Management Plan (PPMP) was not sufficiently detailed in terms of outlining their policies and procedures to more effectively address communication issues with their clients. b. SE Design requires a more robust process to improve their communication procedures with their clients. Specifically, to address and clarify items such as: i. ensuring sufficient detail in scope of work c. The primary contact acknowledges that the conduct described above constitutes unprofessional conduct as defined in the Act . d. The primary contact also acknowledges that the conduct described above contravenes Section 44(1)(b) Rule of Conduct #4 of the Code of Ethics : 4 Professional engineers and geoscientists shall comply with applicable statutes, regulations and bylaws in their professional practice. D. RECOMMENDED ORDERS 19. On the recommendation of the Investigative Com- mittee, and by agreement of the primary contact and SE Design and following a discussion and review with the Discipline Committee’s Case man- ager, the Discipline Committee hereby orders that: and specific responsibilities/obligations. ii. Specific and clear pricing for work to be done. iii. Identification of pricing that may be contingent on various factors. iv. A more formal dispute resolution process should communications breakdown.
clarify scope, conditions, contractual matters, and other obligations. SE Design had an obligation to communicate in a professional manner until their client is clear on what was happening, and what the cost implications were. 13. It was determined that SE Design requires a more formal communication process, either included its standard clauses for provision of engineering services to clients and/or in its Professional Prac- tice Management Plan (PPMP). This then would establish a guideline that may increase the chances of their being able to formally rectify any misunder- standing or differences of opinion that arise. 14. These are essential matters that the Panel found lacking in SE Design’s Professional Practice Management Plan (PPMP). 15. As per APEGA’s Guideline for Professional Practice Management Plans v1.4: engineers…there needs to be a structured process in place for managing professional practice.”; and Section 3.4 , The PPMP should describe, “Policies and procedures on dispute/conflict resolution between professionals and with clients.” 16. The Panel determined there was sufficient evidence that SE Design did not have an adequate Professional Practice Management Plan (PPMP) in place (as per Section 48(1)(d) of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act ) that might have provided further direction and guidance to more effectively communicate their scope of work and related responsibilities to their client. This is in contravention of the Code of Ethics , Rule #4 in the Act . 4 Professional engineers and geoscientists shall comply with applicable statutes, regulations and bylaws in their professional practice. 17. The Panel realizes not all situations may be addressed through a Professional Practice Management Plan (PPMP); however, the investigation revealed a deficiency in the procedures of SE Design, (e.g., in the area of dispute/conflict resolution). Formally addressing Section 1 , “If the public is to have confidence in the quality of the services of professional
62 | PEG WINTER 2017
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker