THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Date: May 15, 2017 Case No.: 17-005-RDO IN THE MATTER OF THE ENGINEERING, AND GEOSCIENCE PROFESSIONS ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDUCT OF SUPREME STEEL LP Recommended Orders The Investigative Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) has conducted an investigation into the con- duct of Supreme Steel LP (Supreme) with respect to a December 18, 2015 letter written to the Investigative Committee regarding the erection of steel girders for the 102nd Avenue bridge crossing over Groat Road in Edmonton, Alberta. BACKGROUND Supreme was engaged to supply, fabricate and erect the structural steel girders forming a part of the 102nd Ave- nue Bridge over Groat Road in Edmonton, Alberta. During the erection of steel girders on March 6, 2015, 3 of the 6 girders in place failed through lateral torsional buckling. Two separate investigations determined that the fail- ure was caused by incorrect lateral bracing. Supreme’s authenticated erection drawings called for the perma- nent lateral bracing to be installed as the girders were erected. Permanent bracing was installed for the first 3 girders, however only temporary bracing was in place for the next 3 girders which subsequently failed. The first 3 girders installed with permanent bracing did not fail, even under the additional lateral loading from the 3 failed girders. Following this event, the APEGA Practice Review Board (PRB) initiated an inquiry into Supreme with respect to their practice of engineering. In the course of their inquiry, the PRB made the decision to forward their concerns to the Investigative Committee as a formal complaint. A. COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 1. Supreme has engaged in unprofessional conduct that was detrimental to the best interests of the
public contrary to Section 44(1)(a) and (b) of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act (“the Act”) and Rule of Conduct #1 of the APEGA Code of Ethics (“the Code”). Supreme and its Members did not hold paramount the best interests of the public. 2. Supreme has engaged in unskilled practice that displayed a lack of judgment in the work undertaken contrary to Section 44(1)(b) and (d) of the Act and Rule of Conduct #2 of the Code. Supreme displayed a lack of skill or judgment in the practice of the profession by engaging in a project that was outside their field of expertise. 3. Supreme has engaged in unskilled practice that displayed a lack of judgment in the work undertaken contrary to Section 44(1)(b) and (e) of the Act and Rule of Conduct #2 of the Code. Supreme displayed a lack of knowledge of or lack of skill or judgment in the carrying out or their supervisory duties while engaged in the project. 4. Supreme has engaged in unprofessional conduct that displayed a lack of judgment in the carrying out of a duty contrary to Section 44(1)(b) of the Act and Rule of Conduct #4 of the Code. Supreme displayed a lack of skill or judgment in complying with the requirements of a professional management plan as per the requirements outlined in Section 48(1)(d) of the regulations. 5. Supreme has engaged in unprofessional conduct that displayed a lack of judgment in the carrying out of a duty contrary to Section 44(1)(b) of the Act and Rule of Conduct #5 of the Code. The actions of Supreme did not uphold or enhance the reputation of the profession. B. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS As a result of the investigation, it is agreed by and be- tween the Investigative Committee, Supreme and their Responsible Member, [Professional Member A], P.Eng., that: a. Supreme held a valid Permit to Practice at all relevant times. b. Supreme was engaged to fabricate and erect the 102nd Avenue bridge girders.
SUMMER 2017 PEG | 67
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker