Online Feature Articles for Construction Professionals

Characters - Amanda: Senior engineer of a government department; Stephen - Government engineer, Amanda's subordinate; Ernest - Project manager of the main contractor

Case Study: Construction Professionals - Engineers

Amanda, a senior engineer heading a project section of a government works department, supervised several engineers who were each in charge of one civil engineering project. Amanda heard from another colleague that Stephen, one of the engineers, and his site supervisory team had lavish meals and gambled frequently with staff of the main contractor and the subcontractors under their supervision.

Engineers taking up site supervisory duties are entrusted with the responsibility to monitor the performance of their respective contractors for ensuring that the works performed are in strict compliance with the contract requirements.
Amanda, as a supervisor of a team of engineers with direct contact with contractors, should accord high priority in managing the integrity of her team members and advise them to refrain from over-socialisation with contractors for avoiding conflict of interest.
Stephen and his team members might have breached the Civil Service Regulations by accepting frequent entertainment offered by contractors under their supervision. They might also violate government guidelines on conflict of interest for engaging in gambling activities with contractors under their supervision.
According to the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE)'s Rules of Conduct (Rules 3.2 and 3.6), professional engineers shall avoid engaging in activities which conflict with the interests of his employer, and shall not accept entertainment of more than nominal value from those having business relationship with his employer without the consent of the latter. (More information about conflict of interest can be found in the "Topic of Interest" section from the article for architects.)

Close

Amanda expressed her concern to Stephen about his frequent social gatherings with the contractor and the subcontractors. Stephen defended that the team had been working closely with the contractor and the subcontractors in previous projects. These social activities helped the team build mutual trust and collaborative relationship, which would ultimately enhance work efficiency.

Although it is essential to maintain a good working relationship with contractors, Stephen should not take it as a pretext to neglect his obligation to avoid conflict of interest and over-socialisation with contractors.
Engineers should discharge their supervisory duties according to established procedures and guidelines. They should assess the work performance of contractors in an impartial manner based on their professional knowledge, rather than on trust and loyalty built upon personal relationships.

Close

Amanda further questioned Stephen that some works progress records which should be prepared by the contractor were missing or submitted late. Stephen assured Amanda that the construction works had been carried out in an orderly manner and commented that record was just a mere formality. Due to the tight construction schedule, the contractor did not have time to prepare the records and promised to complete the tasks later. He asked Amanda not to worry as the contractor was a trustworthy partner. On the other hand, Stephen allowed the contractor to upload photos of other works locations to the Digital Works Supervision System when preparing the inspection records so as to save time.

Amanda and Stephen should strictly follow the established requirements regarding documentation of works activities to be submitted by contractors for ensuring the effectiveness of the control mechanism over work progress and quality. Missing or late records will impair the monitoring mechanism and cause grave hindrance to remedial works or investigations invoked by substandard works discovered.
If the contractor cannot submit the records on time due to a tight working schedule or other justifiable reasons, Stephen should bring up the issue to Amanda with a view to seeking an agreeable solution.
Stephen's lax attitude towards works progress and inspection records is conducive to malpractices or even fraudulent acts by contractors. He should base his assessment on objective information collected instead of past track record of the contractor.
The contractor involved may commit a fraud offence if he inputs false photos or fabricates inspection records into the Digital Works Supervision System with an intent to deceive the government. If Stephen takes part in the scam and submits false inspection records to his department, he may also commit Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) or conspiracy to defraud.

Close

Amanda did not pursue any further as she was busy and relied largely on Stephen and his team for the daily supervision of the project. Her priority concern was to complete the project on time without trouble.

Amanda should take firm and prompt action to the problem. She should instruct Stephen to request the contractor to clear the backlog of works progress records as soon as possible.
As a supervisor, Amanda plays a dual role. On the one hand, she has to accomplish her own tasks at hand and on the other hand, she is obliged to supervise the performance and integrity of her staff. Given the apparent and serious malpractice and possible illegal activities of Stephen, Amanda failed to perform her supervisory duties. She may thus be held accountable by her department for Stephen's wrongdoing and subject to disciplinary action. (More information about managing staff integrity can be found in the "Topic of Interest" section.)
Construction professionals should not sacrifice important aspects, such as quality control, procedural compliance and proper documentation for meeting project deadlines.

Close

Because of bad weather and repeated rectification works, the works progress began to fall behind schedule. Stephen discovered from test reports that the strength of the concrete for some structural elements did not meet the contract requirements. He brought up the issue to the site agent of the contractor. The site agent told Stephen that the concrete strength was just marginally below the required standard and would not affect project quality; whereas further rectification works would delay the project. While Stephen was still wondering whether he should pursue further, the site agent mentioned that his project manager, Ernest, would like to invite him to a dinner at a private club at the coming weekend.

Stephen should make sure that the works done by the contractor is in full compliance with the contract requirement. Even if Stephen considers that the variations are out of legitimate reasons, he must look into the matter and bring up the situation to his supervisor. He should also observe the established procedures of his department in endorsing contract variations and document properly the details and justifications of the variations.
In any case, the contractor should adhere to the project requirements. Stephen must not allow unauthorised variations, which may cause adverse impact on the quality and even safety of the project.
According to the HKIE's Rules of Conduct (Rules 1.1 and 4), HKIE members shall discharge his professional responsibilities with integrity, dignity, fairness and courtesy, and shall at all times be governed by the overriding interest of the general public.

Close

Over the dinner, Ernest asked Stephen not to worry about the project and assured him that the overall structure would still be safe. Informed by the site agent that Stephen was heavily indebted because of big losses in stock investment, Ernest offered to lend him $300,000 to overcome his financial difficulty. Stephen initially declined Ernest's offer but later considered it a feasible solution as his debts had accumulated substantially.

Stephen should manage his personal finance prudently. Heavy indebtedness has rendered him susceptible to corruption temptations.
As Stephen has official dealings with Ernest, he may breach Section 3 of the POBO if he accepts the loan from Ernest without the special permission of his department. Ernest may also breach Section 8 of the POBO by offering the loan to Stephen while having dealings with the government department employing Stephen.
If Stephen, after accepting the loan from Ernest, connives at the substandard works of the contractor, both Stephen and Ernest may breach Section 4 of the POBO.

Close

Online Feature Articles for Construction Professionals - Engineers