Since 1972, federal regulations have required qualification-based selection for federal projects requiring professional services such as architecture or engineering. The legislation had the effect of taking price out of the selection criteria, maintaining professional qualifications as the primary focus. This certainly seems logical, but what about our professional ethics that dictate our regard for public safety, duty to the client, and duty to the employer? Are we to believe that a low bid for a juicy project could somehow affect our professional judgment?

While it may seem that a budget is strictly a financial tool, studies have shown that our minds do not always follow logical rules when dealing with money, whether actual cash or numbers on a page. Further, a budget can also be a psychological motivator in the sense that it creates a deadline or limit. Anyone who experiences the stress of a looming time constraint knows this feeling. While we strive for professionalism, we are indeed limited by our biology and must consciously work to overcome this shortcoming.

A low bid is obviously not unethical in itself; there are many reasons why a project budget may be set lower than normal. With business drying up, many firms consider special discounts, "buying work," or other tactics designed to spur a client along or win a job. It is every business owner’s prerogative to accept a prudent level of risk. Others may just poorly scope and estimate the contract, leaving a project manager holding the bag. Whatever the reason, a low budget can literally become dangerous, and not just to profits.

Though the result of many factors, NASA’s Challenger disaster illustrates the catastrophe that can result from placing too much emphasis on project deliverables (the launch) while neglecting, or at best assuming, mission safety. The tragic flight has often been characterized as pressure from executives and managers more concerned with public relations than safety concerns. It is easy to imagine, however, that at least one executive contemplated the monetary cost of a launch delay and agreed to move forward with such budgetary constraints in mind.

As much as we are logical, rational thinkers, our brains have a way of hijacking our best intentions. We are much better at justifying our actions after the fact than we are at predicting consequences. When faced with a dwindling project budget, how many of us imagine that we are facing some kind of ethical dilemma. In realty, the ethical course of action is clear—public safety comes first. By artificially creating such a constraint, however unintentional it may be, we begin to box ourselves in with less and less room for negotiation. If the project budget really was poorly developed, the time to come clean is near the beginning, not when all the money has been spent.

On the other hand, if it was intentionally bid low, that fact should be made clear to anyone who comes in contact with the budget—whether a principal, manager, technician, or someone in between. While it is still important to maintain a prudent use of everyone’s time, it should be made clear whenever management has established a budget that should only be given lip service. Of course, the expected variance should still be factored into the books somehow. Perhaps it is considered marketing expense; maybe there is a case to be made for a donation of time to a non-profit entity. Whatever the case, the slippery slope of cost-cutting is a tempting path when managers become desperate to show success.

As attractive as it may appear to have a "fire sale" to attract new business, there are other considerations besides the financial sheets. Take heed to ensure that the pressure to boost profitability does not damage or destroy the ultimate responsibility to public safety, and remember that none of the ethical canons contain any language about a duty to your shareholders.


Jason Burke, P.E., works for Allied Engineering in Billings, Mont.

E-mail comments in care of bdrake@stagnitomedia.com.