The reviewing engineer must focus on the issues, not the of the opinion.

he opinion. Both the request and response should be

person. Criticism of the design, content of the report or an provided in writing and made through the client or party
authoring engineer’s methodology is entirely reasonable; requesting the review. Direct contact between authoring and
attacks on the competence or character of the authoring reviewing engineers should not be done without approval of
engineer is not. Negative comments aimed at the person clients or parties requesting a review.
rather than the facts can be construed as libel (written
If an authoring engineer responds to a review in writing
defamation of character or reputation) or slander (oral defa-
with reasoned arguments, a reviewer should carefully con-
mation) and could, in some cases, lead to lawsuits against
sider the arguments and may provide an addendum to the
the reviewer. However, such claims are unlikely to succeed
original report, if necessary. However, a single response
when a reviewer simply reports facts about the work (not
should be sufficient. Repeated objections from authoring
the person) and acts in good faith (even if the reviewer’s
engineers, especially if they are belligerent, should be consid-
opinion ends up being incorrect).
ered unprofessional conduct and reported to PEO.
Accordingly, reviewers should be careful about language in
The core principle governing the practice of professional
reports or in conversations with clients. The tone of a report
engineering is that authoring engineers must always be fully
should be professional and objectively neutral. Reviewers
responsibility for their designs, reports or other engineering
should try to avoid using negative adjectives and should not
documents; decisions to make changes to documents must
include accusatory or inflammatory language. Remember
be left entirely to authoring engineers. Professional engineers
that authoring engineers will be, and have a right to be,
should not be compelled by employers, clients, regulators,
defensive about their work and professional reputations.
or other practitioners to make changes to their work they
Reviewers should not express opinions on whether an are not willing to accept. If an authoring engineer agrees to
authoring engineer met professional standards of compe- make the changes suggested by a reviewer, this should be
tence or conduct. It is also inappropriate for reviewers to noted in writing.
comment on whether another professional engineer is prac-
In some cases, a client or employer may be persuaded by
tising in accordance with the Professional Engineers Actor
a review or second opinion that changes to the original
Code of Ethics. These assessments are made through PEO’s
document are necessary or an alternative approach is more
complaints and discipline processes.
appropriate for the client’s or employer’s needs. If an
Reviewing engineers might consider including a disclaimer lim- authoring engineer is unwilling to comply with a request to
iting the use of the report to the client for the stated purpose. make such changes, a client may decide to retain a different
practitioner to modify the existing design or prepare a new
6.3 D
 ealing with Reviewer’s
one. If a reviewer is asked by a client to provide a design
Recommendations
based on a reviewer’s recommendations, the contract with
Although practitioners subject to review might be concerned
the authoring engineer should be terminated before the
about the outcome of this process, the best approach is to
reviewer is hired to continue the work. Contracts for review
wait until a review is completed and then deal objectively
and provision of engineering services for altering documents
with the reviewer’s comments. Authoring engineers should
should be separate.
not try to communicate with reviewers during the review
process to try to influence the review or to obtain advance If a review is conducted by a regulatory authority, it might
knowledge of its outcome. result in a negative decision regarding an application, or a
request that an authoring engineer make revisions to the
After a review is completed, the authoring engineer might
design or report. In such cases, there is usually a right of
want to communicate with the reviewer to obtain clarifi-
appeal; this right should be exercised if an authoring engi-
cations of the reviewer’s opinion. Such communications
neer is satisfied with his or her work and its compliance
should not be an attempt to persuade the reviewer to change
with the applicable provisions. Practitioners should not
his or her opinion. They should be confined to supply-
allow themselves to be pressured into adopting changes to
ing missing or misunderstood facts to the reviewer and to
work they will be responsible for. However, in the absence
making requests for explanations of any confusing portions

P r o f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r s O n t a r i o 13