Asan engineer, it is unethical for them to charge fees below and not according tothe accepted standards of the profession in the area. Such standards are madeto protect the welfare of engineers by ensuring that they are remuneratedsatisfactorily. Furthermore, this standards can prevent engineer competing withothers engineers.
However, the fees schedule are not fix where it can bechangeable in any application depending upon the nature and difficulty of theproject, the reputation of the engineer or time available for the work andsimilar factors which must be considered in negotiating a fee. Thisconsideration of the situation are be made in order to be fair to the clientand the engineer. Fromabove case explained is quite different from the other cases where the designwork was already done for previous client. Therefore, the Code 9(b) are notvalid and cannot be applied for this situation because of the repetitive workis involved. There are many ways of application can be made to assured theengineer’s compensation for the state fee repetitive such as proper per diem, cost-plus or other method of determination. To apply the guidelines to theparticular requirements of each assignment, the state fee guides, by its verynature, must to admit of discretion and judgment.
Evenso in the fee schedule are not focus on the lower fee for repetitive work, thereasonable conclusion to determine the fair value of his services and chargecan be obtained to protect the privilege of the individual engineer. However, there are various condition for engineer in determining the value of hisservices to ensure they are not take any advantages in this situation such ashe does not regularly attempt to undercut normal fees for the area, and hismotive in the instant case is not to reduce the normal fee for the workinvolved for the purpose of a competitive advantage over fellow engineers. Ifwe are looking this case in details, it is reasonable to reduce the costs ofthe engineer services for repetitive work from the fee stipulated in the statefee schedule for original design. We perceive there are no sense from theprevious work, why an engineer may not take advantage of his own. Such fee willbring him with a fair return for the expenditure of time and effort requiredfor the work to be accomplished. It is a good decision and particularly sensibleif he in a position to deliver decent services to client at a lower cost.
Fromabove situation, we can conclude that the action taken by engineer to reducethe fee services for repetitive work below that indicated in the state societyfee guide are ethical with a condition where he is adequately compensated forhis services.
