Peer and Technical Review Guideline April 2009

8/11/2019 Peer and Technical Review Guideline April 2009

1/27

1

GUIDELINE

Professional EngineersConducting Peer orTechnical Reviews

CONTRIBUTORS REVIEWERS

Vincent Chu, P. Eng. Andy Bowers, P. Eng.Arup Mukherjee, P. Eng. Bruce Matthews, P. Eng.Ted Olechna, P. Eng. Rick Patterson, P. Eng.Scott Peaker, P. Eng.Randy Pickle, P. Eng.Brian Ross, P. Eng. (Chair)Philip Sarvinis, P. Eng.

Notice: The Professional Standards Committee has a policy of reviewing guidelines every five years todetermine if the guideline is still viable and adequate. However, practice bulletins may be issued fromtime to time to clarify statements made herein or to add information useful to those professional engineersengaged in this area of practice. Users of this guideline who have questions, comments or suggestionsfor future amendments and revisions are invited to submit these to PEO using the form provided in

Appendix 2.

April 2009 draft


2/27

2

CONTENTS

Page

1. PEO MANDATE AND CRITERIA FOR GUIDELINES

2. PREFACE

3. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF GUIDELINE

4. INTRODUCTION

5. CONDUCTING PEER OR TECHNICAL REVIEWS

5.1 Scope of Work5.2 Purpose of Review5.3 Conducting a Peer or Technical Review5.4 Communications between Reviewer and other Parties5.5 Reporting5.6 Qualifications of Reviewer5.7 Ethical Obligations of Reviewer

6. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS

APPENDIX 2: AMENDMENT AND REVISION SUBMISSION FORM

APPENDIX 3: PEO PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES


3/27

3

1. PEO MANDATE AND CRITERIA FOR GUIDELINES

Professional Engineers Ontario produces guidelines for the purpose of educating both licenseesand the public about standards of practice. This is done to fulfill PEOs legislated objectives.Section 2(4)2 of the Professional Engineers Actstates: For the purpose of carrying out itsprincipal object, PEO shall establish, maintain and develop standards of qualification and

standards of practice for the practice of professional engineering. The AssociationsProfessional Standards Committee is responsible for developing practice standards andpreparing guidelines.

This guideline has been developed by a task group of the Professional Standards Committee,reviewed and approved for publication by the full Professional Standards Committee and byPEO Council.

Professional Engineers Ontario produces guidelines to meet the following objectives, whichwere used to develop the content of this document.

1. Guidelines are intended to aid engineers in performing their engineering role in

accordance with Professional Engineers Act, O. Reg. 941/90 and O. Reg. 260/08.

2. Guidelines are intended to define processes required by regulatory, administrative orethical considerations associated with specific professional services provided byengineers. They do not aim to be short courses in an engineering subject.

3. Guidelines provide criteria for expected practice by describing the required outcome of theprocess, identifying the engineers duty to the public in the particular area of practice, anddefining the relationships and interactions between the various stakeholders (i.e.government, architects, other engineers, clients).

4. Guidelines add value to the professional engineer licence for licensed engineers and for

the public by establishing criteria for professional standards of competence.

5. Guidelines help the public to understand what it can expect of engineers in relation to aparticular task within the practice of professional engineering. By demonstrating that thetask requires specialized knowledge, higher standards of care, and responsibility for lifeand property, guidelines help reinforce the public perception of engineers as professionals.

See Appendix 3 for a list of PEO professional practice guidelines.


4/27

4

2. PREFACE

Though professional engineers are often asked to review documents prepared by otherprofessional engineers PEO does not have any policies addressing this issue. Due to the largenumber of inquiries from members of the public, regulatory bodies and practitioners asking forpolicies or advice on this practice the Professional Standards Committee (PSC) concluded that

a guideline for peer and technical review was necessary.

During 2005, PSC prepared terms of reference for a subcommittee comprising bothpractitioners and representatives from regulatory bodies who had experience as reviewers ofengineering documents. This group was asked to address questions regarding the proper roleand responsibility for professional engineers conducting peer and technical reviews.Thesubcommittee was also instructed to prepare a guideline offering best practicerecommendations for this activity.

The subcommittee met for the first time on December 5, 2005, and submitted a completed draftof this document to the Professional Standards Committee for approval on September XX,2009.

Following editing by staff and vetting by PEO legal counsel, the final draft was approved byCouncil at its meeting on XXX XX, 20XX.

3. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF GUIDELINE

The purpose of this guideline is to offer professional engineers conducting reviews of workprepared by other practitioners with guidance on the professionally acceptable manner forcarrying out these assignments. The recommendations provided in this guideline are consideredby the Professional Standards Committee to be commensurate with all professionalresponsibilities of practitioners.

This guideline is intended to resolve confusion about whether these reviews should beassessments of an individuals professionalism and competency as demonstrated by the work,(i.e. is work complete and done properly, is the practitioner aware of current standards, etc.) orconsideration of the work itself to determine whether it represents the best technical or mosteconomically feasible approach to an engineering problem. Since practitioners can be asked toprovide both types of reviews the subcommittee has developed recommendations for bothactivities.

This guideline covers the role of professional engineers who may be involved in providing theseservices either as an employee or to a client. It covers all reviews carried out by professionalengineers as part of the normal duties of their employment such as reviews conducted byengineers employed by authorities, the review of shop drawings, and review for the purpose ofquality assurance of engineering work carried out by colleagues within a business or otherorganization. The guideline also deals with reviews requested by a client seeking confirmationthat the originating practitioner has fulfilled terms of contract of service with the client, orchecking that the practitioners work complies with technical or industry standards. Reviewscould also be triggered by interested third parties such as tenants, property owners or taxpayerswho are concerned about the impact a project may have on them or their community. In thesecases, the engineers review may be intended to provide technical support for the third partiescivil or political actions. In many other cases, an engineers review may be used by a client


5/27

5

dissatisfied with the work of the professional engineer in litigation against that practitioner.

Note: References in this guideline to professional engineers apply equally to temporary licenceholders, provisional licence holders and limited licence holders.

4. INTRODUCTION

The Professional Engineers Actrefers to the practice of reviewing work only once. Thatreference is in clause 77.7.ii, O. Reg. 941 which states that a practitioner shall:

not accept an engagement to review the work of another practitioner for thesame employer except with the knowledge of the other practitioner or exceptwhere the connection of the other practitioner with the work is terminated.

This is a fairly specific but limited prohibition though, as is shown in Section 5.7, it does containsome general principles regarding the practice. This direction and the conflict of interestprovisions of the Act provide a suitable framework for determining rules governing the reviewing

of another engineers work in most cases. This guideline is provided in order to state thepreferred practices that can be derived from these general principles as well as to addresscases not explicitly covered by the statutory references.

Professional engineers should not object to having their work reviewed or reviewing work of acolleague. Review of a practitioners work by another engineer is a reasonable and, in the caseof legislated requirements, necessary practice. As long as the practice is carried out objectivelyand fairly it is consistent with the practitioners ethical obligations, with the associationsresponsibility to maintain high professional standards, and with the need to maintain the publicstrust in the profession.

All practitioners should be aware of the broader implications of offering opinions on the work of

another professional engineer. In some cases, the fact that a practitioners work was subjectedto a review can negatively impact the reputation of that engineer. Even when the result of areview is not widely known, an unfavourable opinion of the work can permanently impair therelationship between a practitioner and the client or employer. To ensure that reviews fulfill thelegitimate goals of this practice in the most professional manner possible reviewing engineersneed to be aware of procedures for ensuring fairness, impartiality and completeness of thereview process.

An objective assessment may identify deficiencies or problems in the reviewed work that needto be reported. What needs to be reported and to whom will vary from project to project andshould be left to the discretion of the reviewing engineer. In order to properly report what isnecessary the reviewer must be clear about the distinction between real flaws in the work andprofessional differences of opinion.

Practitioners undertaking a review must be aware of such issues and take every reasonableprecaution to deal with them in a professional manner. Appropriate measures to take intoconsideration are provided in Chapter 5 of this guideline.


6/27

6

5. CONDUCTING PEER OR TECHNICAL REVIEWS

5.1 Purpose of Review

A review of a practitioners work can be undertaken for various reasons and in many different

relationships. Reviewers can be colleagues in an organization, employees of governmentregulatory bodies, employees of client firms or other organizations using the engineers work, orthird party engineers retained by the client to provide an independent assessment of the work.There are numerous circumstances from corporate quality assurance to litigation against apractitioner that can give rise to a request for a review. However, the developers of thisguideline have identified two distinctly different types of review: peer review and technicalreview. The two types are distinguished by:

a) the reason for the review;b) the subject matter reviewed;c) how the party requesting the review will use the reviewers report;d) the procedures to be followed in performing the review; and

e) the responsibilities of the authoring and reviewing engineers.

In the most general terms, the essential purpose of a peer review is to assess the engineerswork or the service provided; it evaluates how the work was carried out. This is a judgmentregarding the performance of the practitioner. Alternatively, a technical review assesses thecorrectness, completeness or appropriateness of the content in a document or drawingproduced by the engineer. Technical reviews result in opinions regarding the quality of theoutput of the work, not how the engineer carried out the work. In other words, a peer review isan evaluation of the practice of a professional engineer, while a technical review is anevaluation of a design, analysis, calculation, instruction, or opinion.

Practitioners should always clarify whether the client or employer is requesting a review of a

practitioners work or a second opinion. A second opinion is a completely independentassessment of the situation given to the client so that the client has access to more informationwhen making a decision. An engineer providing a second opinion takes a fresh look at the samesituation provided to the first engineer and, without reference to the first engineers work,proposes a solution, designs a concept, or makes recommendations. For instance, ahomeowner has found some cracking of exterior brickwork and suspects that there may bestructural problem with the house. She hires an engineer who recommends costly underpinningof the foundation. Because the proposed work is expensive the homeowner decides not toproceed immediately but rather to get a second opinion. Clearly, what is needed here is not areview of the first engineers work but a separate investigation and recommendation, which canbe done without any consideration of the first engineers work. Then the client, with or withoutan independent engineers assistance, decides which opinion to rely on. In cases where theclient is seeking a second opinion the second engineer should not review the first engineerswork. In fact, reviewing the first engineers work would be counterproductive since this mayinfluence or taint the second opinion.

Occasionally, a dispute may arise between client or regulator and authoring engineer about thesuitability, applicability, or compliance of a proposed design, report or other product of aprofessional engineering service. A review is not intended to be arbitration. The reviewer shouldbe retained only to provide an opinion on the quality of the authoring engineers work, not tosettle a dispute or to offer opinions as to which partys position in a dispute is more credible.


7/27

7

5.1.1 Peer Reviews

The intention of these reviews is to provide an opinion on whether the quality of the serviceprovided by the practitioner in a specific situation is comparable to similar work done by peers.The reviewer will offer an assessment of whether the authoring engineer exhibited good

engineering practice in providing the service to the client. The reviewer should provide anopinion as to whether the engineer, whose work is being reviewed, has followed appropriateindustry-accepted methodologies, employed a logical design or analytical process, and properlyconsidered all applicable regulations, standards, codes, and best practice design principles. Thereviewer should verify that the authoring engineer undertook all necessary inquiries including,but not limited to, site visits, acquisition and review of relevant documents such as originaldrawings or equipment specifications, and contacts with regulatory bodies to identify particularrequirements of the project. In general, a peer review assesses the methodology employed bythe authoring engineer not the quality, suitability or other aspect of the design, study or reportproduced.

A peer review does not address whether a design, technical report, or other engineering work is

accurate and appropriate for the clients needs; therefore, the review should not involve detailedtechnical analysis. It is not an evaluation of the economic value of either the design or theservice provided by the authoring engineer.

Peer review is often incorrectly assumed to involve critiquing of the individuals professionalism.A peer review is not a character appraisal and reviewing engineers should refrain from voicingopinions on the personal or professional characteristics of the practitioner whose work is beingreviewed. Most importantly, a peer reviewer should not be expected to provide an opinionon the ability of the authoring engineer to practice professional engineering competentlyor ethically.Reviewing engineers should ask any person seeking an opinion on a practitionerscompetency or adherence to professional standards to contact PEO. Questions regardingincompetence or professional misconduct can only be decided through the quasi-judicial

complaints and discipline process described in the Professional Engineers Act.Peer reviewsare not a substitute for this process.

5.1.2 Technical Reviews

Technical reviews are undertaken to assess the suitability of a design, technical report, or otheroutput of an engineering service to determine whether it meets project requirements. Usually,these reviews are limited to performing random checks of engineering documents looking fortechnical errors. However, depending on the clients requirements, technical reviews can beextensive investigations of the methodology, design criteria and calculations used by theauthoring engineer as well as the correctness, appropriateness, economic viability or otherattributes of the design decisions or study recommendations.

In addition to checking whether the appropriate methodology was applied correctly the reviewerwill verify the accuracy of calculations. Technical reviews should also check to see that theapplied standards, codes and other design criteria are appropriate for the project under reviewand that these were used correctly. In general, a technical review is intended to make thefollowing assessments:

whether the completed work has met the objectives whether the objectives set out for the work were reasonable


8/27

8

whether there were other options that should have been considered by the authoringengineer

whether the evaluation of options is comprehensive, unbiased and rigorous validity of any assumptions made by the authoring engineer validity of the conclusions or calculations validity of recommendations fitness of the design or recommendations to the requirements

The reviewer may comment on the appropriateness of the design, including opinions on itsefficiency and economics, for the intended application. In the case of a technical report thereviewer should comment on whether the recommendations are justified by the analysis or factsprovided in the report. In addition to identifying shortcomings, misuse or lack of use ofestablished industry standards, codes or design criteria the review engineer may comment onthe innovative, efficient, economical and other noteworthy aspects of the design or report.

Normally, a technical review would not be as comprehensive as an original design or analysis.In most cases, checks of random portions of the work will be performed rather than a review ofeach and every aspect of the authoring engineers work. However, the thoroughness of review

must be left to the discretion of reviewers based on what they believe is necessary toadequately undertake the assignment and satisfy themselves that they have enough informationto make sound conclusions. If warranted on the basis of concerns identified in the review thereviewing engineer may advise the client or employer that a more comprehensive review isneeded.

5.1.3 Regulatory reviews

A third distinctive type of review is that conducted by regulatory bodies such as municipalbuilding departments, provincial ministries and their agencies, and federal governmentagencies. In these cases, employees of the regulatory body review the practitioners worksubmitted for approval purposes in order to confirm that the work complies with prescriptive

regulations such as building codes and municipal bylaws. Assessing regulatory compliance is alegal, not an engineering, matter and, therefore, do not have to be conducted by professionalengineers. Those individuals must refrain from making engineering judgments. The compliancereview must only compare information in the engineering documents with standards, codes orlegislated requirements. For example, an unlicensed building official can make a judgment onwhether the spacing between sprinkler heads in a given sprinkler system design is below orabove the maximum spacing allowed by NFPA standards since the reviewer is required only tomeasure the design distance given on the documents and compare this to criteria prescribed inthe standard.

However, occasionally regulatory bodies undertake more rigorous reviews for technicaladequacy, to determine whether designs meet performance standards or to assess designs that

are not subject to prescriptive standards. For example, a building department may thoroughlyanalyze a proposed structural design in order to verify, for the municipalitys own due diligencepurposes, that the design is safe. A review of this kind must be performed by a professionalengineer and should be done in accordance with the terms of a technical review as described inthis guideline.

Professional engineers employed by and conducting reviews on behalf of regulatory bodiesshould understand the mandate and the conditions under which the review is to be carried out.PEO recommends that the regulatory body have written policies that specify the purpose of the


9/27

9

review and the rules governing the procedures for carrying out this work.

5.1.4 Professional Engineers Providing Reviews inside Organizations

Professional engineers employed by an engineering firm or other organization may be calledupon to review the work of other engineers for various reasons. Such internal reviews can be

either peer reviews, to ascertain whether the authoring engineer is capable of doing assignedwork or for personnel performance grading purposes, or technical reviews, for quality assurancepurposes. When reviews are conducted by a colleague within an engineering firm, the reviewermay act like a problem-solving consultant and a very cooperative relationship between bothpractitioners is expected because the firm will ultimately be responsible for the outcome of theengineering service. For this reason, the authoring engineers judgment may be overridden by apractitioner with more authority in the firm. If the authoring engineer does not agree and is notwilling to accept responsibility for the changes imposed by the senior practitioner then thatpractitioner should either a) take responsibility for the entire engineering document by affixinghis or her seal or b) indicate and take responsibility for the changes to the document in whichcase both practitioners will seal the document.

Since both the authoring engineer and the review engineer have the same employer clause77.7.ii, O. Reg. 941 applies; therefore, the authoring engineer must be notified that a review willtake place. However, for reviews inside organizations individual notifications are not alwaysnecessary. In organizations where all drawings and documents are reviewed for quality prior toissuance or approval a written corporate policy informing all practitioners that their work will bereviewed is sufficient notification. This practice applies only to regular peer and technicalreviews including those undertaken as part of employee performance audits. In those caseswhere the review goes beyond normal quality assurance due to concerns over the individualsability to perform assigned tasks the practitioner must be notified before the work is reviewed.

5.1.5 Other reviews

It is also possible that the professional engineer's work is reviewed by a professional engineeremployed by a contractor, fabricator, manufacturer or other person who will use the engineer'sdesign in order to construct or manufacture a product for which that party will then beresponsible. In these cases the person or organization using the design may review theengineering documents as part of a due diligence appraisal. After all, since the firm producing aproduct or undertaking a project needs to rely on the accuracy and completeness of theprecursor engineering work, that firm has a right to check the design to ensure that it is notfaulty. In this case, someone other than the authoring engineer's client or employer isrequesting the review and the review is intended to protect the public or the user of the designrather than to judge the professional engineer. Since the review is initiated by someone otherthan the employer or client of the authoring engineer clause 77.7.ii, O. Reg. 941 does not apply.The reviewing engineer does not need to inform the authoring engineer that a review is taking

place.

These reviews, like technical reviews, should be conducted on the basis of assessing thesuitability and correctness of the design, instructions, directions, or other engineering outputprepared by the authoring engineer. Therefore, these reviews should be carried out inaccordance with the guidance provided in Section 5.1.2. However, the standard of suitability orcorrectness in this case is not industry norms but the willingness of the reviewers organizationto rely on the work. A practitioner reviewing documents that his client or employer will rely onhas a duty to protect the interest of the client or employer and the review should reflect those


10/27

10

concerns.

5.2 Scope of Work

5.2.1 Review by Third Party Professional Engineers

Professional engineers are asked to review the work of other engineers for many reasons andunder various employment arrangements. Before accepting any assignment, practitionersshould, in consultation with their clients, prepare a detailed scope of work and affix this to theircontract for services. This scope of work should identify whether the practitioner will conduct apeer or a technical review.

At a minimum the engineer should insist that the contract clearly identify the type of review to be

undertaken, the reason for the review, the documents that will be reviewed and the current

relationship between the authoring engineer and the client. In those cases, where the

notification according to article 77.7.ii, O. Reg. 941 is required, the contract must obligate the

client to inform the authoring engineer that a review will take place or authorize the reviewing

engineer to make this notification.

The reviewing engineer should also ensure that the client is aware of professional

responsibilities and ethical obligations described in this guideline and, if possible, these

responsibilities and obligations should be explicitly stated in the contract.

If the engineer will be providing a technical review, the scope of work should also define howthorough the review is expected to be. The level of detail examination and analysis undertakenby the reviewer conducting a technical review will depend on the nature of the work although itshould be assumed that performing a technical review would not be as comprehensive or timeconsuming as performing the original engineering work. Technical reviews are generally morethorough than peer reviews. The reviewer must use judgment to assess when a full review isapplicable.

The contract should clearly specify the deliverables to be submitted to the reviewer by theauthoring engineer. It should further be identified whether the relevant information is to besubmitted directly by the authoring engineer or through the client. The information upon whichthe review is based needs to be clearly identified. However, for various reasons including thepossibility of litigation against the authoring engineer, the reviewer should not expect to obtainall available information. Obviously, the client can ask the authoring engineer to turn over to thereviewer all documents that the client has a legal expectation of obtaining from the author.

However, the client does not have a right to all documents produced by the authoring engineerduring the commission of the work. In general, the reviewing engineer should expect to receiveonly receive those documents delivered, by the authoring engineer, as the final output of the

service to the client. Even in cases where additional information is provided the review shouldbe restricted to assessment of the final documents.

In cases where the independent review engineer is hired by a party other than the authoringengineers client, the reviewer may have to work with publicly available information only.Usually, this will be the authoring engineers final plans or reports but occasionally these maynot be available. A review of a proposed design or report should not be based on speculationabout the data, client instructions or other data the authoring engineer relied upon. If informationneeded to assess the work is not available the review engineer either should refuse to provide


11/27

11

any opinion or assessment or should limit the scope of review to issues that can be properlyassessed with the available information.

It is important that the mandate given to the reviewer, both verbally and in writing, is wordedneutrally and does not suggest the desired outcome. If the client or employer states or implies

that the practitioner should slant the review in any way the practitioner should inform the client

or employer that the reviewer is professionally obligated to remain independent and express nobias in the performance of this service.

The end use(s) of the findings of the peer or technical review must be identified and clarified atthe commencement of the assignment by the review engineer. The practitioner should informthe client of any disclaimers or limitations that may be included in the review report.

The review engineer should prepare, and include in the scope of work, a plan to conduct thepeer or technical review which will identify the documents to be reviewed, resources available tothe reviewer, methodology of the review, format of the review report, protocol ofcommunications between the reviewer and other parties, confidentiality considerations,schedule for the review, and other Such a plan, submitted to the client prior to undertaking the

review, will serve to establish the independence of the review engineer and minimize the risk ofpotential conflicts of interest.

As the review progresses the plan and/or scope of work for a peer or technical review may needto be modified if additional items of concern are identified. Though time allocated for reviewshould be discussed and agreed upon at the start of the assignment, the contract shouldprovide an option for reviewer to request and be granted additional time and changes to thescope of work.

5.3 Conducting Peer or Technical Reviews

5.3.1 General Principles

The primary component of a peer or technical review is checking of the drawing, report or otherdocument provided by the authoring engineer as the output of an engineering service in order toassess the quality of either that service or the engineering content in the document.

Checking must be as thorough as required by the scope and kind of the review; in other words,the extent of checking will need to be project specific. The extent of checking is always subjectto the reviewers discretion and dependent on judgments about how best to adequatelyundertake the assignment. The reviewer must always be satisfied that the conclusions, whetherpositive or negative, regarding the quality of the documents or of the authoring engineersservice are based on proper assessment of the items under review.

Thoroughness of review must be based on the principle of fairness; that is, the review must bethorough enough to provide the client or employer with sufficient information to resolveoutstanding questions and to warrant the opinions made by the reviewer about the quality of thework. If the review is not thorough enough the reviewer may miss issues that should be broughtto the attention of the client or employer. In this case, the reviewers service is inadequate.

On the other hand, the review must not be taken to the point of making criticisms aboutirrelevant, minor issues. The reviewer should not report on drafting, typing or spelling errors,


12/27

12

poor grammar, poor draftsmanship or other aspects of the form of the document unless theseproblems cause the documents to be ambiguous, difficult to understand, or create the possibilityfor mistaken application by those relying on the document.

5.3.2 Basis for Review

As a normal part of the process, review engineers will have to make a distinction between thepositive and negative aspects of the engineering work and point out things that are incorrect,unclear, unsubstantiated or problematic in the original document. Reviewers will likely need toreport negatively on aspects of the work done by another professional engineer; that is theirrole. However, review engineers may believe that they are expected to be critical and that it isnecessary to find things that, though not necessarily wrong or detrimental, can be cast in anegative way. Reviewers should ensure that the manner in which these negative assessmentsare reported is consistent with the articles in the Code of Ethics describing practitioners dutiesto other professional engineers. These duties are given in article (77)7, O. Reg, 941 whichstates that A practitioner shall,

i. act towards other practitioners with courtesy and good faith,iii. not maliciously injure the reputation or business of another practitioner.

In order to be fair to the authoring engineer, this procedure should be conducted in an objectiveand consistently applied manner. For that reason, reviewers should adhere to the followingprocess for deciding what is wrong in an engineering work.

The first step of all reviews is to ascertain what assessment criteria apply. Clearly, in order to beobjective, both the technical and professional aspects of a practitioners work must be measuredagainst the normal practice for professional engineers carrying out similar work. Professionalengineers must comply with all legislated standards and codes, but best practices commonlyutilized by practitioners familiar with a particular industry are not always legislated. However,many of these codes and unofficial standards, especially those provided by technicalassociations such as CSA, IES, IEEE, ASHRAE, and ASME, are so thoroughly endorsed by

practitioners working in certain industrial sectors that failure to utilize these standards would becontrary to commonly accepted rules of practice. In this case, all practitioners are expected tocomply with these standards. The reviewer should outline what relevant standards, codes,legislation and conventions of the particular industrial sector are pertinent to the work andshould clearly distinguish whether adherence to these standards is considered obligatory ordiscretionary.

The other important criterion for making judgments in a review is a comparison of the work withexamples of good engineering practice. Good engineering practice comprises well-known,widely available and generally acceptable behaviour proven by long-standing, constant, andgeneral use as exhibited by the majority of practitioners working regularly in that area ofpractice. Work that is consistent with the principle of good engineering practice can only be

produced by practitioners who:

have access to and understanding of theoretical and practical knowledge whichgenerally corresponds to the state of the art in the professional engineers field at thatparticular time

express technical information through graphical representation and/or written documentsin sufficient detail to make engineering decisions by others unnecessary

show an awareness and consideration of customary design solutions make judgments based on analytical skills


13/27

13

Based on this information, the reviewer should identify what can be reasonably considered to bethe customary procedures and practices normal for work similar to that under review that shouldhave guided the authoring engineer for this work. The sole object of the review is to establishwhether the work meets these criteria. The reviewers role is not to state how he or she wouldhave handled the work.

It is imperative for reviewers to do research to back up their views. This research may includereviewing publications by standard-setting organizations (including PEO), reading basicengineering textbooks and professional literature, and consulting with other practitioners for asense of the generally accepted view within the profession on the issue. In some cases,reviewers may need to make site visits in order to research conditions pertinent to the workunder review.

Clients or regulatory bodies may ask engineers to submit design calculations and otherinformation that is not normally considered part of the final documents. Unless there is acontractual or legislated obligation to do otherwise, practitioners should not provide documentsgenerated during the commission of the engineering services. However, it is acceptable for the

reviewer to request any data defining design or study parameters, client requirementscommunicated to the authoring engineer, equipment specifications or other information thatwould reasonably be expected to needed by the practitioner in order to carry out the review. Theauthoring engineer should consider whether these documents are necessary for conducting afair review, and provide these on an as-needed or temporary basis.

Reviewing engineers should not ask for the qualifications of the authoring engineer. Licenced

practitioners are required to take on and carry out engineering assignments only when they arecompetent to do so. This is an assessment made by the authoring engineer. The reviewengineer should contact PEO if there are concerns about the competency of the authoring

engineer based on the quality of the work under review.

The quality of the service should always be judged against the standard of professional careappropriate for the task. Practitioners must always provide sufficient time and effort to undertaketheir work in a manner consistent with the norms of the engineering profession. Standards ofprofessionalism are not negotiable with clients or employers; nor do they vary with fee or salary.Therefore, the reviewer has no need to know how much the authoring engineer was paid for thework being reviewed since a review judges the quality of the work on the basis of professionalstandards not on the fee received.

Section 5.4 Communications between Reviewer and Other Parties

During the undertaking of a review, the engineer may need to communicate with various parties.The reviewer at all times must adhere to the requirements of confidentiality (article 77.3 O. Reg.

941). Before communicating with anyone other than the client, including the authoring engineer,the review engineer must advise the client of the identity of the parties with whom he or sheproposes to communicate, and of the intended purpose for the communication. The practitionermust obtain approval from the client, preferably in writing, for the communication. The reviewershould maintain a record of all significant communications with the client, the authoring engineerand any other party contacted during the course of the review. Significant communicationsshould be by a letter, fax or e-mail.

The clients approval is not mandatory if in the course of the review the engineer uncovers a


14/27

14

situation that constitutes an imminent risk to public safety. If all efforts to obtain the clientsapproval to notify the authoring engineer or another party have been exhausted, the reviewerhas a professional obligation, given in article 72(2)(c) of O. Reg 941, to advise those partiescapable of mitigating the risk of the identified danger.

If the reviewer is an employee of a government agency or regulatory authority, the reviewer

may, depending upon his or her position in the organization, be able to communicate with thepractitioner, whose work is being reviewed, without seeking approval from the individual whosubmitted the engineering document for regulatory review. However, direct communication withthe authoring engineer should be limited, recorded and copied to the submitter.

When requested to review a design or study, the engineer should ensure that he or she fullyunderstands the intent and scope of the design or study to be reviewed. The review engineershould obtain this information from the client and, if the client approves, from the engineerresponsible for the work. If the objectives of the client and the authoring engineer do not agree,the review engineer should discuss the differences with both parties to obtain a commonunderstanding of the objectives of the work under review. If the parties cannot reach aconsensus, the engineer should base the review on the intent and scope provided by the client

though the review report should record, but not comment on, the discrepancy between theexpectations of the client and the authoring engineers understanding of the assignment.

5.5 Reporting

An independent practitioner retained to review engineering documents either by the authoringengineers client or by a third party should always provide a written report on completion of thereview. The review report should contain an introduction that identifies the individual whoauthorized review and the authoring engineer. It should state the purpose of the review andwhether the reviewer is performing a peer or technical review. The review should also include abrief description of the item under review, a summary of documentation provided to the reviewerand of communications made during the review, and a description of the reviewers

methodology for conducting the review. The report should document the reviewers findings andshould fully describe the information upon opinions are based; the reviewer should referenceparticular legislation, code or standard upon which the findings are based.

The only output of a review is the report. A peer or technical review does not include making orrecommending changes to the authoring engineers design or report. The review should onlyidentify problems and concerns regarding errors, omissions, failure to meet clients expectationsor noncompliance with standards and regulations. The reviewer should deal only with the designpresented and should neither make suggestions about better designs nor report how thereviewer would have approached the task differently.

A review report that contains statements of engineering judgments is an engineering documentand therefore must be sealed if it is provided to someone outside the engineers firm. This willbe the case for technical reviews but not for regulatory reviews. By sealing the report the reviewengineer is accepting responsibility for the opinions in the report not for the work that wasreviewed.

In some cases, the client may ask the reviewer to provide a second opinion, in which case it isappropriate to suggest other approaches. However, these opinions should not be provided inthe context of a review; that is, the reviewer should not make comparisons between the originaland alternative designs. The review engineer should also be careful about how these


15/27

15

suggestions may be used. It is possible that the client may use the reviewers opinions asdirections for making changes to the original engineering documents and, even though thepractitioner did not intend them to be used this way, it is likely that the reviewer will be liable forthe consequences of those changes. Any written document or oral report commenting on thefindings of a review should be prefaced by a statement that the opinions expressed are forconsideration only and are not intended as modifications to the original documents.

Practitioners must clearly distinguish among facts, assumptions and opinions in theirpreparation of reports and professional statements. Professional opinions should be clearlystated and should include clear indications of the constraints within which opinion holds, and therelevant qualifying circumstances, facts and assumptions.

When expressing an opinion, always give reasons for it and respond to the arguments that theauthoring engineer and others could make against the reviewer's opinion. Acknowledge that thereviewer is expressing an opinion and that others might come to different conclusions. Do notconvey the impression that there is only one right answer and the reviewer has it and everyoneelse is wrong. Never express an opinion unless it is founded on adequate knowledge and ahonest belief that the opinion is justified.

Focus on the issues, not the person. Criticism of the design, content of the report or of theengineers methodology is entirely reasonable; attacks on the competency or character of theengineer is not. Negative comments aimed at the person rather than the facts can be construedas libel (written defamation of character or reputation) or slander (verbal defamation) and could,in the most egregious cases, lead to lawsuits against the reviewer. However, such claims areunlikely to succeed when the reviewer simply reported facts and acted in good faith (even if thereviewers opinion ends up being incorrect).

For this reason, reviewers should be careful about language in the report or in conversationswith client. The tone of the report should be professional and objectively neutral. The reviewershould try to avoid the use of negative adjectives and should not include accusatory or

inflammatory language. Remember that the authoring engineer will be, and has a right to be,defensive about his or her work and professional reputation.

The reviewer should not express opinions as to whether the authoring engineer metprofessional standards of competence or conduct. It is also inappropriate for the reviewer tocomment on whether another professional engineer is practicing in accordance with theProfessional Engineers Actor the Code of Ethics. These assessments are part of the role ofPEO through its complaints and discipline process.

The reviewing engineer may consider including a disclaimer limiting the use of the report to theclient alone and for the stated purpose.

5.6 Dealing with reviewers recommendations

Although practitioners subject to review may be concerned about the outcome of this process,the best approach is to wait until the review is completed and then deal objectively with thereviewers comments. Practitioners should not try to communicate with the reviewer during thereview process for the purpose of influencing the review or in order to obtain advanceknowledge of the outcome.


16/27

16

After the review is completed the authoring engineer may want to communicate with thereviewer in order to obtain clarifications of the reviewer's opinion. These communications shouldnot be an attempt to persuade the reviewer to change his or her opinion. They should beconfined to supplying missing or misunderstood factual information to the reviewer and to makerequests for explanations of any confusing portions of the opinion. Both the request andresponse should be provided in writing and made through the client or party requesting the

review. Direct contact between the authoring and reviewing engineers should not be donewithout approval of the client or party requesting the review.

If the authoring engineer responds to the review in writing with reasoned arguments, thereviewer should carefully consider them and may provide an addendum to the original report ifnecessary. However, a single response should be sufficient. Repeated objections from theauthoring engineer, especially if they are belligerent, should be considered unprofessionalconduct and reported to PEO.

The core principle governing the practice of professional engineering is that the authoringengineer alone must always be fully responsibility for the design, report or other engineeringdocument; decisions to make changes to a document must be left entirely to that practitioner.

Professional engineers should not be compelled by employers, clients, regulators, or otherpractitioners to make changes to their work that they are not willing to accept. If the authoringengineer agrees to make changes suggested by the reviewer, this should be noted in writing.

In some cases, the client or employer may be persuaded by the review or second opinion thatchanges to the original document are necessary or that an alternative approach is moreappropriate for the client or employers needs. If the authoring engineer is unwilling to complywith the request to make these changes the client may decide to retain a different practitioner tomodify the existing design or prepare a new one. If the reviewer is asked by the client to providea design based on the recommendations, then the contract with the authoring engineer shouldbe terminated before the reviewer is hired to continue the work. Contracts for review andprovision of engineering services for altering the documents should be separate.

If the review is conducted by a regulatory authority it may result in a negative decision regardingan application or a request that the engineer make revisions to the design or report. In suchcases, there is usually a right of appeal; this right should be exercised if the authoring engineeris satisfied with his or her work. Practitioners should not allow themselves to be pressured intoadopting changes to work they will be responsible for. However, absent a successful appeal, theauthoring engineer is bound by the ruling and must act accordingly. There are two optionsavailable to the authoring engineer: 1) make changes that are consistent with both the rulingand the practitioner's professional engineering judgment or 2) withdraw the design and theapplication.

Regulatory reviews will often result in statements that the authoring engineer did not provideenough information or failed to provide sufficient argument for report findings. The regulatory

body may ask for resubmission of information by the authoring engineer. In many cases, theregulatory authority is legally entitled to ask for any information necessary for their purposes, sothe practitioner must comply with these requests for resubmission.

5.7 Qualifications of Reviewer

Since making judgments and expressing opinions about the quality of the engineering service,the technical content of engineering documents or the appropriate means of dealing with an


17/27

17

engineering problem is an act of professional engineering reviewers must be holders of alicence issued by PEO. An unlicenced person can review engineering documents forcompliance with prescriptive codes and standards; however, all peer and technical reviews mustbe conducted by persons licenced to practice professional engineering.

Professional engineers providing services such as a peer or technical review to a client must

hold a Certificate of Authorization (C of A) or be employees of a C of A holder. Holders of Cs ofA must comply with the insurance provisions found in the Regulations. Professional engineersproviding review services to anyone other than their employers without a Certificate of

Authorization are violating the Professional Engineers Act.

Practitioners subject to a review expect that the review will be fair. In order to conduct a fairreview and to express a professional opinion the reviewer must have sufficient expertise in theparticular area of practice to properly assess the content of the engineering document. To dothis, the reviewer must have, according to article 72(2)(h) of O. Reg. 941, a thoroughunderstanding of the best practices appropriate for the area of professional engineering relevantfor the work being reviewed. Best practices refers to usual methodologies and knowledgeaccepted by the vast majority of practitioners in that field. It is not what the reviewer would

personally do (which is often higher than the minimum standard). The reviewer should alsoconsider the possibility that the authoring engineers practices are consistent with those of alegitimate minority school of thought; that is, despite the fact that the authoring engineersmethods and approach is not consistent with best practices they are justifiable, recognize basicengineering principles and are based on sound reasoning. Best practices are always open torevision, therefore practitioners should not be penalized for being innovative. In some cases,local knowledge may also be pertinent to the review. Local knowledge refers to methods orstandards particular to a specific geographical area, such as municipal by-laws, and to ordinarypractices within specific industries. Reviewers must make themselves familiar with the localknowledge applicable to the work under review. In order to carry out a fair review, the reviewermust be capable of independently carrying out work of the kind under review.

5.8 Ethical Obligations

Ethical obligations of professional engineers are prescribed in Section 77, O. Reg. 941,otherwise known as the Code of Ethics for the profession. Licensed practitioners are expectedat all times to govern their behaviour in accordance with all principles of the code. However,some articles have specific relevance to the issue of peer and technical review.

5.8.1 Obligations of Reviewing Engineers

Notification

The primary ethical obligation for reviewing another professional engineers work is given in

article 77(7)ii, O. Reg. 941, which states that a practitioner shall:

not accept an engagement to review the work of another practitioner for the sameemployer except with the knowledge of the other practitioner or except where theconnection of the other practitioner with the work has been terminated

If a client or employer asks a practitioner to review the work of another engineer who is stillengaged on a project, either through employment contract or an agreement to provideprofessional services, the reviewer must undertake the assignment only with the knowledge of


18/27

18

the other practitioner. This notification should be made by the client or employer; however, it isthe responsibility of the review engineer to ensure that the client is aware of the requirement fornotification and does, in fact, carry out this requirement.

Article 77(7)ii explicitly states that it applies only in those cases where the same employer(which includes clients for professional engineers providing services to the public) requests the

engineer to review the work of another practitioner. Clearly, the important matter in this sectionis the relationship between the practitioner and the employer/client. The obligation applies onlyduring the period in which that professional relationship exists. The purpose of this section is toprotect the authoring engineer's relationship with the client/employer by prohibiting otherprofessional engineers from secretly, though usually not maliciously, interposing themselvesinto this relationship. The purpose of such a notification is to ensure transparency of intentionbetween professional colleagues.

Peer review often occurs within organizations where engineers are expected to have their workroutinely reviewed as part of an ongoing quality assurance program. This is usually part of astandard quality assurance program in which every document is reviewed before it is issued. Ifso, then every professional engineer in the organization knows that his or her work is being

reviewed. There is no need for the reviewing engineer to notify the design engineer if thereview process is general knowledge since it is explicitly stated as company policy.

However, it might happen that one engineer is asked to review the work of another even thoughthe review process is not part of the standard organization procedures. This might happen ifpersons in the firm are concerned about the work of that engineer or it might happen becausethe project is a difficult one and the organization is being cautious. In cases like these, becausethe review is not a standard procedure, the authoring engineer must be notified.

A client who has retained a professional engineering firm to provide engineering services mighthire a second firm to check the work of the first firm because: a) the client is required by law tohave a peer review done (as is the case for much environmental work); b) the client wants to be

assured that the work is the best possible for its needs and, therefore, is doing a form of qualityassurance; c) the client is unsure of the quality of the work of the practitioner and wants areview done to settle that question; or d) the client is commencing a law suit against theauthoring engineer and needs a review in order to obtain an expert opinion to support the claim.Such reviews can occur in cases where the engineering firm is still under contract (exceptprobably case d) or they may occur after the engineering firm's contract is terminated becausethe work has finished. While the work is underway (i.e. the engineering firm is under contract)there is a professional relationship that must be protected; therefore, notification of the authoringengineer is necessary. After the contract is terminated, there is no longer a professionalrelationship between the client and the engineering firm and, according to the principle set out inarticle 77.7(ii), there is no requirement to notify the practitioner.

In many cases the review is part of a regulatory requirement. That is, the engineers work isreviewed at the request of someone other than the client or employer. For instance,professional engineers employed in regulatory agencies such as municipal buildingdepartments, provincial ministries, and federal government agencies review engineer's worksubmitted for approval purposes in order to confirm that the work complies with regulations andstandards. Since, the review is initiated by someone other than the employer or client, thereview does not interfere with the professional relationship and article 77.7(ii) does not apply.

Confidentiality


19/27

19

Every practitioner must consider themselves at all times to be engaged in a professionalrelationship with their clients and employers. A professional relationship is built on trust andrequires practitioners to comport themselves in ways that are conducive to gaining andmaintaining that trust. This duty is expressed in Section 77(3), O. Reg. 941:

A practitioner shall act in professional engineering matters for each employer as a faithfulagent or trustee and shall regard as confidential information obtained by the practitioner asto the business affairs, technical methods or processes of an employer and avoid ordisclose a conflict of interest that might influence the practitioner's actions or judgment.

The reviewer should not communicate directly with the authoring engineer or any other personregarding the review unless he or she has sought and obtained permission from the client oremployer. Reviewers contractual obligations are to the client or employer; the review reportshould only be submitted to them. There is no obligation for reviewers to disclose their findingsto the authoring engineer or anyone else after the review has been completed. Disclosure of thefindings should take place only if allowed or requested by the client.

The usual practice for regulatory reviews is to have the reviewing engineer communicatedirectly with the authoring engineer to resolve concerns raised during the review process or tomake recommendations regarding means to achieve compliance with regulatory standards. Thisis acceptable practice if the authoring engineers client is aware beforehand that thiscommunication will take place. The authoring engineer should consider notifying the client of thesubstance of any communication.

Any information received from the authoring engineer, especially proprietary information such astrade secrets, must also be treated as confidential disclosures. To avoid an allegation aboutplagiarizing or appropriating innovative ideas or private commercial information, the reviewer'sbest protection is to be conscientious about relying, even unconsciously, on the reviewed workin future projects undertaken by the reviewer. The possibility for these charges can be reduced

by either returning all information received from the authoring engineer or, if a copy needs to bekept for accountability purposes, storing it in a place where it cannot be easily retrieved. If thereviewer is working on a project similar or related to that to be reviewed, he or she shouldconsider declining to do the review if accepting the assignment could lead to concerns that thereviewer may violate confidentiality.

Good Faith

Article 77.7.i, O.Reg. 941 sets out an obligation for all practitioners to act towards otherpractitioners with courtesy and good faith. Acting in good faith refers to being motivated byones conviction as to the truth of ones opinions or the rightness of ones actions. For apractitioner providing professional engineering services compliance with the Code of Ethics

determines the rightness of an action. Assessments regarding the truth of ones opinions are apersonal matter grounded in the make-up of an individuals character. Every practitioner mustbe realistic about their own judgments; confident that the exercise of their knowledge and skillsgenerally leads to reliable results while allowing for the possibility of error. A practitioner canmake a good assessment of another engineers work only on the basis of a sound assessmentof their own abilities.

Fairness


20/27

20

According to article 77.1.i, O. Reg. 941 practitioners have a duty to act at all times withfairness to their associates, including other members of the profession. Fairness is the principlethat must guide any person who has discretion about the distribution of burdens and benefitsamong persons in a group. In the case of review, practitioners have freedom in making opinionsabout the work. Those opinions may benefit or burden the client, authoring engineer or otherparties in various ways depending on the nature of the opinion and the consequences created

by those opinions.

The reviewing engineer must not make statements or allow publication of all or any part of areview report in a manner that might be considered detrimental to the reputation, professionalstatus or financial interests of the authoring engineer for malicious reasons. The reviewingengineer must not participate in any such activity at the request of the client or employer unlesspublication of the report is required by freedom of information or other government transparencylegislation.

However, the duty of fairness does not prohibit a professional engineer from reporting facts orexpressing an honest opinion that may have a negative consequence on another practitioner orthe client. Occasionally, the reviewing engineer may be called to provide testimony based on

the review on behalf of the client or employer in a court action against the authoring engineer.When called to do so, the review engineer should provide this testimony in accordance witharticles 77.2.ii and 77.8 of O. Reg. 941. Any practitioner called to appear before a tribunal orcourt in order to provide an opinion on work carried out by another professional engineer shouldconsult the guideline The Professional Engineer as an Expert Witnessfor guidance on theproper role and professional conduct in providing this service.

All practitioners have a duty to the public and the profession to report to PEO situations wherethere is a possibility that practitioners may be acting in a manner that is incompetent ornegligent. If a reviewer finds that the work under review is of such unprofessional quality that thereviewer believes the authoring engineer is practicing professional engineering in a manner thatis not conducive to the public interest the reviewer must inform PEO.

Conflict of Interest

Another problem that may arise when providing professional services is a relationship betweena practitioner and one or more parties that could be perceived as a conflict of interest. The mainfeature of a conflict of interest is a combination of two or more competing interests with a duty ofthe practitioner that is threatened. A conflict of interest arises when a practitioner has difficultydischarging his or her duties to another person whose interests can be affected by thepractitioners actions. The conflict occurs when either the practitioner or a third party haveinterests that, in order to be realized, require the practitioner to ignore or subordinate the otherpersons interests. Ignoring or subordinating that persons interests would be a violation of thepractitioners duty. Generally, the duty that needs to be protected is a duty owed by thepractitioner to the client or employer; however, practitioners have duties to many other persons,including fellow practitioners, and these can also be threatened by conflicting interests.

Sections 77.2.i and 77.4 of O. Reg. 941 deal with the engineers responsibility to avoidsituations of real or perceived conflict of interest. The general principle regarding thepractitioners obligations in these situations is given in section 77.4:


21/27

21

A practitioner must disclose immediately to the practitioner's client any interest, direct orindirect, that might be construed as prejudicial in any way to the professional judgment ofthe practitioner in rendering service to the client

Note that according to the Professional Engineers Actthe misconduct is a result of failing to tellall the parties about an interest that conflicts, or may appear to conflict, with a duty; this implies

that the existence of conflicting interests is not in itself an unethical or illegal act. For thisreason, the reviewer should notify the client, before beginning the review, of any pre-existingrelationship between the reviewer and the authoring engineer. These relationships will notnecessarily disqualify the practitioner from taking on the assignment but that decision should beleft with the client.

Though the code of ethics and misconduct provisions deal specifically with the practitionersobligations to avoid conflict with the client or employers interests, in the case of review thereviewer should also consider, out of an abundance of caution and an obligation of professionalfairness, any potential for conflict with the authoring engineers interests. Specifically,practitioners subject to review may have concerns about the neutrality of the reviewer since heor she is selected by the client or employer. The authoring engineer should know who has

retained the reviewer and whether the relationship between the reviewer and that person can inany way taint the objectivity of the reviewer. The reviewer should avoid any suspicion that he orshe was chosen because of a known and pre-existing view on the issue or because thereviewer hoped to gain a benefit, other than a fee for service, from the client. Theserecommendations apply only in those cases where the authoring engineer must be notifiedabout the review.

According to article 72(2)(i).5, O. Reg. 941 one particular act that could be construed as aconflict of interest is expressing opinions or making statements concerning matters within thepractice of professional engineering of public interest where the opinions or statements areinspired or paid for by other interests. Of course, in the case of a professional engineer hired toreview another practitioners work the engineer provides opinions and, in return for these

opinions, is paid by another party. It is possible that persons, including the authoring engineer,may perceive the reviewer as being involved in a conflict of interest.

The authoring engineer or others may also presume that the reviewer has a commercial conflictof interest if the reviewer is retained by the client to replace the authoring engineer. To avoid anallegation of stealing a client, the reviewer should never do anything that might be viewed assoliciting work during the review process. During the review, the reviewer should immediatelyhalt any conversation or other communication suggesting that the reviewer might be retained bythe client to replace the authoring engineer unless the relationship between the client and theauthoring engineer has already been terminated. In most contexts, that reviewer should simplydecline to accept any work related to the work under review.

Reviewers must recognize the potential for creating appearances of conflict of interest andensure that their behaviour is, at all times, consistent with the limited purpose of providing areview of the practitioners work. Practitioners must conduct the review in accordance with theCode of Ethics.

5.8.2 Obligations of the Authoring Engineer

The authoring engineer must treat the reviewer with respect and cooperate with all reasonablerequests made by the client or the reviewing engineer. When asked to determine whether or


22/27

22

not engineering work meets a professional standard the reviewing engineer is performing alegitimate and necessary service. Peer review is an important feature of a self-regulatingprofession as it demonstrates that the profession can place the publics interests over theinterests of its members.

When asked, the authoring engineer shall provide all requested information to the client or the

reviewer unless there are reasonable grounds to refuse. Reasonable grounds include requestsfor information not directly related to the documents under review, proprietary information thatcan commercially benefit the reviewing engineer or client, and personal information such asresumes and academic transcripts.

6. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The following questions from professional engineers and answers from PEO are intended todemonstrate how the principles outlined in this guideline can be applied to specific situations.

Q:Who decides on the proper course of action if a authoring engineer and a reviewing engineer

disagree? Does the client have to hire a third engineer to make that decision?

A:Choosing which of two professional opinions to accept is not an act of professional

engineering and can be done by anyone. When a person obtains opinions from two different

doctors that person is not practicing medicine when he makes his decision to follow the advice

given by one of the two or to ignore both. If both professionals agree, the client has the choice

to either proceed or not. If the professionals disagree, the client can choose the option that is

more acceptable for his or her requirements. It is still the professionals responsibility to carry

through with his or her work in a professional manner. Professionals only provide advice and

carry out instructions within the mandate given to them by the client or employer. Decisions are

always made by clients or employers, unless they have delegated decision-making to the

practitioner. If the client decides that the reviewers recommendations make the most sense andtells the first engineer to revise his or her work accordingly the first engineer can either agree (if

he or she is convinced that the recommendations are valid) or can refuse and terminate

involvement with the project if the client insists implementing the proposed changes. If either

engineer believes that refusing to accept his or her opinion will result in a health and safety

issue that engineer is required under article 72(2)(f) to present clearly the consequences to

be expected. However, the decision of how to proceed still rests with client or employer.

Q:If the purpose of the review is to evaluate the quality of the authoring engineer's work and

the reviewer misses some poor quality (i.e incorrect, unsuitable, non-code-compliant) work,

would the reviewer be held accountable for that oversight?

A: Yes. The reviewer should therefore ensure that the terms for the review are fully documentedin an agreement.

Q:How much responsibility does the reviewing engineer take for the reviewed work?

A:None if the reviewing engineer does not change the work in any way, and if

recommendations for changes are given to the authoring engineering who is allowed to

independently make the decision to incorporate the suggested changes in the work. However,


23/27

23

the reviewing engineer should be clear that the information provided in the review is not to be

used by the client or employer for any other purpose than an appraisal of the authoring

engineerings work. The client or employer should not used this information for

Q:If a client makes a decision on the basis of the reviewing engineers opinion, how responsible

is the reviewer?

A: Professional engineers are responsible for every opinion they provide. For that reason, a

practitioner should provide opinions only on those matters for which the client or employer has

sought advice and, then, only if the practitioner has sufficient information to make an objective

opinion.

Practitioners should inform their clients or employers that opinions given in a review of another

practitioners work are notintended as directions to the client, employer or other party to make

changes to the report or design.

Q:Can reviewing engineers define limitations of liability for the review in contracts with clients?

What kind of disclaimers and limitations should the engineer include?

A: Reviewers can define limitations of liability to their work. However, they cannot relieve

themselves through contract of their responsibility to comply with the Professional Engineers Act

or regulated standards of the profession.

Q:If the reviewing engineer goes beyond reviewing the work and carries out tasks such as site

investigation, testing, does this affect the reviewing engineers liability and responsibility?

A: When reviewing another engineers work, the reviewing engineer should deal only with the

information in the authoring engineers documents. The reviewer should not collect new data in

order to redo the authoring engineers work. If the practitioner carries out testing, site inspection

or other engineering work then the practitioner is likely providing a second opinion or preparing

a new design. Practitioners are responsible and liable for this original work.


24/27

24

APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS

The following definitions apply for the purposes of this guideline and may not be generallyapplicable in other situations.

Practitioner

A person holding a licence, temporary licence, limited licence, or provisional licence issued byProfessional Engineers Ontario.

Unlicenced Person

A person who does not hold a licence to practice professional engineering issued byProfessional Engineers Ontario and who is not entitled to practice professional engineeringexcept when delegate to do so under the direction of a professional engineer.

Author ing Engineer

The professional engineer responsible for the preparation of the engineering document underreview.

Reviewing Engineer

The professional engineer reviewing the content of the engineering document.

Good Engineering Practice

Good engineering practice comprises well-known, widely available and generally acceptablebehaviour proven by long-standing, constant, and general use. This behaviour includes, but isnot limited, to:

access to and understanding of theoretical and practical knowledge which generallycorresponds to the state of the art in the professional engineers field at that particulartime

expression of technical information through graphical representation and/or writtendocuments in sufficient detail to make engineering decisions by others unnecessary

awareness and consideration of customary design solutions application of good judgment based on analytical skills adherence to standards and codes published by recognized technical, professional and

regulatory bodies.

Review

An examination of the content of any type of engineering document prepared by or under thedirect supervision of a professional engineer.

Peer Review

A review conducted for the purposes of comparing the methods and processes used by theauthoring engineer to the standards of the profession.


25/27

25

Technical Review

A review of a document to determine whether the engineering content of the work is correct,complete or suitable for the intended application.

Regulatory Review

A review of a document, conducted by staff of a governmental or quasi-governmental body, todetermine whether the content of the document complies with regulations, bylaws or otherstandards administered by that body.

Professional Standards

The expected outcome of a professional engineering service or the acceptable manner ofcarrying out a professional engineering task as described in regulations under the ProfessionalEngineers Actor in guidelines published by Professional Engineers Ontario.

Work

A drawing, design calculations, engineering report, specification, or other document containingdirections, opinions or judgments of an engineering nature prepared by or under the supervisionof the authoring engineer.

Same employer

A person who ultimately benefits from the services of both the authoring and the reviewingengineers.


26/27

26

APPENDIX 2: AMENDMENT AND REVISION SUBMISSION FORM

Guideline:

Statement of propos ed amendment or revision :

Reason:

Submitted by:

Date:

Mail: Professional Engineers Ontario1000- 25 Sheppard Avenue WestToronto ON M2N 6S9

Attention: Bernard Ennis, P.Eng., Manager, Practice and Standards

Fax: (416) 224-8168 or (800) 268-0496Email: [email protected]


27/27

APPENDIX 3 PEO PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

1. Acting as Contract Employees (2001)2. Acting as Independent Contractors (2001)3. Acting Under the Drainage Act (1988)4. Acoustical Engineering Services in Land-Use Planning (1998)

5. Building Projects Using Manufacturer-Designed Systems & Components (1999)6. Commissioning Work in Buildings (1992)7. Communications Services (1993)8. Engineering Services to Municipalities (1986)9. Environmental Site Assessment, Remediation and Management (1996)10. General Review of Construction as Required by the Ontario Building Code (2003)11. Geotechnical Engineering Services (1993)12. Guideline to Professional Practice (1998)13. Human Rights in Professional Practice (2000)14. Land Development/Redevelopment Engineering Services (1994)15. Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Services in Buildings (1997)16. Professional Engineer as an Expert Witness (1997)17. Professional Engineer's Duty to Report (1991)18. Project Management Services (1991)

19. Reports for Pre-Start Health and Safety Reviews (2001)20. Reports on Mineral Properties (2002)21. Roads, Bridges and Associated Facilities (1995)22. Selection of Engineering Services (1998)23. Solid Waste Management (1993)24. Structural Engineering Services in Buildings (1995)25. Temporary Works (1993)26. Transportation and Traffic Engineering (1994)27. Use of Agreements between Client and Engineer for Professional Engineering

Services (including sample agreement) (2000)28. Use of Computer Software Tools Affecting Public Safety or Welfare (1993)29. Use of the Professional Engineers Seal (2005)

Documents

Peer and Technical Review Guideline April 2009