|
Date of Decision: October 12, 2004
IN THE MATTER OF the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical
Professions Act
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF the conduct of Concise Design Engineering
Services.
CASE MANAGER
Don Morse, P.Eng.
PERMIT HOLDER
Concise Design Engineering Services, represented by Roderick
Ian Phipps, P.Eng.
BACKGROUND
APEGGA's Investigative Committee concluded an investigation
into the conduct of Concise Design Engineering Services (“Concise”)
with respect to 43 piping standard drawings. As a result of
that investigation, Concise had freely and voluntarily admitted
and agreed with certain facts and findings. In accordance
with Section 52 of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical
Professions Act, the Investigative Committee has chosen to
recommend an order rather than referring the matter to the
Discipline Committee for a formal hearing.
A recommended order must be provided to a member of the Discipline
Committee who has been designated to act as a case manager.
If the case manager agrees with the order, he or she must
discuss the order with the investigated person, and if the
investigated person agrees with the order, the order has the
same force and effect as an order made by the Discipline Committee
following a formal hearing. If the case manager or the investigated
person rejects the order, the matter must be referred to the
Discipline Committee for a formal hearing.
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Investigative Committee has presented the following statement
of facts which it had proposed to Concise and to which Concise
had agreed.
1. At all material times, Concise Design Engineering Services
(Concise) was registered in good standing with APEGGA.
2. In 2002 engineering Company A was retained to develop
a number of standards, including standards for process piping,
pressure vessels, etc. Some of the standards were contracted
to others, including piping standards which were contracted
to Concise.
3. Concise undertook the assignment and worked independently
of Company A and took professional responsibility for their
own work. The work in question contained 43 piping standard
drawings which were submitted to the client in draft form
for review in November or December, 2002.
4. In October, 2003, Company A was informed that some of
the standards produced by Concise as their own work were in
fact replicas of drawings prepared by another company for
another project. At the time, the drawings had not been issued
to any other parties and were still considered drafts.
5. Some of the drawings contained the original consultant’s
name, the client’s name, and the project number. Company
A was not aware of the replication of the standards.
6. The drawings were immediately removed and withdrawn from
the project and another consultant was engaged to complete
the project.
7. A complaint was filed with APEGGA in January, 2004.
ADMITTED CONDUCT (FINDING)
The Investigative Committee also submitted Concise Design
Engineering Service's admission to the following conduct:
1. That the conduct of Concise in the foregoing respects
constitutes unprofessional conduct as contemplated in the
Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act.
ORDER
APEGGA's Investigative Committee has recommended the following
order that it considers appropriate:
1. That Concise Design Engineering Services be reprimanded.
As the case manager designated by the Discipline Committee
to review the matter, I agree with the recommended order.
During my discussion of the order with Concise, the permit
holder also confirmed that it freely and voluntarily agrees
with the order.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 52 of the Engineering,
Geological and Geophysical Professions Act, the order has
the same force and effect as if it had been made by the Discipline
Committee following a formal hearing.
DATED this 12th day of October, 2004 at Calgary, Alberta.
Don Morse, P.Eng.
Case Manager, Discipline Committee
|
