ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION AUGUST 14, 2010

PART A Professional Practice and Ethics
This examination comes in two parts (Part A and Part B). Both parts must be completed in this
sitting. You will be given a total of 180 minutes to complete the examination.
Use the correct colour-coded Answer Book for each part, place in the correct envelope and seal after
completed.
White Answer Book for Part A white question paper.
Coloured Answer Book for Part B coloured question paper.
This is a CLOSED BOOK examination. No aids are permitted other than the excerpts from the 1990
Ontario Regulation 941 covering sections 72 (Professional Misconduct) and 77 (Code of Ethics) supplied at
the examination. Dictionaries are not permitted.
The marking of questions will be based not only on academic content, but also on legibility and the ability
to express yourself clearly and correctly in the English language. If you have any doubt about the meaning
of a question, please state clearly how you have interpreted the question.
All four questions constitute a complete paper for Part A. Each of the four questions is worth 25 marks.
WHERE A QUESTION ASKS IF A CERTAIN ACTION BY AN ENGINEER WAS ETHICAL OR
NOT, A SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER IS NOT SUFFICIENT. YOU ARE EXPECTED TO
COMMENT ON AND DISCUSS THE ACTION OF THE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS AND/OR
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN EACH SITUATION.
You should identify where applicable the appropriate clauses in Regulation 941. SIMPLE REFERENCE
TO THE APPROPRIATE CLAUSES WITHOUT A DISCUSSION OF HOW THE CLAUSE
APPLIES IN THE SITUATION DESCRIBED IS NOT SUFFICIENT.

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 3

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION AUGUST 14, 2010
PART A Professional Practice and Ethics
Question 1
(5)

(a)

Two of PEO's functions are discipline and enforcement. Explain what

enforcement is and how it differs from discipline.

(10)

(b)

Professional engineering in Ontario is described as a self-regulating

profession. What does this term mean? In your answer, briefly describe
three different features in the way professional engineering is regulated in
Ontario that are consistent with this term.

(5)

(c)

Section 12.2 of the Professional Engineers Act (PEA) states No person

shall offer to the public or engage in the business of providing to the public
services that are within the practice of professional engineering except
under and in accordance with a certificate of authorization. For purposes
of the PEA briefly define what is meant by public.

(5)

(d)

What are the limits of the Temporary License? (In your answer, DO
NOT discuss the qualifications/requirements for obtaining this license..

Question 2

Delta, a professional engineer (P.Eng.) is hired in a contract capacity to

provide expert advice on the installation of a power plant being built by
Upstart Energy in a rural northern community. Delta has all the necessary
licenses such as Professional Engineers (P.Eng,) and Certificate of
Authorization (C of A) to provide these services to Upstart Energy. The
project manager Sigma, who is also a P.Eng., works for the client Upstart
Energy and is responsible for supervising all construction labour.
It soon became apparent to Delta that there were no workplace safety and
health procedures in place for the work crew; i.e. no hard hats, safety shoes
nor eye protection; no workplace safety and health committee; no workplace
training etc

(15)

Does Delta, who is hired to only give technical advice about the construction
of the power plant, have any obligation in respect of the possible danger that
the work crew faces? Discuss and give reasons for your answer.
What are the responsibilities of Sigma? Do they differ from Delta?

(10)

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 4

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION AUGUST 14, 2010
PART A Professional Practice and Ethics
Question 3
Perfectly Round Tires Ltd. ("Perfect") designs and manufacturers
automobile tires. Recently, Perfect developed a new polymer which would
greatly improve the expected life of its tires. Perfect has not yet started using
the new polymer in its tires. The development of the technology is still in
its early stages and the company has not yet obtained a patent.
Perfect has retained Chem Engineering Inc. ("Chem") to help Perfect develop a
process for putting the new polymer into large scale production. Chem
assigned one of its professional engineers, Omega, to Perfect's project.
Omega is also a member of several trade and professional associations
including the International Building Materials Institute (the "IBMI"), an
association of designers, manufacturers, sellers and users of building materials.
IBMI's mission statement is to improve the building materials industry by the
mutual cooperation of its members. Omega often volunteers to serve on
IBMI's committees.
Omega is very intrigued about the new technology and soon realized that the new
polymer could improve the durability of building materials made of
synthetic rubber. At a recent committee meeting of the IBMI, Omega suggested
to a group of materials designers that they use the new polymer in their products.
Omega was happy to share the information and remembered reading something
in PEO's Code of Ethics about practitioners being required to "extend the
effectiveness of the profession through the interchange of engineering
information and experience". In addition, Omega believed, "it would be good
for the environment and the public interest in general to have more durable
building materials" and "besides, Perfect doesn't make building materials
anyway".
(10)

(a) Comment on and discuss Omegas position.

(15)

(b) What do you think of Omegas conduct? Explain.

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 5

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION AUGUST 14, 2010
PART A Professional Practice and Ethics
Question 4

Primus, P.Eng., employed by a large well-known automobile parts testing

laboratory, represents the firm on an international standards advisory
committee. All members of the ten-person committee are licensed professional
engineers. After an extensive discussion on a new standard at a recent meeting,
the committee voted in favour. Primus was the only dissenting vote. The
committee considered Primus reason for objection; and, after further
discussions, it agreed they were unsubstantiated and passed a motion to accept
and publish the standard.
Subsequently, the laboratory where Primus is employed received a contract to
test automobile parts to this standard and Primus was assigned the job of
supervising the tests, preparing the final report indicating that the parts met the
standard and signing it on behalf of his firm. However, Primus is still
vehemently opposed to the standard and therefore refuses the assignment.
Primus argues that signing a report attesting to the conformance of the parts to
the standard would suggest endorsement of the standard.
(15)

(a) Is Primus argument for refusing the assignment valid? Explain your
reasoning.

(10)

(b) What action might Primus have taken?

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 6

Professional Practice Examination

Study Guide - Part "A"
August 14, 2010
The objects of Part "A" are to examine a knowledge of PEO functions (question 1) and the application of
the Misconduct and Ethics Codes (questions 2, 3 and 4) including section and sub-section numbers.
The Codes are contained in Regulation 941, sections 72. and 77. Although these 2 sections are supplied
at the exam, they should be carefully studied before the exam. This will facilitate recognition of
comparable situations within the questions, and an appropriate response to each situation.
Time can be a problem. To develop the skill of time management, try practice during study as follows:
1) write an answer without time pressure, but with full details, making use of all study materials
2) set aside all materials, except the question sheets and sections 72. and 77.
3) write the answer again, under time pressure of 20 minutes, giving priority to the important points.
4) using 1), review and look for ways to improve 3), while still giving a complete and concise answer.
The references here are for study purposes, and, except for 72. and 77., are not expected in an answer.
This study guide is extensive to illustrate the possible range of content in an answer.

1(a) PEO functions, 2 of 1) enforcement has to do with a person who does not hold a PEO licence (or
where needed, a Certificate of Authorization - C of A) but who has been offering engineering services in
the public marketplace, while 2) discipline has to do with a holder of a PEO licence, who has acted with
incompetence or dishonesty. The difference is whether or not a licence is held. Under enforcement a
person is exposed to prosecution in the courts, PE Act section 40. Under discipline a holder is exposed to
orders by the Discipline Committee of PEO, up to loss of a licence, PE Act section 28. (4)(a).
1(b) PEO as a self-regulating profession means, PEO has authority under the PE Act passed by the
government of Ontario to, 1) set up a Council and Committees (mostly PEng volunteers) to regulate the
profession, 2) set standards to qualify for a licence (or Certificate of Authorization, C of A), 3) examine
persons applying for a licence 4) issue licences to those qualified 5) discipline a licence holder who has
acted with incompetence or dishonesty, and 6) enforce the requirement for a licence to offer services.
1(c) Public, means any persons or group, who are relying directly or indirectly, on professional engineers
for the safeguarding of life, health or property. Public can also include any person, corporation,
municipality, etc., who is purchasing, or has purchased, professional engineering services.
1(d) Temporary licence, limits 1) one project / service, 2) one client / employer to be named, 3) a work
time window of 12 months specified, and if needed, 4) name of a PEng collaborator, Reg 941 / 42.

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 7

Professional Practice Examination

Study Guide - Part "A"
August 14, 2010
2(a) Deltas obligations definitely do exist, for the safety of the work crews. They are members of the
public and a PEng is obligated to ensure protection of the public under Regulation 941, i.e., failure to
safeguard life or health, 72.(2)(b) and failure to comply with statutes about safety, 72.(2)(d). Delta has a
responsibility to present clearly to Sigma, the consequences of deviations in safety standards, 72.(2)(f). If
Delta is overruled or corrections are not made, then Delta should report the danger, 72.(2)(c), and expose
Sigmas unprofessional conduct to the proper tribunals, 77.8. Further, under the code of ethics, a PEng
has a duty of fidelity to public needs, 77.1.ii. and shall regard public welfare as paramount, 77.2.i.
2(b) Sigmas responsibilities much the same as Deltas, and even some added, as costs of recovery
from accidents, injuries or delays, will be borne by Upstart Energy. In addition to safeguarding life and
health, Sigma has a responsibility to safeguard the property or resources of Upstart, 72.(2)(b). Further,
under the code of ethics, Sigma has a duty of fairness and loyalty to the client and associates, 77.1.i.
3(a) Omegas position - is appropriate where it includes, being an employee of Chem, being an assignee
to Perfect, being a member of several trade and professional associations, and even when realizing the
new polymer could be applied to building materials. However, Omegas position is not appropriate when
suggesting use of the new polymer elsewhere. By making this suggestion, Omega has entered into a
conflict of interest, 72.(2)(i), and has violated keeping a clients information confidential, 77.3.
3(b) Omegas conduct - is disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional and is therefore open to a
charge, 72.(2)(j). Something about the interchange of engineering information, as in 77.7.v., applies to
general information already in the public domain. It is not meant to apply to confidential information, where
development work has been paid for by a company. A patent is restricted, so profits will go only to the
holder for a period of time. Dissemination of confidential information outside a company, is an act of theft
from the company, and is not acting with fairness to the client, 77.1.i. When the patent is in effect, or even
pending, it may be licensed for use by others, at a price.
4(a) Primus argument is not sufficiently valid to refuse the assignment. Primus should show fidelity to
public needs, 77.1.ii. and should regard the public welfare as paramount, 77.2.i. The parts do need to be
tested to comply with some accepted standard, 72.(2)(d). We assume the consequences of a deviation
were presented clearly by Primus, and are told that the committee considered the objection. In any case
Primus was overruled by 9 committee members, 72.(2)(f). If Primus continues to refuse the assignment,
this could be regarded as unprofessional conduct, 72.(2)(j).
There could be a valid argument for refusing the assignment, if the automobile parts actually did have
faults that could lead to an accident. Primus would then be acting to safeguard life, health and property,
72.(2)(b) and should take action to report the danger to public safety, 72.(2)(c).
4(b) Primus action, might have Primus might have just acted by accepting the assignment (instead of
refusing) considering a duty of fairness and loyalty to the employer, 77.1.i. Primus might have acted to
cooperate with other professionals on a project, 77.6., and might have acted with courtesy and good faith
toward the 9 committee associates, 77.7.i.
EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 8

Professional Practice Examination

Study Guide - Part "A"
August 14, 2010
Alternatively, Primus might be able to prove the standard was inadequate, by testing some parts to a
version of the standard as proposed by Primus. If the parts failed, this would more clearly substantiate the
need for a change in standard.

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 9

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION August 14, 2010

PART B - Engineering Law and Professional Liability

This examination comes in two parts (Part A and Part B). Both parts must be completed
in this sitting. You will be given a total of 180 minutes to complete the examination.
Use the correct colour-coded Answer Book for each part, place in the correct envelope and seal
after completed.
White Answer Book for Part A white question paper.
Coloured Answer Book for Part B coloured question paper.
This is a CLOSED BOOK examination. No aids are permitted other than the excerpts from
the 1990 Ontario Regulation 941 covering sections 72 (Professional Misconduct) and 77 (Code
of Ethics) supplied at the examination. Dictionaries are not permitted.
The marking of questions will be based not only on academic content, but also on legibility and
the ability to express yourself clearly and correctly in the English language. If you have any
doubt about the meaning of a question, please state clearly how you have interpreted the
question.
All four questions constitute a complete paper for Part B. Each of the four questions is worth
25 marks.

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 3

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION August 14, 2010
PART B - Engineering Law and Professional Liability
(25)

1.

Briefly define, explain or answer any five of the following:

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.

(25)

Equitable estoppel
The essential elements of an enforceable contract.
DRB
How arbitration awards are enforceable internationally
Statutory holdback applicable to construction
Vicarious liability
The discoverability concept as it relates to limitation periods.
The corporate directors standard of care

2.
Clearwater Limited, a process-design and manufacturing company, entered
into an equipment-supply contract with Pulverized Pulp Limited. Clearwater agreed to
design, supply, and install a cleaning system at Pulverized Pulps Ontario mill for a
contract price of $800,000. The specifications for the cleaning system stated that the
equipment was to remove ninety-eight percent of certain prescribed chemicals from the
mills liquid effluent in order to comply with the requirements of the environmental
control authorities. However, the contract clearly provided that Clearwater accepted no
responsibility whatsoever for any indirect or consequential damages, arising as a result of
its performance of the contract.
The cleaning system installed by Clearwater did not meet the specifications, but
this was not determined until after Clearwater had been paid $720,000 by Pulverized
Pulp. In fact, only seventy percent of the prescribed chemicals were removed from the
effluent.
As a result, Pulverized Pulp Limited was fined $60,000 and was shut down by the
environmental control authorities. Clearwater made several attempts to remedy the
situation by altering the process and cleaning equipment, but without success.
Pulverized Pulp eventually contracted with another equipment supplier. For an
additional cost of $950,000, the second supplier successfully redesigned and installed
remedial process equipment that cleaned the effluent to the satisfaction of the
environmental authorities, in accordance with the original contract specifications between
Clearwater and Pulverized Pulp.
Explain and discuss what claim Pulverized Pulp Limited can make against
Clearwater Limited in the circumstances. In answering, explain the approach taken by
Canadian courts with respect to contracts that limit liability and include a brief
summary of the development of relevant case precedents.

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 4

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION August 14, 2010
PART B - Engineering Law and Professional Liability
(25)

3. Live Rail Inc. (Live Rail), a company specializing in the manufacture and
installation of railway commuters systems was awarded a contract by a municipal
government to design and build a transit facility in British Columbia. The contract
specified electrically powered locomotives. As part of the design, Live Rail was
contractually obligated to design an overhead contact system in a tunnel. Live Rail
subcontracted the subdesign of the overhead contact system to a consulting design firm,
Ever Works Limited (Ever works).
Ever Works designed an overhead contact system in the tunnel, however, in doing
so it did not carry out any testing, nor did it gather any data of its own relating to the
conditions inside the tunnel. It did not even request copies of underlying reports, which,
had they been examined, would have indicated that there was a large volume of water
percolating through the tunnel rock, and that the tunnel rock contained substantial
amounts of sulphur compounds. The project documentation that was turned over to Ever
Works by Live Rail did not include the underlying reports, but did identify the existence
and availability of the underlying reports.
The construction of the rail system through the tunnel was completed in
accordance with the Ever Works design. However, within eight months of completion,
the overhead contact system in the tunnel became severely corroded and damaged due to
the water seepage in the tunnel.
As a result of the corrosion damage, the municipality had to spend substantial
additional money on redesigning and rewiring the system.
What potential liabilities in tort law arise in this case? In your answer, explain
what principles of tort law are relevant and how each applies to the case. Indicate a likely
outcome to the matter.

4. An Ontario municipality (the Owner) decided to update and expand its water
treatment facilities. To do so, the Owner invited competitive tenders from contractors for the
construction of the new water treatment facility.
(25)

The Owners consultant on the project, a professional engineer, designed the facility and
prepared the Tender Documents to be given to contractors interested in bidding on the project.
Each of the bidders was required to be prequalified and approved by the Owner for participation
in the bidding. The Tender Documents included the Plans and Specifications, the Tendering
Instructions which described the tendering procedure and other requirements to be followed by
the bidders, the Tender Form to be completed by the bidders, the form of written Contract that
the successful contractor would be required to sign after being awarded the contract, and a
number of other documents.

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 5

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION August 14, 2010
PART B - Engineering Law and Professional Liability
According to the Tendering Instructions, each tender bid as submitted was
to remain firm and irrevocable and open for acceptance by the Owner for a period of 60 days
following the last day for submitting tenders. The Tendering Instructions also provided that all
bids were to be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the Owners Tender Documents
and that the Owner was not obligated to accept the lowest or any tender.
Tenders were submitted by five bidders. All bids were submitted in accordance with the
Owners Tender Documents. The lowest bid was well within the Owners budget.
Within the 60 days specified and before the Owners consultant had made a
recommendation to the Owner as to whom the contract should be awarded, the consultant was
called to a meeting with a prominent member of the Municipal Council who noted that the
lowest bidder was not one of the bidders who were local bidders from within the Municipality.
The Councillor expressed a very strong view that the contract should in fact be awarded to a
local bidder. The Councillor also noted that if one item that had been included in the
specifications was deleted from the bids the result would be that the bid of the lowest local
contractor would become the lowest bid overall and the Councillors preference for awarding
the contract to a local contractor could be satisfied.
There had been no reference in the Tendering Instructions to any preference being shown
to local contractors.
How should the consultant deal with the political pressure being applied by the Council
member?
If the contract is awarded to the lowest local bidder what potential liabilities in contract
law may arise? If the consultant engineer recommends to the Owner that the contract be awarded
as the Councillor suggests what liabilities may arise for the engineer? Please provide your
reasons and analysis.

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 6

Professional Practice Examination

Study Guide - Part "B"
August 14, 2010
The object of Part "B" is to examine an elementary understanding of law, as this may apply in
an engineers work experience.
Question 1. is definitions, and needs only 5 answers from the 8 options.
Questions 2., 3. and 4. are case studies. Each case study answer should include the names of
the relevant legal terms and principles, and how each term or principle applies to one or more
elements of the case. Each answer should reach a pass value on its own, not passing from a
total of the 3 answers.
Page references below are for the Marston text, 4th edition, and are given here for study
purposes.
In the case of any perceived ambiguity, the text should be taken as authoritative.

1.i. Equitable estoppel a means of ensuring an equitable result, where to follow the strict
wording of a contract would be inequitable. Equitable estoppel is used where a gratuitous
promise has been relied on by the performing party to a contract, but the other party wants to
renege on the promise, page 92.
1.ii. Contract elements 1) offer made and accepted 2) mutual intent of the parties to enter
into the contract 3) consideration 4) capacity (ability to perform) of the parties, and 5) lawful
purpose, page 79.
1.iii. DRB, dispute review (or resolution) board the purpose of a DRB is to resolve disputes
without the costs of litigation when going to the courts. A DRB is formed by the parties to a
contract, before work starts. Usually 3 representatives are selected, who have expertise in the
applicable industry, page 31.
1.iv. Arbitration awards in 1958 a New York Convention under United Nations auspices,
was signed by over 135 nations including Canada. These nations agreed to enforce arbitration
decisions made in their countries. International contracts should be with a party from a signing
nation, page 30.
1.v. Statutory holdback a % of contract price held back by an owner to ensure that all liens,
by sub-contractors or others, have been satisfied, or have expired, before making the final
payment, page 249.
1.vi. Vicarious liability the liability an employer must assume for the negligent acts of an
employee, because the employer is considered to have deeper pockets than the employee,
page 52.
EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 7

Professional Practice Examination

Study Guide - Part "B"
August 14, 2010
1.vii. Discoverability concept when damage or loss is discovered, or ought reasonably to have
been discovered, such that it becomes a cause for legal action, this is a point in time when a 2
year limitation period begins, and within which a legal action must be filed, page 71.
1.viii. Directors standard of care the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise,
including to act honestly, in good faith and in the best interests of the corporation, page 21.
2. Contract, breach of and liability - Pulverized Pulp Limited (PP) can make a claim for
damages against Clearwater Limited (CL), because of fundamental breach of the contract.
Based on a history of these cases, a clause to limit liability is not normally enforceable. The
cleaning system was only 70% effective, well short of the 98% specified, and not satisfactory to
the environmental control authorities. PP had expected their costs to be $800,000 and have
paid $720,000 so should still expect to pay a net balance of $80,000. PP can make a claim
against CL for the costs from another equipment supplier of $950,000 plus the fine from the
authorities of $60,000, a total of $1,010,000, but less $80,000, for a net claim of $930,000.
They should also include costs in their claim for delay, lost production, etc.
Some Canadian courts have allowed the enforceability of limited liability clauses. If the
construction of the wording, about the amount of money in a limited liability clause, is clear and
true, and the liquidated damages provisions are supported in detail by a genuine pre-estimate of
the costs of a possible breach, then the legal principle of a 'true construction approach' is said to
have taken place and the clause is enforceable. Therefore the law has changed in this area.
The contract as signed by Pulverized Pulp, provided that Clearwater accepted no liability for
damages so CL would not be liable for any costs.
Similar case precedents are Harbutt's Plasticene vs. Wayne Tank and Pump where the clause
was not enforceable, and Hunter Engineering vs. Syncrude where it was, pages 155. 159.
3. Tort, potential liabilities as these arise are, Ever Works (EW) would be liable for the failure
of the contact system, and Live Rail (LR) would be liable for failing to manage the project to
minimize problems. The suit would be in tort because the municipal government (MG) did not
have a contract with EW.
The fundamental purpose of tort law is to compensate an aggrieved party for damages, as far
as money may relieve an injury or loss.
All three principles of tort law can be proven relevant here, and these are:
1) a duty of care
2) a breach of that duty and
3) damage or loss as a result of the breach, text 32.

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 8

Professional Practice Examination

Study Guide - Part "B"
August 14, 2010
Tort principle 1) applies because MG could expect a duty of care from EW, since there was a
contract between MG and LR, and there was LRs sub-contract with EW.
Tort principle 2) applies because the contact system failed thus EW breached a duty of care.
Tort principle 3) applies because of the damage and additional expense needed to rectify the
damage.
MG may obtain damages from LR in contract, if the clauses cover this, but if not completely,
then in tort. If this were the case, LR would be sued in tort and in contract.
LR and EW would be concurrent tortfeasors. As professionals in this technology, EW should
have been aware of the potential for corrosion problems. As project manager, LR should have
passed to EW, all the information available. Expert testimony may be used to establish the
prudent and professional responsibilities of EW and LR.
A likely outcome is EW would be 80% responsible and LR would be 20% responsible.
A similar case precedent is Unit Farm Concrete vs. Eckerlea Acres, text page 40.
4. Contract tender changes, liabilities - the consultant PEng (CPE) should say "sorry, no" to the
prominent Council member (PCM). The Owner's Tender Documents (OTD) represent an
agreement in the formation of a Contract A". The Contract A concept is from the Ron
Engineering case, and 5 Contract A's have been duly formed, page 121.
Any change in treatment of the OTD instructions or specifications, would compromise the
Contract A.
Contract A is formed when each bidder submits a bid. One Contract B" is formed when the
final contract is signed with a bidder. If a signing were 'outside' the OTD with the lowest local
bidder (LLB), then the other 4 bidders could sue OM, for breach of their Contract A's. The
potential liabilities could include bid expenses and lost profits. The total expense, of legal
defense by the Owner Municipality (OM) and damages, could come in over OM's budget.

If CPE does go along with PCM and recommends the award to the LLB, then CPE is open to a
suit by OM for breach of trust and damages. Furthermore, CPE is open to a charge of
misconduct by Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO), Regulation 941, section 72.(2)(j).

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 9

Professional Practice Examination

Study Guide - Part "B"
August 14, 2010
An alternative is to reject all bids and issue a revised tender package, without the "limiting item"
and also to state that preference would be shown to local contractors. Then all previous bidders
would have a level playing field and could decide whether to bid. This has the possible
exposure of reducing the number of bidders and the "local contractor" could come in with a
higher bid than before, especially if confidential information is available from the PCM.
The PCM must have known well before the preparation of OTD that water treatment facilities
were to be updated and expanded. Representation to Council, and agreement on preference to
local bidders, should have been reached before the preparation of the OTD.

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 10