ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO PROFESSIONAT. PRACTICE EXAMINATION ~ August 9, 2008 ‘PARI-“AY ~ Professional Practice and Ethics ‘You wil be given «total o 90 minutes to complete this examinstion. Use the comet colour-coded Answer Book for each part, place in the correct envelope and seal after completed, ‘White Aner Book for Part Ahi question paper. (Colowed Answer Book for Prt B coloured question paper. ‘This is “CLOSED BOOK” examination, No aids are permitted ther than the excerpts from the 1990 Ontario Regulation 941 covering sestions 72 (Professional Misconduct) and 77 (Code of Ethics) supplied a the examination, Dictionaries are not permitted, ‘The marking of questions will be based not only on scademic content, but also on legibility andthe bility o express yourselt clearly and cerecly in the English language. Ifyou have any doubt about the meaning ofa question, please stat cleanly how you have interpreted the question. All four questions constitute «complete pape for Part “A”. Each ofthe 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. EXPECTED 10 Gi ‘ON OF ‘THE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS ANDIOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN EACHSITUATION, ‘You should identity where applicable the appropriate clauses in Regulation 941. Part A~PPE, August 9, 2008 Page 1 of 4 set Aty slay inthe gentions to ata aon or cxcamsances i coineler© o © o © Question f (@) Whats the “Fees Mediation Committee"? Describe its Funetion, (©) What isthe purpose of the engineer's seal and when should it be used? What to elements are requied to accompany the seal? (© Describe the roles performed by PEQ"s Complaints Committee and Discipline Committee. (0) Is there any difference between being a member of PEO and holding licence to practice professional engineering in Ontario? Explain, (Are there any restrictions on how professional engineering services may be advertised? Explain, Question? FFarmFab isa designer and manufacturer of farming equipment. Recently, Famer was seriously injured whilo operating a tractor designed and manufactured by FarmFab. Ina leteta FarmFab, Farmers lanyer claimed that the injury was due to 2 5 Farmet's engineering dopariment. The leer threatened that Farman would be sued on account of Farmer juries, FarmFob rctains you (a Consulting Enginest) aa an expert, Your sonvices: ‘would be fo investigate the falure and to give FarmFab your expert opirion on the: use of the falure. If the case goes to cour, you could be called to testy 25 ymFa's exper wiiness, For your services, FarmFab would pay you al an hourly ‘ate, Ifyou are called to testy in court and FarmFab wins the case, FarmFab would ay you a bonus in adion to your hourly rata Pb __Fotoving your investigaton, you conclude Hat the wacor was not des rope andtnat Farmer was nue! when cans sel ete oth isco a totincon “ry ad we en 6 (You also conciute tat itis ikely that athertarmers could be nse cperaina the partes vactr mode. You repo your eonasians to Fab.) Based on your report, FarmFab promptly agrees to pay Farmer $1 millon. In exchange for tha payment, Farmer agreed to gWe up the lawsul and agreed to keep. the payment a secret. The secrecy agreement was. very important to FarmFab because FarmFab ci not want future Vactor sales to suffer fom bad publicly FFarmFab thanks you for your services and pays your fee. (2) _Isthere anything else you should do? (©) Please comment on the appropriateness of the fee structure according to which you would be paid Part A—PPE, August 9,2008 Page 20f 4 Aly snl in he qos tac peone or ctcumsuaes i enaQuestions Kapps, P-Eng, is employed by 2 municipality in Ontario as head ofthe municipality's procurement department. Keppe's responsibilities include establishing procurement policies and procedures forthe municipality at well as patiipating in the bid selection and contracting process. ‘The municipality is currently considering biting, @ company ‘0 design and build a wastewater treatment facility. The municipality's steff hs prepared a daft Request for ‘Tenders forthe project. Before itis issued to prospective bidders, itis reviewed by ‘Kappa. Kappa is generally satisfied with the draft and makes only a few revisions, including revisions to the scoring formule used to select the winning bidder. The current formula awards points based on price and compliance with various technical requirements in the Request for Tenders. According t0 Kappa’s revisions, up to 10, Points could be awarded based on the amount of experience the bidder has in designing and building such projects, and local bidders would receive 10 points automatically ‘Kappa chairs a committee charged with evalusting, scoting and selecting the winning bidder. OF the bids received, ABC and XYZ received the most points from the committee as described inthe tle below: Possible Points [ABC's Score | XYZ's Seore “Techaial 40 points 35 points 35 pots Price 40 points 28 points $0 points Experiense 10 points 3 point Local Bidder 10 points ‘O points “Total 100 points 78 points Although ABC and XYZ have similar experience, XYZ's score was reduced to 3 points for experience because, sccording to staleinents made by Kappa at the committe, XYZ’s engineers had produced a poor design on one of its previous projects. Tn addition, ABC was the only local bidder. The committe informed ABC that it had won the job, Later that evening, Kappa was treated t a celebrtion dinner at an expensive restaurant by Sigma. Sigma isthe president of ABC and is also Kappa spouse. 25) Using the code of ethics as you guide, discuss Kappa’ conduct. Part A~PPE, August 9, 2008 Page 30f 4 rare _Ay smarty athe question to actu petos or ceanstnces iiaQuestions Alpha is a P-Eng. employed by Engine, an engineering company. As Chief Project Engineer, Alpha is in charge of a projec! for MajorCo, an important clent of EngCo. MajorCo and Alpha have several disagreements over the design that jpha has developed. MajorCo wants a cheaper, mora conventional solution. Alpha is onencd tale dos ard betovs hal aor “deaths $e one of agion ‘pha simply shrugs off MajorGo and refuses to discuss ny oer atomato Fede ed TTL. not ncley Major is fous and phanes Bei, Eng, tho Prsint of Engi, o yall ‘and complain about Alpha. MajorCo threatens to hire another engineering fim to Complete the design according fo MajorCo's wishes. ‘You work for Engine 2s an intermediate design engineor. Beta calls yu ino a private office and closes the door. Bota asks you to review Alpha's design and pe instructs you to keep the review a secret from Alpha, Beta explains that Alpha is a Sener engineer wnonas been wth Engine or 28 years and eau bes sense at times! 15) Whatoyouta Beta? a0) ® Please comment on Alphas conduct in dealing wth Moro How shoul Alpha havo respordoa to MajrCo's request? Pat A~PPE, Augist9, 2008 Page of a Ay simlariy inthe questions to ata pesos or sicunstancesf colnetProfessional Practice Examination ~ Study Notes ~ Part "A" ~ August 8, 2008 posSentanotags Regulation 941 sections 72, and 77. should be studied carefully before the exam, so that ‘comparable situations will be recognized quickly, and time is used effectively during the exam. ‘Sections 72. and 77. are supplied at the exam s0 exact references can be given in an answer. During study, time ski! can be developed, by practice wring without tne pressure but with full delails, then re-wriing the same answer bul within atime of 20 minutes, being selective in details All references as glven here are for study purposes. References from codes 72. and 77. are expected in an answer, others are not. These notes are to Iustrate a range of possible content. 4 (@) The Fees Meciation Committee (FMC) consists of PEO members who are not on the ‘Complaints or Discipline Committees, FMC mediates written complaints by clients, about fees charged. Wit the writen consent of all partes, the FNC may arbitrate a complain, PE Act 32. 4 (0) The purpose ofthe engineer's seal, as affixed fo a final document, i to identify the responsiolity for the preparation or checking of the document. The seal must have witht 1) a date and 2) a signature, Regulation 941 section 53. and section 72.(2\¢) 1(c) Complaints Committee roe - review complaints and give direction to resolve, including referring o discipline if necessary, PE Act 24. Discipline Committee role ~ evaluate complaints as referred, and if advisable, conduct a hearing. The committee may make an order ftom a wide range of penalties, including revoking of a licence, PE Act 28, 1 (@) A member of PEO holds a cence to practice professional engineering. A provisional, ‘temporary oF limited lioance holder has limits on their prectice. The presence of the imtsis the difference between them, PE Act -§.(1); 18.1) & (5); and Reg 941-42, 44.1(2) and 48. 116). The restrictions on an adverleamant for servioge ara -it must ba 1) profeesional and ignited 2) without exaggeration of facts 3) without citicism of others and 4) without reference: to the seal ofa holder or the PEO seal, Regulation 941 section 75, 2 (@) 1 should inquire of FarmFab if those certain safety features ofthe tractor that failed to function, are being given attention - specifically +1) a competent redesign to prevent fallures, 71.4.v,, and 2) recall, to modify all tractors in service and those remaining at dealers, to show fidelity to public needs, 77.1. If FarmFab is committed to take these steps, | have exercised my duly of devotion to high ideals of personal honour and professional itegrily, 7.2.il, After @ reasonable time, | should follow-up with engineering management at FarmFab, fo ensure there is falmess and loyalty to all avolved, 77.1. If the appropriate steps have not been taken and there is sill a safety problem, there wil likely be more accidents resulting in more claims, costing much more than a recall. There may be some loss of sales but the intogity and life of the company would have an opportunity for recovery by doing a recall. If there is no evidence of a commitment in process to ensure that steps will be taken, | have a duty to report this as failure to safeguard the fe health or property of other farmers, 72.(2)b), and also report a danger to public safety or welfare, 72.(2)(c). Although reporting would violale my duty to keep the secret with the farmer as confidential, 77.., the pubic weltare is paramount, 77.2, FarmFab must be clearly shown the consequences and be persuaded to fix the problem, 72.(2)(0. I the responsible people at FarmFab are PEng's, Ihave 1 duty to expose their behaviour before the proper tribunals, 77.8., and their failure to take action 4 professional misconduct, 72(2)0). If Ido no, | could be charged with misconduct, ‘continued... 2~ 2. ~ PPE. Study Notes -Part"“A"- August 9, 2008 2(b) The hourly fee structure as offered by FarmFab is proper credit for engineering work and is adequate compensation, 77.7.v. However, ‘the bonus’, is outside of adequate compensation and develops a conflict of interest, 72(2)(i), 77.3. and 77.4. The bonus is a blatant incentive to win the ‘ase. Itisa deception tothe ‘cient farmer, 77.1, and to the other ‘publ’ farmers who may purchase tracors, 771i. The bonus could also lead me into the tomptation of compromising my engineering work, and could then be open toa charge of professional misconduct, 7212) 3 Kappa's conduct was unprotessional and is clearly a confct of interest, 72(2)(). The interest Kappa has with ABC (Kappa's spouse Sigma isthe president) should have been disclosed to the municipality, 773. and 77-4. Arrangements should have been made so Kappa was not directly involved, in evisions fo the scoring formula, orin sting on the selection committee, so as to act With devotion fo high ideals, 77.14. It appears Kappa adjusted the scoring formula fo give an advantage to ABC, which isnot being fai and loyal to the employer, 77.2, In addition, itis absconding with public funds, and not being faithful fo public need, 77.1.1. Kappa should have been asked to ustily the revised scoring formula, otherwise this action represents a statement ingpited by another interest, 72(2)()6. Without a second opinion or back-up information about XYZ’s poor design on a previous project, Kappa's statement isan injury tothe reputation of ‘another practioner, 77-7. This unprofessional conduct should be exposed before the proper tribunals, 77.8, and Kappa should be charged with professional misconduct, 72.2)(). 4 (@) { would explain o Beta that if act as instruct | would be in breach of he code of thes, reviewing another's work without their knowledge, 77.7.1” Although { should be loyal to Bela as my employer, 77.1.871 should also act with couttesy and good faith toward another practitioner, 77 7s owevera breach ofthe code of eis i ot a breach ofthe ode of conduc 72 (2). Conduct we must do, ethics we should do. {wil choose the ‘least evi. | wil follow the instructions from Beta and look for cost reductions, ‘As.a fist priory, any design that is used must safeguard life, health and property, 72.2(b), and ‘comply with all codes and rules, 72,(2)(4). Not complying wil be taken as negligence, 72.(2)(a) If Beta, as a PEng, does not support safely rules, this fs unprofessional, 72.(2)(). I should look for other employment, and then expose Beta's conduct before the proper tribunals, 77.8. tis not my intention to injure the reputation of Alpha as another practitioner, 77.7, but rather to act with overall devotion to high ideals of personal honour and professional integity, 77.1. 4(b) Alpha was short-sighted and being unfair in dealing with MajorCo as a client, 77.1, Alpha should have responded with diplomacy and explained the benefits of the ‘masterpiece design, ‘Alpha should have considered including some of MajarCo's requests within the design, as long as the result is safe, 72.(2)b). The design should show fidelity to public needs, 77.1, and regard public welfare as paramount, 77.21. Alpha would be extending the effectiveness of he profession through the exchange of information and experience, 77.7.v. If MajorCo's Tepresentative is a PEng (or an architect or other professional) this would be cooperating with another professional ona project, 77.6ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION — August 9, 2008 PART-*B". Engineering Law and Professional Liability ‘This examination comes in wo parts (Part “AM and Part “BY). Both parts must be completed inthis sitting. You will be given total of 180 minutes to complete the examination Use the correct colourcaded Answer Rook foreach part, place in the conrect envelope and seal after completed. White Ansver Book for Part A white question paper. Coloured Answer Book for Part B coloured question paper. ‘This is a “CLOSED BOOK® examination. No ais ste permitted other than the excerpts from the 1990 Ontario Regulation 941 covering sections 72 (Profesional Misconduct) and 71 (Code 9f Ethics) supplied atthe examination. Diconaties are not permite ‘The marking of questions willbe based not only on academe content, but also on legibility and the ability to express yourself clerly and vorreily in the English language. If you have any doubt about the meaning of a question, please state clearly how you have interpreted the question. Allfour questions constitute #cormplete paper for Part “B”. Each of the four questions is worth 25 macks FrontPageASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION ~ August 9, 2008, RART“B". Engineering Law and Professional Liability ‘You will be given total of 90 minutes to complete this examination. Use the correct colour-coded Answer Book for each par, place in the comect envelope and seal after completed, White Answer Book for Part A white question paper. Coloured Answer Bool for Part B coloured question paper. ‘This isa "CLOSED BOOK™ examination. No aids are permited other than the excerpts Som the 1990 Ontario Regulation 941 covering sections 72 (Professional Misconduct) and 77 (Code of Ethics) supplied at the examination. Dictionaries are ot permite. “The marking of questions willbe based not only on academic content, but also on lepbility and ‘the ability to express yourself clearly and correctly in the English language. I you have any doubt about the meaning of e question, please state clearly how you have interpreted the question All four questions constitute s compete paper for Part "A", Each of the four questions is worth 25 make. ‘Front Page(MARKS) 25) 1.__Biiely define, explain or answer (by listing as required) any five of the fellowing: Secret Commission ¥ Gi) DRB (ii) Parol evidence rule (iv) Rule of contra proferentem (7) List five essential elements ofan enforceable contract ~” (vi) Discoverabilty W (wii) Equitable estoppel (iil) Five examples of employment rights to which individu are ented under Ontario's Human Rights Code list only) 25) 2A telecommuniations development company leased an -owt6FE8 ondumusat underground pipe system from an Ontario municipality. The develope’s purpose in teasing the pipe was o utilize it as an existing conduit sytem in which to instal ibe otic cable system to be designed, constructed end operated inthe municipality by the {lecommunications developer during the term of the Tease. All neces approvals fiom regulatory authorities were obiained with respect 10 the proposal telecomimniations necworks ‘The telecommunicaions development company then entered into an installation contract with a contractor, For the contact price of $4,000,000, the contractor undertook to complete the installation ofthe cable by a specified completion date. The contract specified that time was of the essence and that the contact was tobe completed bythe specified completion dae, failing which the contractor would be responsible for liquidated damages in the amount of $50,000 per day foreach day tat elapsed between the specified completion date and the subsequent actual completion date. The contact also contained e provision Limiting the contactor’s maximum liability for liquidated damages and for any other claim for damages under the contract (0 the maximum amount of $1,000,000. Due to its failure to property staff and organize its workforce, the contractor filed to meet the specified completion date. In addition, during the insalaion the contractor's inexperienced workers damaged significant amounts of the fre optic cable, with the result that the telecommunications development company, on subsequently discovering the damage, incurred substantial additional expense in engaging another contractor to replace the damaged cable. Ultimately, the cost of supplying and installing the replacement cable plus the amount of liquidated damages for which the original contractor was responsible because ofits failure to meet the specified completion date, totalled $1,800,000. Explain and discuss what claim the tlecommunications development companyes), could make against the contractor in the circumstances. In answering, explain the approach taken by Canadian courts with sespect to contacts that limit Tiability and include a brief summary ofthe development of relevant cae precedens. 3. An Ontario municipality (he “Owner”) decided to update and expand its water ‘weatment facilites. To do so, the Owner invited competitive tenders from contractors for the construction of the new water treatment facility. ‘The Owner's consultant on the project, a profesional engineer designed the facility and prepared the Tender Documents to be given to contractors interested in bidding on the project. Ech ofthe bidders was required tobe prequalified and approved by the Ovner for participation in the bidding. The Tender Documents included the Plans and Specifications, the Tendering Insiruetions which deseribed the tendering procedure and other requirements to be followed by the bidders the Tender Form to be completed by the bidders, the for of written Contact thatthe successful contactor ‘would be required to sigh after being avarded the contact, and a number of other ocuments According to the Tendering Instructions, each tender bid as submited was to remain “Fim and ierevoeable and open for acceptance by the Owner for a petiod of 6 days following the last day for submitting tenders”. The Tendering Instructions also provided that all bide wore to bo submitted in aceordence with the instructions in the Owner's Tender Documents and tha the Owner Was not ‘Tenders were submited by five bidders. All bids were submitted in accordance with the Owner's Tender Documents. The lowest bid vas well within the Owner's budget Within the 60 days specified and before the Owner's consultant had made a recommendation to the Owner as t whom the contract should be awarded, the consultant was called to x 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 thatthe contract should infact be awarded toa local bidder. The Councillor also ted that it ‘one item that had been included in the specifications was deleted from th bid the result, would be thatthe bid of the lowest “local contractor” would become the lowest bid overall and the Councillor's preference for awarding the contract to @ “local contractor” could be satisfied, There had been no reference in the Tendering Instructions to eny preference being shown to local contractors. ow should the consultant deal with the politial pressure being applied by the Council member?[the contract is awarded tothe lowest local bidder what potential liabilities in contract law may arise? If the consultant engineer recommends tothe Owner that the contract be awarded as the Councillor suggests what liabilities may arise for the enginee:? Please provide your reesons and analysis. @5) 4. An information technology firm assigned to one of ts junior employee engineers the task of developing special software for application on mejor bridge designs. ‘The ‘employee engineer had recently become a professional engineer and was chosen forthe task because of the engineer’s background in both the construction and the “software cenginesrng” induszies. ‘The finn’s bridge software package was purchased and used by a structural engineering design fim on a major bridge design project on which it had been engaged by contract with a municipal government. Unfortunately, the bridge collapsed in less than one year ater completion of construction. Motorists were killed and injured, ‘he resulting investigation info the cause of the collapse concluded thet the design of the bridge was defective and thet the cofiware implemented as part ofthe design didnot address all ofthe parameters involved inthe scope ofthis particular bridge tlesign. The investigators concluded that although the devign rofware would euiice for certain types of structures it was not approprite inthe circumstances of the particular subsurface conditions and length of span required for this particular application. The investigator’ report also indicated thatthe design softwere package was not suficienlly explicit in warming users of the software ofthe scope ofthe design parameters addressed by the software. ‘The investigators” report also stated that even an experienced user of| the software might reasonably assume thet the software would be appropriate for application on this particular project and that too litle attention hhad been pai to ensuing that adequate warnings had been provided to software users of the limitations on the epplication of the software, ‘What potential lisbilities in toc law arise in ths case? In your answer, explain ‘what principles of tort law age relevant and how each applies tothe case. Indicate a likely outcome to the matter.Professional Practice Examination ~ Study Notes ~ Part"B" ~ August, 2008 “The text pages as given below, ate for study purposes, and are not anticipated in an answer. Note: in question 1, only 5 (ofthe B options ) are required. 1 SBE» payer promise rec Ksbck, made a pasan who not party to a contract, to influence the actions of one party to the contract. The purpose is to Eccrely defraud the inleresis ofthe other pany. Asecet comission violates the Criminal Code of Canada, section 426; text - 3" edition, pages 169 - 170; - 4" edition, pages 179 - 180. 1.) (IRB ‘dispute review board’ or ‘dispute resolution board - fo recommend or decide on, solutions to disputes. Itis comprised of neutral 3% parties (usually 3 of) selected by the over ‘nd contractor prior to project start. A DRB is less formal and more time effective than arbitration oF egal procedures; text - 3 edition, page 231; -4” edition, page 31 (more extended coverage), 1.9 aegis verbal sarees ae not pat of contrat but conden neds tobe precedent that evince may be allowed to nent he contrac ems. Pars are re at any time to amend the terms of a contract; text - 3° edition, page 128; - 4" edition, page 136. 1.60) RRBEESR ISAS were a contract provision i ambiguous, preference in teller wile agatat he pewhiey cad ta parlor prov, whe dated val ‘should be recorded beforehand; text - 3 edition, page 128; - 4" edition, page 136. 1.(v) (BAHRAP. 5 essential elements - 1) offer made and accepted 2) mutual intent ta enter 3) onsicertion 4) capacity and 6) iawil purpos. ita contract ea bad businees deal, the courts will not impose more favourable terms; text - 3" edition, page 75; - 4" edition, page 79. 1 (i) (DigOUerabIlRY EBREEBE - defines the beginning of a limitation window, from within which, a suit in tot or contract must be filed. Itis a date when a cause for action was frst discovered, or ought reasonably to have been discovered text - 3 edition, page 66; - 4" edition, page 71 + (vi) EQUI BEDE a legal principle to prevent a party toa contract from insisting on their set contractual rights, when these have been, gratuitously waived, and where the result would be clearly inequitable tothe other party, text 3 eition, pages 88 - 83; - 4" edition, pages 82 - 97 ERE erent ese etn Sf, anny la olor ebetr efron scenin cst eigen, ey sean ottaioh age meal status, family status, record of offences, or handicap; text - 3 ed’n, pg. 312; - 4” ed’n, pg. 322. 2. The claim the telecommunications development company (TDC) could make against the fist installation contractor (FIC) would be for payments to the replacement cable contractor (RCC) plus iquidated damages, a total of $1,800,000. This is well above the FIC's maximum lability provision in the contract of $1,000,000. continued ...2— 2 ~ PPE- Study Notes - Part" August 9, 2008 ‘Tis case i one of fundamental breach going to the rot ofthe contract, and a provision to limit £ abstty isnot normally enforceable. The FIC would then be liable forthe full amount of losses, {nat is $1,800,000. Note, the quidated damages portion, o be enforced, must be a gctua losses to TDC, and not just a penaly tothe contractor, see text 'penally Gauses'- 3 editon, page 141; 4" eiton, page 149 Some Canadian courts have alowed the enforceability of labilily clauses, the intent of the patie, as expressed or consiruced inthe lailly clause, i clear and tre. In his case the U6) is said to have taken place andthe clause is enforceable. Therefore the law has changed in his area, 0 a able for $1,000,000. Relevant case precedents are , where the clause wa reable, text- 3" edition, p4ge 147; - 4" edition, page 185, and where it was, text- 3" edijon, pagetSt;- 4" edition, page 159, ace! é jada Net enfaead CirhsnClanse IGE e 3. The consultant PEng (CPE) should say sory, not the prominent Couns member (PCR. if any change in action were made to the specifications or instruction inthe Owner's Tender rw cab Documents (OTD), hi ich a Council member promises to uphold" Contract is formed when the final contrac is signed with one bier. fa signing were ‘outside’ the CTD, and withthe lowes local bidder (LLB), then the other including This is because the Owner Municipalty (OM) has breached their Contract eadion- (the same) page 122. The foal expense, riding OM legal and damages ov omen overON's bust I.GPE dows go slong with BoM ane fecommends tie hed the LLB, ten GFE Ws open fo @ suit by OMfor breach of rust. Furthermore, CPE is open toa charge of misconduct by Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO), Regulation 981, section 72.2) ‘The PCM must have known well before the preparation of OTD that water treatment faites were to be updated and expanded. Representation to Counc and agreement on preference to local bidders, should have been reached well before the preparation of the OTD. text -3" or 4 ‘4. The potential abilities in tort law are the Information Technology Frm (ITF) would be estimated al 70% responsible and the engineering design firm (EDF) at 30% responsible. The purpose of tot law is to compensate for damages as far as this can be done with money. ‘The principles of tort law are 1) a duly of care 2) a breach of that duty and 3) damages as a result. The action is in tort because there is no privity of contract between the municipal government (MG) and ITF. MG could bring an action in contract against EDF, or an action in tort, depending on the contract clauses. The MG wil claim [TF should have given speciic and complete information about the capabilities and limitations ofthe software package as a 1) duty of care. Since the investigators report (expert testimony) tied bridge failure directly to the software package, the 2) duty was breached, There was loss of life, which cannot be compensated, and damage as a 3) result ofthe breach. No dclaimers of lb wove stted othe sofware package “The ITF and the COP wl be ie Meu fable the action ofits Junior engineer because the employe assumed fo have deeper pockets ends more able to pay. A.case precedent stint Fam Gone e,Eckere Aare, The ITF management should not have assigned iis project oa junior engineer, eventhough a Eng, without a senior PEng review. The EDF should have done at least a rudimentary analysis, ‘which would probably have exposed the deficiencies in the software,