The first and most important question regarding the error would be to know the nature of the error.

Section 2.1 of the Code of Ethics states that Engineers are to: hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and the protection of the environment [1, p. 24] Section 3.2 also supports this in that the Engineer shall: have due regard for the safety of life, health and welfare of the public and employees who may be affected by the work for which they are responsible [1, p. 25] Based on this, if there is any risk to the public or environment the Engineer would automatically have the responsibility to report the error and deal with the delays. Even if the contractor is able to correct the error, without the supporting documentation and records, there would be no guarantee that the fix would meet the original intended design. This could place the Engineer in a dangerous situation in case there was a problem later on with the system. If there was ultimately no chance of danger, it may be possible for the Engineer to inflate the cost at a later point. The second factor in the decision would be the overall cost inflation needed to compensate the contractor. Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the Code of Ethics say to: act faithfully for clients or employers ... [1, p. 26] And to: act with fairness and justice between the client or employer and the contractor when dealing with contracts. [1, p. 26] If the costs to correct the error were small relative to the overall cost of the project, it would be possible to avoid the hassles of updating the contract by inflating costs later. If the costs are only related to consumable materials (ie. extra cabling, bolts, etc) and slightly more required time, inflating the costs could still be a way to act fairly and faithfully towards the employer and client (contractor) without the extra delays. The employer would still have a project that was completed properly, and the contractor would have been paid the appropriate amount for the work performed. The downfall of this is that trying to inflate costs without admitting an error,

at any point could easily be viewed as a sneaky and unfaithful way of hiding a mistake at any cost point. It is important to realize less apparent risks that the decision can hold, even as a minor detail to the project. Section 5.1 from the code says that Engineers shall: endeavour to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding [1, p. 27] It may be perceived by others (Engineers, or the public) that the Engineer was trying to hide a mistake instead of taking responsibility by inflating costs, which could cause damage to the representation of the individual, or even Engineers as a whole. The most crucial thing to remember in this decision is that the Engineer will hold the responsibility for any possible outcomes. Risks can range from public safety, to a loss of integrity, damage the image of Engineering as a profession, or even lawsuits if damage results. Dealing with embarrassment that may arise from admitting the error would be would far outweigh dealing with damage to professional image, issues with the employer, or even possibly lawsuits if something were to happen. Based on this, very few situations beyond very low cost material issues could mitigate the risks that the engineer could face by hiding the mistake and inflating costs.

[1] APEGNB, By-Laws under the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act, Fredericton, New Brunswick, 1999.