Skip to main content

Substandard sand offered with cost-saving share

Short answer

Narendra must refuse and report the offer; accepting 50% of savings is a bribe and violates specification, safety, and the code of conduct. Ramchandra is dishonest for proposing substandard materials. Legitimate options include testing or washing local materials, seeking written approval for a revised mix, or claiming an extension of time.

Er. Narendra Shah was working with the contractor in a construction project (say construction of housing complex in Kathmandu). He was given the responsibilities to control the quality of work in the site. Incidentally, material supplier (Ramchandra) in the construction is a friend of Narendra. Owing to the road blockade and other strikes, Ramchandra was facing difficulty in supplying sand and aggregates as per the given specification. Sand and aggregate materials was available in the close proximity of the site, but it is slightly substandard. Ramchandra requested Narendra to allow this material to be used for construction. Ramchandra convinced Narendra that the strength of concrete shall be produced as per specification even with the use of substandard materials. Ramchandra also offered to share 50% of the cost saved during this process. How do you judge the conduct of Narendra and Ramchandra on an ethical ground?

Assumptions

Narendra is the contractor's quality control engineer for a housing complex. Ramchandra, his friend, supplies materials. Because of strikes and road blockades, he offers locally available sand and aggregate that are slightly below specification, promises that the concrete strength will still be achieved, and offers Narendra 50% of the cost saved.

Conduct of Narendra (if he agrees)

  • Breach of specification: the quality engineer is the guardian of the specification. Materials outside the limits (silt content, grading, strength of aggregate) can reduce strength and durability, and the claim that "strength will be achieved" has not been proven by testing.
  • Bribe or kickback: the 50% share is a personal gain paid by a supplier for approving materials. This is bribery and conflicts with his duty to his employer. The Prevention of Corruption Act 2059 and the Nepal Engineering Council code of conduct (honesty, no commission, avoiding conflicts of interest) forbid it.
  • Public safety: a housing complex serves many people, and Kathmandu is in an earthquake zone. Weaker concrete puts lives in danger, and the engineer must put public safety first.
  • Friendship is no reason to compromise his professional duty.

Conduct of Ramchandra

Supplying below-specification material and offering money to the person checking it is dishonest and corrupt. The supply difficulty (road blockade and strikes) is a genuine problem, but it does not justify this.

What Narendra should do

  1. Refuse the offer, reject the substandard materials, and tell Ramchandra that offering a bribe is improper.
  2. Report the offer to his superior, and consider informing the client or the consultant if it happens again.
  3. Look for legitimate solutions to the supply problem: other sources that meet the specification; washing and screening the local sand to meet the grading and silt limits; testing the local material in the laboratory and, if it is nearly suitable, asking the consultant and designer for written approval of a revised mix design backed by trial mixes; or adjusting the schedule.
  4. If the delay is due to strikes, claim an extension of time under the contract (force majeure/excusable delay) instead of lowering quality.
  5. Record all tests and decisions.

Both Narendra and Ramchandra would act unethically if they went ahead. The right course is to keep to the specification or obtain a properly tested and approved alternative.

✓ Answer checked by Claude Opus 5.5 (high effort)

Related questions

All Engineering Professional Practice chapter 7 questions →