In an important case reported by the FHWA in the United States, an inspector for the state agency overseeing the project noted that a concrete supplier had delivered precast concrete catch basins only a day after the state Department of Transportation had approved the custom design, including a framework of reinforcing steel. Precast concrete structures normally must cure for at least a week before shipment.

The inspector reported the discrepancy to the resident engineer, who noted handwritten markings on one of the catch basins indicating that it was standard stock, not a custom product. The engineer directed destructive testing on one of the catch basins and found no reinforcing steel. After twice blaming the matter on truckers who ‘‘mistakenly’’ loaded the wrong stock, the concrete supplier finally admitted his company had falsely certified that it provided materials meeting contract specifications. The supplier was suspended from the state’s prequalification program, had to identify and replace deficient structures at a substantial cost, and paid $500,000 in criminal and civil penalties. This case also illustrates concerns that can arise about safety of the traveling public and the service life of transportation facilities when taxpayers do not get what they pay for as a result of unethical behavior. Experts agree that prevention and deterrence of ethical lapses in any organization depend on the effectiveness of the internal controls and oversight.

1. Do you feel the punishment was severe enough in this case, considering the potential safety issues for the traveling public? Why or why not? If it was not severe enough, what further penalties would you suggest?

2. What are some of the vital controls that can be implemented on projects to assist managers in uncovering unethical conduct as reported in this case?