Falsified Insulation Resistance Results and Completion Pressure
Two weeks before practical completion of a 12-storey office fit-out, you are the contractor's electrical project engineer. The electrical subcontractor submits insulation resistance test sheets for 46 final circuits showing values of 550–650 MΩ. You notice the 'test voltage' column says 500 V, but the instrument printout attached shows a 250 V test, and the same instrument serial number appears for tests allegedly done on two floors on the same afternoon. You raise it with the subcontractor's supervisor, who says the tester was faulty and the values were 'carried forward' from the previous building they did, but the cables are 'obviously fine'. The main contractor's project director tells you the client will withhold HK$4 million if completion is late, and asks you to sign the completion certificate 'based on your professional judgement'. A supplier also offers you two tickets to a trade fair in Shenzhen as a 'thank you'.
1. What should you do on receiving the test sheets and the supervisor's explanation? List your immediate actions and the technical re-verification you would require.
Read the worked answer
I would not accept the sheets and would not sign anything. Immediate actions: quarantine the test sheets, record the discrepancies in writing, inform my line manager and the quality manager, and notify the subcontractor's management in writing that the results are rejected. I would also check whether any circuits have already been energised and, if so, isolate them until verified. The technical re-verification would include: a calibrated insulation resistance tester with a current calibration certificate; testing at the correct DC voltage, normally 500 V for 400 V circuits, with the result recorded per circuit; a minimum acceptable value of 1 MΩ, although the specification may require more; a witnessed test with circuit identification, tester serial number, date and signature; and checks that sensitive equipment is disconnected and that the test is done before connection. Because the submitted results are unreliable, I would require all 46 circuits to be re-tested, not a token sample. I would also review the tester's calibration history and the subcontractor's test procedure, and check whether other projects used the same tester and carried-forward values.
2. The project director asks you to sign the completion certificate on 'professional judgement'. How do you respond, and what professional conduct principles apply?
Read the worked answer
I would decline and explain why in plain terms. A completion certificate is a professional statement that the work has been tested and is safe and compliant. I cannot certify results I know to be unreliable, and 'professional judgement' cannot substitute for evidence. Signing would misrepresent the state of the installation, could expose occupants to electric shock or fire risk, and could expose me and the company to disciplinary action and legal liability. The relevant conduct principles are integrity, competence, public safety, compliance with the law, and not misrepresenting facts or qualifications. I would tell the project director that the fastest legitimate route to completion is to re-test and fix any defects, and offer a recovery plan: prioritise the circuits serving life-safety and public areas, arrange additional testers, work extended hours, and consider a phased handover with a clear exclusion list. If the director persists, I would escalate to the professional engineer in charge and the company's compliance function. I would also keep a written record of the instruction and my response.
3. How should you deal with the supplier's offer of tickets, and what records and escalation should follow?
Read the worked answer
I would decline the tickets politely and explain that I cannot accept gifts that could be seen as an inducement or that create a conflict of interest. If the supplier insists, I would record the offer and my refusal. I would not accept the tickets even if I intended to pay for them myself, because the timing and the supplier relationship create an appearance problem. I would then make a written record of the whole sequence: the test sheets, the discrepancies, the supervisor's explanation, the project director's instruction, my refusal, the supplier's offer, and any escalation. I would report the falsification issue to the subcontractor's senior management and to my own quality and compliance functions, and ask for an independent audit of the subcontractor's test records. If there is evidence that unsafe circuits may be energised, I would escalate to the project's professional engineer and consider whether notification to the relevant authority is required. The record should be factual, dated and copied to the appropriate people, not left as an informal conversation.