Conflicts, a Contractor's Gift, and a Certification the Firm Cannot Sign
A county selects a landscape architecture firm for a $3.6 million park renovation. During construction the project manager - a licensed landscape architect and the firm's principal-in-charge - learns three things in one week. The site furnishings specified in the documents are manufactured by a company where the project manager's spouse is a regional sales representative earning commission on the order. The general contractor, whose $118,000 change order for added drainage is under review, invites the project manager to a charity golf tournament with a $2,500 foursome fee and remarks that the firm's 'flexibility' on the change order 'will be remembered on the next job.' The county's capital projects manager asks the project manager to sign a certification stating that 'all specified products have been installed in accordance with the contract documents' - but the last site visit was six weeks ago, and the furnishings went in since then.
1. Identify the conflicts and disclosure obligations, and state what the project manager should do about the specified furnishings.
Read the worked answer
The spouse's commission is a conflict of interest - a financial interest through an immediate family member in a product the firm specified. Even if the specification predates the project manager's knowledge, the appearance and the pecuniary benefit are what matter, and public projects usually carry a written disclosure requirement in statute or in the county's contract.
Steps: disclose in writing to the county and to the firm's ethics officer or managing principal immediately, describing the relationship, when it was learned, and the estimated commission; recuse from reviewing submittals, substitutions, or pay items for that furnishings package; have the firm assign a reviewer with no connection; and offer the county a choice - accept the specification with the disclosure and recusal in place, or direct the firm to evaluate a comparable competitively bid alternative at no additional fee. Document the county's decision in the project file.
Do not quietly substitute a competitor's product to avoid the conversation; that creates an arbitrary substitution problem and conceals a disclosure obligation. Do not attempt to size the commission to argue it is trivial.
The test is whether a reasonable observer would question the firm's impartiality. Disclosure plus recusal plus a neutral reviewer usually answers that. Concealment never does, and on a public job it can cost the firm future eligibility.
2. How should the project manager respond to the contractor's golf invitation and remark, and to the pending change order?
Read the worked answer
Decline, and document both the decline and the remark.
The invitation is a gratuity from a party with a live $118,000 change order in front of the firm. Even at fair market value it is inappropriate; at $2,500 it is a gift of value. The remark - 'will be remembered on the next job' - converts it from a courtesy into an attempted quid pro quo, and that is the serious part.
Actions: decline in writing, briefly and without accusation, copying the firm's ethics officer or principal. Report the remark to the county's project manager and its ethics officer if one exists; the owner needs to know a contractor is trading future work for a favorable decision. Disclose the contact in the change order file itself.
Then review the change order strictly on technical merit: quantities, unit prices, whether the drainage condition was reasonably foreseeable from the geotechnical report, whether the work falls within contract scope, and whether the contractor gave proper notice. Approve, modify, or reject in writing with reasons tied to the documents.
If the contractor repeats the overture, escalate formally. Many public owners treat it as a responsibility finding.
The firm's real exposure is not the golf game. It is the appearance that the change order was approved to protect a relationship or a future commission - a question that can be raised long after the project closes.
3. What should the firm do about the requested certification?
Read the worked answer
Do not sign it. The statement certifies installation 'in accordance with the contract documents,' which means quantity, location, model, anchoring, and spec compliance. The project manager has not seen the furnishings installed and cannot know any of that. A false certification on a public project is not a paperwork problem: it exposes the licensee to disciplinary action, the firm to fraud claims, and the county to audit findings.
Offer alternatives. First, conduct a site visit and then certify only what was actually observed - 'based on observations on [date], the installed furnishings appear generally consistent with the documents, subject to the following exceptions.' Second, request the contractor's and the county resident inspector's certifications, which they can properly give, and rely on those in the firm's recommendation. Third, sign a certification limited to design intent and submittal compliance rather than installation.
Explain the reasoning to the capital projects manager; most public managers accept a redline once the liability is explained plainly. If the county insists on the original wording and refuses a qualified certification, escalate to the firm's principal and the county attorney rather than sign.
Never certify work you have not observed, regardless of schedule pressure or the desire to close out the project.