It's easy to point the finger at them and say "why did you greenlight this?", but I'm quite sure they are completely expendable in this shitshow and the people actually responsible would've simply gotten some batch of new engineers who would've greenlit it in the end anyway.
What if their manager had insisted they use cheaper concrete or less rebar? At a certain point, you have to refuse to put your signature on to something.
It's not entirely clear how far up the chain of command the suspensions go, but if they're including decision makers in the suspension, I think it's a good lesson to others to not just rubber stamp designs.
But somehow it's suddenly acceptable to debate when the gun is abstracted a tiny bit to say "make a bridge that absolutely will kill multiple people if it's used"?
The entire point of the "licensed" part of "licensed engineers" is to have someone we trust to say "absolutely not" and hold the line, or they personally get held accountable.
Did all of you conveniently forget the mandatory ethics courses in STEM education after the NYC scaffold incident killed a dozen people?