DP2

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP2

Should the U.S. Agency engineers refrain from competing for the hydroelectric design contract by leveraging insider knowledge and owner relationships acquired in their public capacity, or may they deploy those advantages as legitimate professional credentials in the private procurement?

The U.S. Agency engineers possessed insider knowledge of the hydroelectric project's publicly-funded basic plans, personal relationships with the foreign government agency's representatives, and access to foundational design work product — all acquired in their public capacity. After forming a joint venture with a private consulting firm, they competed for and were awarded the design and supervision contract on the same project, leveraging those advantages in a procurement where other firms lacked equivalent access.

Resign from public employment, observe a meaningful cooling-off period calibrated to the significance of their public role, and only then compete for the hydroelectric contract — disclosing their prior role in preparing the basic plans to the foreign government client and all competing firms at the time of proposal submission.

Treat the specialized knowledge and owner relationships acquired in public service as legitimate professional credentials that may be deployed immediately in private procurement, on the basis that the mobility right permits engineers to compete in markets where their superior technical knowledge is relevant regardless of how it was acquired.

Compete for the hydroelectric contract immediately after resignation but disclose the prior public role and insider knowledge to the client and competing firms, treating transparency as a sufficient safeguard that preserves competitive integrity without imposing a career-penalizing cooling-off period.

U.S. Agency Engineers