DP5

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

DP5

Should the Board's proposed supplemental rule define the ethical threshold as the moment project-specific insider knowledge becomes the operative basis for private negotiation — with a defined cooling-off period and mandatory disclosure as conditions for subsequent permissible participation — or should the rule impose a categorical bar on same-project competition for any engineer who gained specialized knowledge in public service on that project?

The Board proposed a supplemental rule prohibiting engineers from engaging in promotional negotiations for work on a specific project for which they gained specialized knowledge while employed by a public agency. The rule must define the threshold between permissible exploratory career planning and prohibited promotional negotiation, address whether a cooling-off period followed by full disclosure would render subsequent participation permissible, and specify whether the prohibition applies equally to direct employment transitions and joint venture structures — without chilling legitimate post-government engineering careers.

Anchor the prohibition to the moment project-specific insider knowledge becomes the operative basis for private negotiation; require mandatory disclosure to the public employer upon commencement of any such negotiation; and establish a presumptive cooling-off period after resignation — calibrated to the significance of the engineer's public role — after which competitive participation is permissible subject to full disclosure to the client and all competing firms.

Adopt a categorical rule prohibiting any engineer who gained specialized knowledge in public service on a specific project from subsequently competing for any private contract on that same project, regardless of the time elapsed since resignation, the legal structure of the private arrangement, or the extent of disclosure — treating the nature of the insider knowledge as permanently disqualifying for that project.

Decline to adopt a specific supplemental rule and instead apply the existing spirit-of-the-Canons standard on a case-by-case basis, evaluating whether the totality of circumstances — timing, disclosure, degree of insider advantage, and competitive harm — creates a cloud of doubt sufficient to establish an ethical violation without imposing a categorical prohibition that risks chilling legitimate post-government careers.

NSPE Board of Ethical Review