DP2

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

DP2

Should Engineer A conduct the performance evaluation of Engineer B and report his findings to Smithtown, or should he recuse himself from the evaluation entirely and disclose his competitive financial interest in the outcome before any assessment is rendered?

After Engineer B is retained and performance concerns arise, Engineer A — still serving as part-time town engineer — must decide how to handle the performance evaluation of Engineer B. At this point, Engineer A's private firm could directly obtain the road design contract if Engineer B is terminated. Engineer A faces a choice between fulfilling his candid advisory duty to Smithtown and protecting Engineer B's right to an impartial evaluation free from a conflicted evaluator. The evaluation outcome will determine whether Engineer B is terminated, directly affecting whether Engineer A's firm can benefit.

Engineer A affirmatively discloses to Smithtown that his private consulting practice stands to benefit if Engineer B is terminated, and fully withdraws from the performance evaluation process, recommending that Smithtown retain an unconflicted third party to assess Engineer B's performance.

Engineer A discloses his competitive financial interest to Smithtown before rendering the evaluation, then proceeds to conduct and report the performance assessment while noting that Smithtown should weigh his findings in light of his self-interest — relying on disclosure to partially mitigate but not eliminate the conflict.

Engineer A contacts Smithtown and advises that Engineer B's performance does not meet contract standards, providing his candid professional assessment in fulfillment of his faithful agent duty, without disclosing that his private firm could obtain the contract if Engineer B is terminated.

Part-Time Municipal Advisory Engineer Evaluating a Contractor He Could Replace