DP4

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

DP4

Should Smithtown accept Engineer A's offer to perform the road design work, or should the municipality independently recognize the structural conflict of interest and decline the offer in favor of an open competitive procurement process?

Smithtown's administrative agents, having received Engineer A's offer to perform the road design work after Engineer A advised on Engineer B's selection and evaluated Engineer B's performance, must decide whether to accept that offer. Smithtown is in a position to recognize — or should be in a position to recognize — the structural conflict of interest embedded in Engineer A's offer: the same engineer who shaped the procurement outcome and contributed to the termination is now seeking to benefit from it. Acceptance makes the municipality complicit in a procurement integrity failure and harms Engineer B's professional standing.

Smithtown declines Engineer A's offer, formally acknowledges the structural conflict of interest arising from Engineer A's prior advisory and evaluative roles on the same project, and initiates an open qualification-based competitive selection process for the replacement design contract from which Engineer A's firm is excluded.

Smithtown accepts Engineer A's offer but requires Engineer A to formally document and disclose all prior advisory and evaluative roles on the project, treating documented disclosure as sufficient to cure the structural conflict and satisfy procurement integrity requirements.

Smithtown accepts Engineer A's offer on the ground that the municipality has limited access to engineering services, Engineer A is already familiar with the project, and the practical need to complete the road project outweighs the procurement integrity concerns raised by Engineer A's prior advisory and evaluative roles.

Municipal Government Client Receiving Conflicted Design Offer from Its Own Advisory Engineer