Consulting Firm Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement BER 94-8 Instance
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/109#Consulting_Firm_Competence_Gap_Subconsultant_Engagement_BER_94-8_Instance
Properties
Instance of
ConsultingPracticeCompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ConsultingPracticeCompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementObligation
Case context
The Board acknowledged that in consulting practice, firms have flexibility to engage subconsultants to fill competence gaps, but found this option was not feasible in BER 94-8 because Engineer B was retained exclusively for the structural footing design task.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.87
Importance
medium
Obligated party
Engineer B (chemical engineer, BER Case 94-8) / Consulting firm
Obligation statement
If Engineer B as a consultant to the contractor lacked competence in structural foundation design, Engineer B was obligated to engage a qualified structural engineer as subconsultant rather than performing the out-of-competence work directly — though the Board noted this was not feasible given that Engineer B was retained specifically and solely to design the structural footings.
Temporal scope
At the time Engineer B accepted the engagement
Relationships
Source Evidence
Source text
While it may be possible for Engineer B as a consultant to the contractor to retain the services of a competent structural engineer to design the structural footings for the facility, the Board did not think it would be feasible under the facts
Text references
If Engineer B were to seek a separate firm to perform that task, the Board would have to seriously wonder what it was Engineer B was actually hired to perform and for what Engineer B was being paid
It appeared that under the facts, Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question
While it may be possible for Engineer B as a consultant to the contractor to retain the services of a competent structural engineer to design the structural footings for the facility, the Board did not think it would be feasible under the facts
TTL
@prefix case109: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/109#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case109:Consulting_Firm_Competence_Gap_Subconsultant_Engagement_BER_94-8_Instance a proeth:ConsultingPracticeCompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Consulting Firm Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement BER 94-8 Instance" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/109#BER_94-8_Precedent_—_Engineer_B_Structural_Footing_Competence_Gap> ;
proeth:casecontext "The Board acknowledged that in consulting practice, firms have flexibility to engage subconsultants to fill competence gaps, but found this option was not feasible in BER 94-8 because Engineer B was retained exclusively for the structural footing design task." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.87" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/109#Competence_Boundary_—_Engineer_B_Chemical_Engineer_Structural_Footing_Design_BER_94-8> ;
proeth:discoveredincase "109" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T07:48:34.367018+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "109" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T07:48:34.367018+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "medium" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer B (chemical engineer, BER Case 94-8) / Consulting firm" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "If Engineer B as a consultant to the contractor lacked competence in structural foundation design, Engineer B was obligated to engage a qualified structural engineer as subconsultant rather than performing the out-of-competence work directly — though the Board noted this was not feasible given that Engineer B was retained specifically and solely to design the structural footings." ;
proeth:sourcetext "While it may be possible for Engineer B as a consultant to the contractor to retain the services of a competent structural engineer to design the structural footings for the facility, the Board did not think it would be feasible under the facts" ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time Engineer B accepted the engagement" ;
proeth:textreferences "If Engineer B were to seek a separate firm to perform that task, the Board would have to seriously wonder what it was Engineer B was actually hired to perform and for what Engineer B was being paid",
"It appeared that under the facts, Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question",
"While it may be possible for Engineer B as a consultant to the contractor to retain the services of a competent structural engineer to design the structural footings for the facility, the Board did not think it would be feasible under the facts" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 109 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T07:59:20.019339"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 109 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
109
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T07:48:34.367018+00:00
First case
109
Generated
2026-03-01T07:48:34.367018+00:00
Attributed to
Case 109 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T07:59:20.019339
Generated by
ProEthica Case 109 Extraction