Retained-Engineer Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Constraint Applied to Engineer B Structural Footing Sole-Purpose Retention

@prefix case110: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/110#> . @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> . @prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> . @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#> . case110:Retained-Engineer_Sub-Delegation_Infeasibility_Constraint_Applied_to_Engineer_B_Structural_Footing_Sole-Purpose_Retention a proeth:Retained-EngineerSub-DelegationInfeasibilityConstraintPrinciple, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Retained-Engineer Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Constraint Applied to Engineer B Structural Footing Sole-Purpose Retention" ; proeth:appliedto "Engineer B's potential sub-delegation of structural footing design to a competent structural engineer" ; proeth:balancingwith "Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection", "Universal Engineer Competence Scope Limitation Principle" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Although consulting-practice flexibility generally permits retaining specialists, the Board determined that Engineer B could not discharge the competence obligation by sub-delegating the structural footing design to a competent structural engineer, because Engineer B was retained solely and exclusively for that task — sub-delegation would render Engineer B's retention purposeless and raise unanswerable questions about what Engineer B was actually being paid to perform." ; proeth:confidence "0.87" ; proeth:discoveredincase "110" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "110" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T10:17:29.970481+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "The consulting-practice flexibility recognized in BER Case 71-2 (retaining specialists) does not extend to sole-purpose retentions where sub-delegation would entirely hollow out the retained engineer's assigned function." ; proeth:invokedby "Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:principleclass "Retained-Engineer Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Constraint Principle" ; proeth:sourcetext "It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question." ; proeth:tensionresolution "Sub-delegation infeasibility prevails: the sole-purpose character of Engineer B's retention makes sub-delegation of the entire assigned task ethically and practically impermissible." ; proeth:textreferences "If Engineer B were to seek a separate firm to perform that very task, we have to seriously wonder what it was Engineer B was actually hired to perform and for what it was being paid.", "It appears under the facts that 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, we do not think this would be feasible under the facts." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 110 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T10:30:44.202442"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 110 Extraction" .