DP10

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

DP10

Should Firm A's engineer principals publicly counter-accuse Firms B and C of unethical conduct, or should they instead respond by disclosing the economic and technical basis of their $50,000 proposal to the agency without characterizing the protest as bad-faith?

Engineer principals of Firm A face a decision about whether to counter-accuse Firms B and C of unethical conduct after those firms filed a public protest and requested a public hearing challenging the award of the bridge design contract to Firm A at its $50,000 price proposal. The core tension is between Firm A's right to defend its professional reputation and its NSPE Code obligation not to injure a competitor's reputation through false or malicious statements — particularly when Firm A lacks evidentiary basis to establish that Firms B and C acted in bad faith rather than genuine public safety concern.

Publicly characterize Firms B and C's protest as unethical conduct motivated by competitive self-interest rather than genuine public safety concern, seeking to discredit the protest before the agency and at the public hearing.

Respond to the protest by proactively providing the agency with a detailed technical and financial explanation of how Firm A can deliver competent bridge design services at $50,000 — identifying staffing, cross-subsidization, or efficiency rationale — without making any public characterization of Firms B and C's motivations.

If Firm A possesses affirmative evidence — beyond mere competitive benefit — that Firms B and C's protest was fabricated or made in demonstrable bad faith, report that specific evidence to the appropriate professional ethics authority through proper channels rather than making a public counter-accusation without evidentiary support.

Engineer (Firm A)