DP3
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/118#DP3
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP3
Decision question
Should the state agency independently verify the technical and financial adequacy of Firm A's $50,000 proposal before executing the contract award — including by requiring Firm A to disclose its delivery model — or proceed with the award to the lowest-fee qualified bidder as its price-inclusive procedure contemplates, or suspend the award pending a public hearing on the safety concerns raised by Firms B and C?
Focus
The state agency, operating under a new price-inclusive selection procedure and having received formal protests from Firms B and C asserting that Firm A's $50,000 fee creates a credible public safety risk for a highway bridge design, must decide whether to independently verify the technical and financial adequacy of Firm A's proposal before executing the award, or to proceed with the award to the lowest-fee qualified bidder as its stated procedure contemplates.
Option1
Suspend the award announcement and require Firm A to submit a written technical scope, staffing plan, and financial explanation demonstrating how competent highway bridge design services can be delivered at $50,000, thereby independently verifying fee adequacy before executing the contract and discharging the agency's own public safety verification obligation.
Option2
Execute the award to Firm A as the lowest-fee qualified bidder consistent with the agency's stated price-inclusive selection procedure, treating the fee disparity as a legitimate competitive outcome and relying on Firm A's professional licensure and the shortlisting process as sufficient assurance of competent performance without additional pre-award verification.
Option3
Suspend the award and convene the public hearing requested by Firms B and C, allowing all parties — including Firm A — to present technical and financial evidence regarding fee adequacy before the agency makes a final award determination, thereby treating the formal protest as a substantive technical input rather than mere competitive noise.
Role
Public
TTL
@prefix case118: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/118#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@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#> .
case118:DP3 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should the state agency independently verify the technical and financial adequacy of Firm A's $50,000 proposal before executing the contract award — including by requiring Firm A to disclose its delivery model — or proceed with the award to the lowest-fee qualified bidder as its price-inclusive procedure contemplates, or suspend the award pending a public hearing on the safety concerns raised by Firms B and C?" ;
proeth:focus "The state agency, operating under a new price-inclusive selection procedure and having received formal protests from Firms B and C asserting that Firm A's $50,000 fee creates a credible public safety risk for a highway bridge design, must decide whether to independently verify the technical and financial adequacy of Firm A's proposal before executing the award, or to proceed with the award to the lowest-fee qualified bidder as its stated procedure contemplates." ;
proeth:option1 "Suspend the award announcement and require Firm A to submit a written technical scope, staffing plan, and financial explanation demonstrating how competent highway bridge design services can be delivered at $50,000, thereby independently verifying fee adequacy before executing the contract and discharging the agency's own public safety verification obligation." ;
proeth:option2 "Execute the award to Firm A as the lowest-fee qualified bidder consistent with the agency's stated price-inclusive selection procedure, treating the fee disparity as a legitimate competitive outcome and relying on Firm A's professional licensure and the shortlisting process as sufficient assurance of competent performance without additional pre-award verification." ;
proeth:option3 "Suspend the award and convene the public hearing requested by Firms B and C, allowing all parties — including Firm A — to present technical and financial evidence regarding fee adequacy before the agency makes a final award determination, thereby treating the formal protest as a substantive technical input rather than mere competitive noise." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Public" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T21:44:29.454632"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 118 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T21:44:29.454632
Generated by
ProEthica Case 118 Extraction