DP3
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/12#DP3
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP3
Decision question
Did County A bear a degree of shared institutional responsibility for the outcome by restricting its advertisement to local firms, accepting Engineer B's competence assurances without independent verification, and excluding the design engineer from construction period services — and should County A have implemented qualification verification and broader advertisement practices to safeguard procurement integrity?
Focus
County A's institutional decisions — advertising engineering services only locally, accepting Engineer B's assurances of competence without independent qualification verification, and excluding Engineer B from construction period services — and whether those decisions constitute shared institutional responsibility for the harm that materialized.
Option1
Require applicants to demonstrate relevant domain-specific experience through project references and personnel qualifications before award, advertise beyond local firms when local competence in the required domain cannot be confirmed, and include the design engineer in construction period services to enable early detection and correction of design deficiencies
Option2
Award the contract based solely on engineer-provided assurances of competence without independent qualification verification, restrict advertisement to local firms regardless of domain-specific competence availability, and exclude the design engineer from construction period services
Role
County A
TTL
@prefix case12: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/12#> .
@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#> .
case12:DP3 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Did County A bear a degree of shared institutional responsibility for the outcome by restricting its advertisement to local firms, accepting Engineer B's competence assurances without independent verification, and excluding the design engineer from construction period services — and should County A have implemented qualification verification and broader advertisement practices to safeguard procurement integrity?" ;
proeth:focus "County A's institutional decisions — advertising engineering services only locally, accepting Engineer B's assurances of competence without independent qualification verification, and excluding Engineer B from construction period services — and whether those decisions constitute shared institutional responsibility for the harm that materialized." ;
proeth:option1 "Require applicants to demonstrate relevant domain-specific experience through project references and personnel qualifications before award, advertise beyond local firms when local competence in the required domain cannot be confirmed, and include the design engineer in construction period services to enable early detection and correction of design deficiencies" ;
proeth:option2 "Award the contract based solely on engineer-provided assurances of competence without independent qualification verification, restrict advertisement to local firms regardless of domain-specific competence availability, and exclude the design engineer from construction period services" ;
proeth:roleLabel "County A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-24T20:17:29.714482"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 12 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-24T20:17:29.714482
Generated by
ProEthica Case 12 Extraction