DP3

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

DP3

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?

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.

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

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

County A