Firms A and B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/161#Firms_A_and_B_Substantive_Prime_Contribution_Threshold_Failure
Properties
Instance of
SubstantivePrimeContributionThresholdComplianceObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#SubstantivePrimeContributionThresholdComplianceObligation
Case context
Firms A and B proposed to serve as prime contractors while delegating all substantive technical work to Engineer X, retaining only nominal administrative and brokerage functions.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineers within Firms A and B with authority over the solicitation response
Obligation statement
Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to ensure their firms would make a substantive — not merely nominal — technical contribution commensurate with the prime contractor role, and to decline the prime role, restructure the engagement, or disclose their nominal role and recommend direct specialist engagement when they could not meet this threshold.
Temporal scope
Before submitting the solicitation response
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Firms A and B Nominal Contribution Misrepresentation
derivedFromPrinciple
Substantive Contribution Threshold Failure by Firms A and B
Source Evidence
Source text
On that basis we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
Text references
If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.
On that basis we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
Their ethical position in that event was to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required.
TTL
@prefix case161: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/161#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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#> .
case161:Firms_A_and_B_Substantive_Prime_Contribution_Threshold_Failure a proeth:SubstantivePrimeContributionThresholdComplianceObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Firms A and B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case161:Firms_A_and_B_Broker-Only_Role_Specialist_Referral_Obligation ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case161:Firms_A_and_B_Nominal_Contribution_Misrepresentation ;
proeth:casecontext "Firms A and B proposed to serve as prime contractors while delegating all substantive technical work to Engineer X, retaining only nominal administrative and brokerage functions." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case161:Substantive_Contribution_Threshold_Failure_by_Firms_A_and_B ;
proeth:discoveredincase "161" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "161" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineers within Firms A and B with authority over the solicitation response" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Compliance Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to ensure their firms would make a substantive — not merely nominal — technical contribution commensurate with the prime contractor role, and to decline the prime role, restructure the engagement, or disclose their nominal role and recommend direct specialist engagement when they could not meet this threshold." ;
proeth:sourcetext "On that basis we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Before submitting the solicitation response" ;
proeth:textreferences "If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.",
"On that basis we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.",
"Their ethical position in that event was to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 161 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T11:58:20.083123"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 161 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
161
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
First case
161
Generated
2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
Attributed to
Case 161 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T11:58:20.083123
Generated by
ProEthica Case 161 Extraction