Competing Engineering Firms Equal Amendment Opportunity Recipients

R · Role Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/162#Competing_Engineering_Firms_Equal_Amendment_Opportunity_Recipients
Definition

Other firms competing in the QBS process who were given the same opportunity as Firm A to revise their qualification submissions. Their equal treatment is the ethical basis for finding Firm A's amendment procedure fair. They represent the competitive field whose interests in procedural fairness are protected by the equal-opportunity requirement.

Properties
Instance of
PublicProcurementObjectorStakeholder
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PublicProcurementObjectorStakeholder
Attributes
entity_typeCompeting engineering firms (collective)
procurement_contextQualifications-based selection for public utility engineering services
interestProcedural fairness and equal treatment in QBS amendment process
Confidence
0.78
Importance
medium
Relationships
typecompetes_with
targetFirm A Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead
typeevaluated_by
targetQBS Screening Committee Qualification Feedback Body
Role category
public_responsibility
Source Evidence
Source text
we do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity

Text references
we do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity
TTL
@prefix case162: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/162#> . @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#> . case162:Competing_Engineering_Firms_Equal_Amendment_Opportunity_Recipients a proeth:PublicProcurementObjectorStakeholder, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Competing Engineering Firms Equal Amendment Opportunity Recipients" ; proeth-core:adheresToPrinciple case162:Equal_Opportunity_Condition_as_Fairness_Threshold_Invoked_in_QBS_Amendment_Analysis, case162:Fairness_in_Professional_Competition_Invoked_in_QBS_Amendment_Objection_Analysis ; proeth:attributes "{'entity_type': 'Competing engineering firms (collective)', 'procurement_context': 'Qualifications-based selection for public utility engineering services', 'interest': 'Procedural fairness and equal treatment in QBS amendment process'}" ; proeth:caseinvolvement "Other firms competing in the QBS process who were given the same opportunity as Firm A to revise their qualification submissions. Their equal treatment is the ethical basis for finding Firm A's amendment procedure fair. They represent the competitive field whose interests in procedural fairness are protected by the equal-opportunity requirement." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Role" ; proeth:confidence "0.78" ; proeth:discoveredincase "162" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T02:38:13.233673+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "162" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T02:38:13.233673+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:relationships "{'type': 'competes_with', 'target': 'Firm A Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead'}", "{'type': 'evaluated_by', 'target': 'QBS Screening Committee Qualification Feedback Body'}" ; proeth:rolecategory "public_responsibility" ; proeth:roleclass "Public Procurement Objector Stakeholder" ; proeth:sourcetext "we do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity" ; proeth:textreferences "we do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 162 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T02:57:21.175256"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 162 Extraction" .
Metadata
Type
Individual
Last Updated
2026-05-28 23:36
Discovered in case
162
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T02:38:13.233673+00:00
First case
162
Generated
2026-03-02T02:38:13.233673+00:00
Attributed to
Case 162 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T02:57:21.175256
Generated by
ProEthica Case 162 Extraction