DP1

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

DP1

Upon receiving public screening committee feedback identifying a qualification deficiency in its joint venture, should Firm A restructure its team to cure the deficiency, continue competing without remediation, or withdraw from the process?

After receiving screening committee feedback at a public meeting indicating that its joint venture lacked sufficient technical support for the large power facility addition, Firm A must decide how to respond to the identified qualification deficiency. The firm can either restructure its joint venture team to cure the deficiency, continue competing without remediation, or withdraw from the QBS process entirely. This decision is governed by Code Section 6's specialist engagement mandate and the upgrade-or-withdraw obligation triggered by client-identified deficiencies.

Proactively reorganize the joint venture by adding specialist partners or internal expertise sufficient to meet the large power facility addition's technical requirements, fulfilling the Code Section 6 specialist engagement mandate and the upgrade obligation triggered by the screening committee's feedback.

Proceed in the QBS process with the existing joint venture structure despite the publicly identified deficiency, neither upgrading qualifications nor withdrawing — a course the Code Section 6 specialist engagement obligation characterizes as an ethical violation when known deficiencies remain uncured.

Recognize that upgrading the joint venture's qualifications is not feasible within the procurement timeline and voluntarily withdraw from further consideration, fulfilling the ethical obligation to step aside when competence cannot be adequately demonstrated or remediated.

Firm A (Joint Venture Lead)