DP3

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

DP3

Should the utility authority grant Firm A's amendment request by extending equal amendment opportunity to all seven competing firms after obtaining legal clearance, deny the request and hold all firms to their original submissions, or grant the request to Firm A exclusively without extending it to other competitors?

The utility authority has received Firm A's request to amend its qualification submission, conditioned on extending the same opportunity to all seven competing firms. The authority must decide whether to grant the amendment request, and if so, how to structure the procedural accommodation. This decision implicates the authority's obligation to obtain legal clearance before granting a procedural exception not explicitly provided for in the governing procurement law, and its paramount obligation to select the most qualified firm for the complex power facility project.

Seek and obtain legal advice confirming no legal impediment exists under the governing procurement law, then formally extend the same qualification amendment opportunity to all seven competing firms on equal terms — satisfying the equal treatment obligation, the legal clearance obligation, and the public welfare paramount obligation to identify the most qualified firm.

Decline Firm A's request on the grounds that the governing QBS law or ordinance does not explicitly authorize post-screening amendments, preserving the original procedural framework but potentially foreclosing the selection of the most technically qualified firm for a large and complex power facility.

Allow Firm A alone to submit a revised qualification statement without extending the same opportunity to the other six competing firms, granting a competitive advantage through exclusive access to a procedural accommodation and violating the equal treatment principle fundamental to fair public procurement.

Utility Authority (Procuring Agency)