Pre-Selection Process Openness Invoked by Firm A Disclosure to Authority
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/162#Pre-Selection_Process_Openness_Invoked_by_Firm_A_Disclosure_to_Authority
Properties
Instance of
Pre-SelectionProcessOpennessandResponsivenessPermissibilityPrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Pre-SelectionProcessOpennessandResponsivenessPermissibilityPrinciple
Applied to
Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
Balancing with
Procurement Rule Strict Adherence Over Equitable Discretion
Concrete expression
Rather than concealing its team restructuring or presenting an amended submission without disclosure, Firm A openly informed the utility authority of the change and formally requested permission to submit a revised qualification statement — demonstrating transparency toward the procuring authority as the ethically appropriate response to mid-process team changes
Confidence
0.8
Importance
medium
Interpretation
Firm A's open disclosure and formal authorization request reflects the professional obligation to be transparent with the procuring authority about material changes to the proposed team, rather than attempting to conceal changes or proceed without authorization
Invoked by
Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
Tension resolution
The transparency of Firm A's approach — openly requesting authorization rather than acting unilaterally — is treated as a mitigating factor supporting ethical permissibility, even if the underlying amendment itself remained contested
Source Evidence
Source text
Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team
Text references
Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
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 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:Pre-Selection_Process_Openness_Invoked_by_Firm_A_Disclosure_to_Authority a proeth:Pre-SelectionProcessOpennessandResponsivenessPermissibilityPrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Pre-Selection Process Openness Invoked by Firm A Disclosure to Authority" ;
proeth:appliedto "Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Procurement Rule Strict Adherence Over Equitable Discretion" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Rather than concealing its team restructuring or presenting an amended submission without disclosure, Firm A openly informed the utility authority of the change and formally requested permission to submit a revised qualification statement — demonstrating transparency toward the procuring authority as the ethically appropriate response to mid-process team changes" ;
proeth:confidence "0.8" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "162" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "162" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "medium" ;
proeth:interpretation "Firm A's open disclosure and formal authorization request reflects the professional obligation to be transparent with the procuring authority about material changes to the proposed team, rather than attempting to conceal changes or proceed without authorization" ;
proeth:invokedby "Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm" ;
proeth:principleclass "Pre-Selection Process Openness and Responsiveness Permissibility Principle" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team" ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The transparency of Firm A's approach — openly requesting authorization rather than acting unilaterally — is treated as a mitigating factor supporting ethical permissibility, even if the underlying amendment itself remained contested" ;
proeth:textreferences "Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 162 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T02:57:21.177076"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 162 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
162
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
First case
162
Generated
2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
Attributed to
Case 162 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T02:57:21.177076
Generated by
ProEthica Case 162 Extraction