Public-Procurement-Fairness-Equal-Treatment-Norm
Rs · Resource
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/162#Public-Procurement-Fairness-Equal-Treatment-Norm
Properties
Instance of
PublicProcurementFairnessStandard
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PublicProcurementFairnessStandard
Confidence
0.88
Created by
Professional engineering ethics bodies and procurement regulatory frameworks
Document title
Public Procurement Fairness and Equal Treatment Standard in QBS Processes
Importance
high
Used by
Firm A (in framing its amendment request), utility authority (in evaluating the request), city council members (in objecting to the amendment)
Used in context
Firm A explicitly conditioned its amendment request on the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their qualification statements, invoking the professional norm of equitable treatment of all competitors in public procurement. This standard is the ethical benchmark for evaluating whether Firm A's request was fair or gave it an improper competitive advantage.
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, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
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:Public-Procurement-Fairness-Equal-Treatment-Norm a proeth:PublicProcurementFairnessStandard,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Public-Procurement-Fairness-Equal-Treatment-Norm" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:createdby "Professional engineering ethics bodies and procurement regulatory frameworks" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "162" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:documenttitle "Public Procurement Fairness and Equal Treatment Standard in QBS Processes" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T02:36:20.464447+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "162" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T02:36:20.464447+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:resourceclass "Public Procurement Fairness Standard" ;
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, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired." ;
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:usedby "Firm A (in framing its amendment request), utility authority (in evaluating the request), city council members (in objecting to the amendment)" ;
proeth:usedincontext "Firm A explicitly conditioned its amendment request on the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their qualification statements, invoking the professional norm of equitable treatment of all competitors in public procurement. This standard is the ethical benchmark for evaluating whether Firm A's request was fair or gave it an improper competitive advantage." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 162 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T02:57:21.171539"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 162 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
162
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-02T02:36:20.464447+00:00
First case
162
Generated
2026-03-02T02:36:20.464447+00:00
Attributed to
Case 162 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T02:57:21.171539
Generated by
ProEthica Case 162 Extraction