DP1
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/177#DP1
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP1
Decision question
Should Firm A accept private developer clients within the same jurisdiction where it serves as the city's retained plan review and construction inspection engineer, or must it structurally separate those roles to preserve its impartiality toward the city?
Focus
Firm A, retained by the city to perform plan review and construction inspection of private developer projects — with developers paying Firm A's fees directly — must decide whether to simultaneously accept private design and inspection engagements from those same developers, recognizing that this dual-role arrangement creates a structural conflict between its duty of faithful agency to the city and its financial relationships with the regulated parties.
Option1
Firm A refuses to accept any private design or inspection engagements from developers whose projects are subject to Firm A's city-mandated review and inspection authority, maintaining complete structural separation between its public agency role and its private practice.
Option2
Firm A accepts private developer engagements while proactively disclosing each dual relationship to the city and obtaining formal city consent, relying on transparency and good-faith inspection practices to manage the conflict without structural separation.
Option3
Firm A accepts private developer engagements but adopts a BER 75-7-style abstention model, recusing itself from city review and inspection of any project for which it also serves as the developer's private engineer and arranging for substitute inspection coverage on those projects.
Role
Client
TTL
@prefix case177: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/177#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@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#> .
case177:DP1 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP1" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP1" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Firm A accept private developer clients within the same jurisdiction where it serves as the city's retained plan review and construction inspection engineer, or must it structurally separate those roles to preserve its impartiality toward the city?" ;
proeth:focus "Firm A, retained by the city to perform plan review and construction inspection of private developer projects — with developers paying Firm A's fees directly — must decide whether to simultaneously accept private design and inspection engagements from those same developers, recognizing that this dual-role arrangement creates a structural conflict between its duty of faithful agency to the city and its financial relationships with the regulated parties." ;
proeth:option1 "Firm A refuses to accept any private design or inspection engagements from developers whose projects are subject to Firm A's city-mandated review and inspection authority, maintaining complete structural separation between its public agency role and its private practice." ;
proeth:option2 "Firm A accepts private developer engagements while proactively disclosing each dual relationship to the city and obtaining formal city consent, relying on transparency and good-faith inspection practices to manage the conflict without structural separation." ;
proeth:option3 "Firm A accepts private developer engagements but adopts a BER 75-7-style abstention model, recusing itself from city review and inspection of any project for which it also serves as the developer's private engineer and arranging for substitute inspection coverage on those projects." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Client" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T09:53:24.922250"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 177 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T09:53:24.922250
Generated by
ProEthica Case 177 Extraction