DP2

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

DP2

When Firm A both designs infrastructure for a private developer and then inspects that same infrastructure on the city's behalf, should Firm A treat this self-review scenario as a distinct and irreconcilable conflict requiring role separation, or may it proceed under the review-recommendation framework of BER 82-4 on the basis that its inspection findings are formally advisory rather than final decisions?

Firm A, which simultaneously prepares drawings for private developers, reviews those same drawings on the city's behalf, and performs construction inspection at developer expense, must decide whether to recognize that this cumulative multiplicity of roles — including self-review of its own design work — creates an irreconcilable conflict that cannot be cured by disclosure, consent, or procedural safeguard, requiring structural separation of the incompatible roles.

Firm A declines all private design engagements for developers whose projects it will subsequently inspect on the city's behalf, treating the design-then-inspect sequence as a categorically irreconcilable self-review conflict requiring complete role separation.

Firm A accepts both design and inspection roles but assigns them to entirely separate personnel within the firm with documented information barriers, treating the arrangement as analogous to BER 82-4's permissive multi-role framework where the reviewing engineer does not make final decisions.

Firm A discloses to the city each instance in which it designed infrastructure it will subsequently inspect, obtains formal city consent acknowledging the self-review relationship, and proceeds on the basis that the city's informed waiver cures the conflict under the BER 75-7 consent-and-transparency framework.

Client