DP6
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/178#DP6
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP6
Decision question
Should Engineer A accept the elevated storage tank design contract and retainer from Clover City after establishing his independent firm, given that these contracts were effectively pre-signaled to him before his departure in a manner that bypassed competitive procurement, or should he decline them on appearance-of-impropriety grounds and compete through open channels?
Focus
Clover City's pre-departure informal signal of intent to award Engineer A both a retainer and the elevated storage tank design contract — made while Engineer A was still employed by ABC and actively working on Clover City's project — creates a structural conflict that implicates both public procurement integrity and the tripartite interest balancing framework. The Board's analysis focused on Engineer A's individual ethical obligations but did not examine whether Clover City's conduct was itself ethically appropriate, nor whether Engineer A's acceptance of contracts effectively pre-promised to him constituted participation in an arrangement that undermines fair and open competition in the public engineering market.
Option1
After the one-year moratorium, solicit and accept the retainer and tank design contract through normal competitive channels, treating the pre-departure signal as a non-binding expression of client preference that does not taint the subsequent competitive process, provided no formal pre-departure agreement existed.
Option2
Decline the retainer and elevated storage tank design contract specifically — on the grounds that they were effectively pre-promised under ethically compromised circumstances — while competing openly for other Clover City or municipal engineering work that was not the subject of a pre-departure informal commitment.
Option3
Before accepting the retainer and tank design contract, disclose to Clover City's procurement officials the pre-departure nature of the city's overture, allowing the municipality to determine whether a competitive procurement process is required and ensuring that acceptance of the contracts is not tainted by the appearance of a pre-arranged award.
Role
Engineer A
TTL
@prefix case178: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/178#> .
@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#> .
case178:DP6 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A accept the elevated storage tank design contract and retainer from Clover City after establishing his independent firm, given that these contracts were effectively pre-signaled to him before his departure in a manner that bypassed competitive procurement, or should he decline them on appearance-of-impropriety grounds and compete through open channels?" ;
proeth:focus "Clover City's pre-departure informal signal of intent to award Engineer A both a retainer and the elevated storage tank design contract — made while Engineer A was still employed by ABC and actively working on Clover City's project — creates a structural conflict that implicates both public procurement integrity and the tripartite interest balancing framework. The Board's analysis focused on Engineer A's individual ethical obligations but did not examine whether Clover City's conduct was itself ethically appropriate, nor whether Engineer A's acceptance of contracts effectively pre-promised to him constituted participation in an arrangement that undermines fair and open competition in the public engineering market." ;
proeth:option1 "After the one-year moratorium, solicit and accept the retainer and tank design contract through normal competitive channels, treating the pre-departure signal as a non-binding expression of client preference that does not taint the subsequent competitive process, provided no formal pre-departure agreement existed." ;
proeth:option2 "Decline the retainer and elevated storage tank design contract specifically — on the grounds that they were effectively pre-promised under ethically compromised circumstances — while competing openly for other Clover City or municipal engineering work that was not the subject of a pre-departure informal commitment." ;
proeth:option3 "Before accepting the retainer and tank design contract, disclose to Clover City's procurement officials the pre-departure nature of the city's overture, allowing the municipality to determine whether a competitive procurement process is required and ensuring that acceptance of the contracts is not tainted by the appearance of a pre-arranged award." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T09:03:41.881152"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 178 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T09:03:41.881152
Generated by
ProEthica Case 178 Extraction