DP6

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

DP6

Should Engineer C formally disclose the constructability deficiencies he identified in the drawings to the local public agency before submitting his bid, or submit a competitive bid and raise the unbuildability concerns only after winning the contract?

Engineer C: Pre-Bid Disclosure of Constructability Deficiencies vs. Competitive Bid Submission

Formally notify the local public agency in writing of the identified constructability deficiencies and request a clarification or corrective addendum before submitting any bid — accepting the competitive disadvantage of alerting other bidders and potentially triggering a procurement re-evaluation, on the basis that the professional engineering license imposes a categorical disclosure duty that survives the contractor role.

Submit a competitive bid that prices the work as documented, then raise the constructability deficiencies at the pre-construction conference after contract award — reasoning that the deficiencies were not fully crystallized until post-bid review, that the contractor role does not impose pre-bid disclosure obligations beyond those owed by any other bidder, and that the appropriate forum for resolving design deficiencies is the pre-construction process rather than the competitive bidding phase.

Withdraw from the procurement entirely without submitting a bid, on the basis that submitting any bid on documents privately regarded as unbuildable would constitute an implicit misrepresentation — while stopping short of affirmative disclosure to the agency, treating the decision as a matter of personal professional conscience consistent with the discretionary framework of BER Case No. 82-5 for non-safety deficiencies.

Engineer C