DP8
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/89#DP8
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP8
Decision question
Should Engineer A have conditioned acceptance of the engagement on a non-negotiable commitment to construction-phase safety oversight, or was it permissible to accept the engagement and raise the on-site representative requirement as a subsequent recommendation subject to client approval?
Focus
Engineer A's Scope of Engagement for a Foreseeably Dangerous Project: Whether Construction-Phase Safety Oversight Was a Non-Negotiable Precondition
Option1
Before accepting the engagement, explicitly establish construction-phase safety oversight — including a full-time on-site project representative — as a non-negotiable professional precondition, declining the commission if the client will not agree to that baseline requirement given the foreseeably dangerous nature of the construction phase.
Option2
Accept the engagement to furnish complete engineering services and raise the on-site representative requirement as a professional recommendation during the design phase, treating it as a strong advisory obligation while preserving the client's authority to make the final staffing and cost decision.
Option3
Accept the engagement but include an explicit contractual clause stating that construction-phase services are conditioned on agreement to adequate safety staffing to be determined during design, preserving the ability to revisit the requirement once the specific hazards are fully characterized rather than imposing a blanket precondition before the scope of danger is known.
Role
Engineer A Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer
TTL
@prefix case89: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/89#> .
@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#> .
case89:DP8 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP8" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP8" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A have conditioned acceptance of the engagement on a non-negotiable commitment to construction-phase safety oversight, or was it permissible to accept the engagement and raise the on-site representative requirement as a subsequent recommendation subject to client approval?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's Scope of Engagement for a Foreseeably Dangerous Project: Whether Construction-Phase Safety Oversight Was a Non-Negotiable Precondition" ;
proeth:option1 "Before accepting the engagement, explicitly establish construction-phase safety oversight — including a full-time on-site project representative — as a non-negotiable professional precondition, declining the commission if the client will not agree to that baseline requirement given the foreseeably dangerous nature of the construction phase." ;
proeth:option2 "Accept the engagement to furnish complete engineering services and raise the on-site representative requirement as a professional recommendation during the design phase, treating it as a strong advisory obligation while preserving the client's authority to make the final staffing and cost decision." ;
proeth:option3 "Accept the engagement but include an explicit contractual clause stating that construction-phase services are conditioned on agreement to adequate safety staffing to be determined during design, preserving the ability to revisit the requirement once the specific hazards are fully characterized rather than imposing a blanket precondition before the scope of danger is known." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:54:18.793926"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 89 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T18:54:18.793926
Generated by
ProEthica Case 89 Extraction