DP1
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/90#DP1
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP1
Decision question
Should the PE firm submit the competitive bid for sub-professional services, recognizing that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding and that the work falls outside the formal scope of the Canons and Rules?
Focus
A professional engineering firm whose principals are all licensed PEs has been invited to submit a written competitive bid for work that is sub-professional in character but related to professional engineering services. The firm must decide whether submitting such a bid is ethically permissible under the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct, or whether the invitation must be declined on ethical grounds.
Option1
Proceed with preparing and submitting a written competitive bid for the sub-professional work, recognizing that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code prohibitions on competitive bidding and that the Canons and Rules do not govern sub-professional services, while ensuring all bid representations are honest and accurate.
Option2
Refuse to submit the competitive bid on the mistaken belief that competitive bidding for any work performed by a PE firm is ethically prohibited under the Canons of Ethics, thereby forgoing a legitimate commercial opportunity based on a misapplication of the ethics code's scope.
Option3
Pause the bid process and formally request an advisory opinion from the ethics adjudicatory body to confirm whether submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional services is permissible, delaying the commercial decision pending formal clarification.
Role
PE Firm (Mixed-Practice Principal Decision-Maker)
TTL
@prefix case90: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/90#> .
@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#> .
case90:DP1 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP1" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP1" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should the PE firm submit the competitive bid for sub-professional services, recognizing that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding and that the work falls outside the formal scope of the Canons and Rules?" ;
proeth:focus "A professional engineering firm whose principals are all licensed PEs has been invited to submit a written competitive bid for work that is sub-professional in character but related to professional engineering services. The firm must decide whether submitting such a bid is ethically permissible under the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct, or whether the invitation must be declined on ethical grounds." ;
proeth:option1 "Proceed with preparing and submitting a written competitive bid for the sub-professional work, recognizing that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code prohibitions on competitive bidding and that the Canons and Rules do not govern sub-professional services, while ensuring all bid representations are honest and accurate." ;
proeth:option2 "Refuse to submit the competitive bid on the mistaken belief that competitive bidding for any work performed by a PE firm is ethically prohibited under the Canons of Ethics, thereby forgoing a legitimate commercial opportunity based on a misapplication of the ethics code's scope." ;
proeth:option3 "Pause the bid process and formally request an advisory opinion from the ethics adjudicatory body to confirm whether submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional services is permissible, delaying the commercial decision pending formal clarification." ;
proeth:roleLabel "PE Firm (Mixed-Practice Principal Decision-Maker)" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T16:30:38.179176"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 90 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-02T16:30:38.179176
Generated by
ProEthica Case 90 Extraction