Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Cost Estimate Disagreement Non-Objectionability
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#Consulting_Firm_Principal_BER_65-9_Cost_Estimate_Disagreement_Non-Objectionability
Properties
Instance of
HonestEngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementNon-ProhibitionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#HonestEngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementNon-ProhibitionObligation
Case context
BER Case No. 65-9: A consulting engineer published a letter disagreeing with the state highway department's cost estimates and route recommendation for an interstate bypass, proposing a superior fourth route.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.88
Importance
medium
Obligated party
Principal of consulting engineering firm (BER 65-9)
Obligation statement
The consulting firm principal who publicly disagreed with the state highway department's cost estimates and proposed an alternative route D was acting within ethical bounds, as honest professional disagreement with cost estimates prepared by other qualified engineers is not objectionable from an ethical standpoint.
Temporal scope
At the time of public letter publication
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Highway Route Alternative Proposal Public Disagreement
derivedFromPrinciple
Honest Disagreement Permissibility — BER 65-9 Highway Route Dispute
Source Evidence
Source text
the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
Text references
In determining it was ethical for the principal of a consulting firm to publicly express criticism of proposed highway routes prepared by engineers of the state highway department, and to propose an alternative route
the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
TTL
@prefix case94: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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#> .
case94:Consulting_Firm_Principal_BER_65-9_Cost_Estimate_Disagreement_Non-Objectionability a proeth:HonestEngineerPublicPolicyDisagreementNon-ProhibitionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Consulting Firm Principal BER 65-9 Cost Estimate Disagreement Non-Objectionability" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case94:Consulting_Firm_Principal_BER_65-9_Highway_Route_Disagreement_Public_Letter ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case94:Highway_Route_Alternative_Proposal_Public_Disagreement ;
proeth:casecontext "BER Case No. 65-9: A consulting engineer published a letter disagreeing with the state highway department's cost estimates and route recommendation for an interstate bypass, proposing a superior fourth route." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#Honest_Disagreement_Permissibility_—_BER_65-9_Highway_Route_Dispute> ;
proeth:discoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "medium" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Principal of consulting engineering firm (BER 65-9)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Honest Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Non-Prohibition Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "The consulting firm principal who publicly disagreed with the state highway department's cost estimates and proposed an alternative route D was acting within ethical bounds, as honest professional disagreement with cost estimates prepared by other qualified engineers is not objectionable from an ethical standpoint." ;
proeth:sourcetext "the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint" ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of public letter publication" ;
proeth:textreferences "In determining it was ethical for the principal of a consulting firm to publicly express criticism of proposed highway routes prepared by engineers of the state highway department, and to propose an alternative route",
"the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 94 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T20:55:42.371680"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 94 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
94
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
First case
94
Generated
2026-02-28T20:47:23.287524+00:00
Attributed to
Case 94 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T20:55:42.371680
Generated by
ProEthica Case 94 Extraction