DP1
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/96#DP1
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP1
Decision question
Should Engineer A and ABC Engineering proactively disclose to the state agency their prior peer review role — including the privileged access to construction plans and specifications obtained during that review — before accepting XYZ Construction's design-build invitation, and should that disclosure have occurred at the moment the invitation was received rather than at a later stage?
Focus
ABC Engineering's obligation to disclose its prior peer review role to the state agency before accepting XYZ Construction's design-build joint venture invitation, and the timing and adequacy of that disclosure
Option1
Immediately disclose to the state agency, upon receiving XYZ Construction's invitation, the full scope of the prior peer review role — including the nature of privileged access to construction plans and specifications and the direct incorporation of peer review outputs into the RFP — and refrain from accepting the invitation until the agency provides informed approval
Option2
Disclose the prior peer review role to the state agency as part of the formal proposal submission process, treating the RFP's public issuance as the appropriate trigger for conflict disclosure rather than the private receipt of XYZ Construction's invitation, on the grounds that the conflict only becomes procurement-relevant once a proposal is formally contemplated
Option3
Disclose the prior peer review role to the state agency at the time of accepting the original peer review engagement — before any design-build procurement is announced — on the grounds that the peer review scope was explicitly tied to RFP preparation, making future procurement interest foreseeable from the outset and requiring upfront transparency to preserve the independence of the review
Role
Engineer A / ABC Engineering
TTL
@prefix case96: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/96#> .
@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#> .
case96:DP1 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP1" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP1" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A and ABC Engineering proactively disclose to the state agency their prior peer review role — including the privileged access to construction plans and specifications obtained during that review — before accepting XYZ Construction's design-build invitation, and should that disclosure have occurred at the moment the invitation was received rather than at a later stage?" ;
proeth:focus "ABC Engineering's obligation to disclose its prior peer review role to the state agency before accepting XYZ Construction's design-build joint venture invitation, and the timing and adequacy of that disclosure" ;
proeth:option1 "Immediately disclose to the state agency, upon receiving XYZ Construction's invitation, the full scope of the prior peer review role — including the nature of privileged access to construction plans and specifications and the direct incorporation of peer review outputs into the RFP — and refrain from accepting the invitation until the agency provides informed approval" ;
proeth:option2 "Disclose the prior peer review role to the state agency as part of the formal proposal submission process, treating the RFP's public issuance as the appropriate trigger for conflict disclosure rather than the private receipt of XYZ Construction's invitation, on the grounds that the conflict only becomes procurement-relevant once a proposal is formally contemplated" ;
proeth:option3 "Disclose the prior peer review role to the state agency at the time of accepting the original peer review engagement — before any design-build procurement is announced — on the grounds that the peer review scope was explicitly tied to RFP preparation, making future procurement interest foreseeable from the outset and requiring upfront transparency to preserve the independence of the review" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A / ABC Engineering" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T22:21:46.934135"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 96 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T22:21:46.934135
Generated by
ProEthica Case 96 Extraction