DP10
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/96#DP10
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP10
Decision question
Should Engineer A and ABC Engineering participate in the design-build joint venture and submit a proposal for the major road transportation project, given that ABC Engineering conducted the peer review whose outputs were directly incorporated into the RFP, and if so, under what conditions?
Focus
ABC Engineering Post-Peer-Review Design-Build Participation: Conflict Disclosure and Agency Approval
Option1
Proactively disclose the peer review conflict to the state agency immediately upon receiving the design-build invitation, seek explicit written agency approval before proceeding, and impose internal information firewalls separating the peer review team from the proposal development team
Option2
Decline the design-build joint venture invitation entirely on the grounds that ABC Engineering's peer review contributions were directly incorporated into the RFP, creating a structural conflict of interest that no cooling-off period or agency approval can adequately remediate
Option3
Accept the design-build invitation and disclose the prior peer review role to the state agency in the proposal submission itself, relying on the one-year elapsed period and the agency's own familiarity with the engagement as constructive notice sufficient to satisfy the disclosure obligation without seeking separate pre-participation approval
Role
Engineer A
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:DP10 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP10" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP10" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A and ABC Engineering participate in the design-build joint venture and submit a proposal for the major road transportation project, given that ABC Engineering conducted the peer review whose outputs were directly incorporated into the RFP, and if so, under what conditions?" ;
proeth:focus "ABC Engineering Post-Peer-Review Design-Build Participation: Conflict Disclosure and Agency Approval" ;
proeth:option1 "Proactively disclose the peer review conflict to the state agency immediately upon receiving the design-build invitation, seek explicit written agency approval before proceeding, and impose internal information firewalls separating the peer review team from the proposal development team" ;
proeth:option2 "Decline the design-build joint venture invitation entirely on the grounds that ABC Engineering's peer review contributions were directly incorporated into the RFP, creating a structural conflict of interest that no cooling-off period or agency approval can adequately remediate" ;
proeth:option3 "Accept the design-build invitation and disclose the prior peer review role to the state agency in the proposal submission itself, relying on the one-year elapsed period and the agency's own familiarity with the engagement as constructive notice sufficient to satisfy the disclosure obligation without seeking separate pre-participation approval" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T22:21:46.934897"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 96 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T22:21:46.934897
Generated by
ProEthica Case 96 Extraction