DP2

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP2

Is it ethical for Engineer A and ABC Engineering to participate in the design-build joint venture with XYZ Construction and submit a proposal for the major road transportation project, given that the peer review outputs were directly incorporated into the RFP and approximately one year elapsed between completion of the review and issuance of the RFP?

Whether ABC Engineering may ethically participate in the design-build joint venture and submit a proposal for the same project it peer-reviewed, given the one-year cooling-off period and the direct incorporation of its peer review outputs into the RFP

Accept the design-build joint venture invitation and submit a proposal after disclosing the prior peer review role to the state agency, obtaining the agency's informed approval, confirming compliance with applicable state conflict-of-interest law, and implementing internal information safeguards — such as recusing Engineer A from proposal sections directly drawing on peer review knowledge — to mitigate the informational asymmetry

Decline the design-build joint venture invitation entirely, on the grounds that the narrow scope of the peer review — with its outputs directly incorporated into the RFP — created a structural informational advantage that no cooling-off period or agency approval can adequately remediate, and that participation would undermine the integrity of both the procurement and the peer review program regardless of procedural clearances

Accept the design-build joint venture invitation and submit a proposal after disclosing the prior peer review role to the state agency and confirming state law compliance, without imposing additional internal safeguards beyond what the agency requires, on the grounds that the one-year cooling-off period and the limited scope of the peer review are sufficient to neutralize any competitive advantage and that agency approval constitutes adequate ethical clearance

Engineer A / ABC Engineering