DP2
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/96#DP2
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP2
Decision question
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?
Focus
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
Option1
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
Option2
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
Option3
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
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:DP2 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "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?" ;
proeth:focus "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" ;
proeth:option1 "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" ;
proeth:option2 "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" ;
proeth:option3 "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" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A / ABC Engineering" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T22:21:46.934213"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 96 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T22:21:46.934213
Generated by
ProEthica Case 96 Extraction