DP4

@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:DP4 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "DP4" ; proeth:decisionPointId "DP4" ; proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A and ABC Engineering accept the design-build joint venture invitation and submit a proposal for the same project they peer-reviewed, given the informational asymmetry created by their privileged advisory access?" ; proeth:focus "ABC Engineering Post-Peer-Review Design-Build Participation: Privileged Access Non-Exploitation and Conflict of Interest Assessment" ; proeth:option1 "Disclose the peer review conflict to the state agency immediately upon receiving the design-build invitation, seek explicit agency approval, and implement internal information firewalls separating the peer review team from the proposal development team before submitting a design-build proposal" ; proeth:option2 "Decline the design-build joint venture invitation entirely on the grounds that the peer review's direct contributions to the RFP create an informational asymmetry that no cooling-off period or agency approval can adequately remediate, thereby preserving the integrity of the advisory relationship and the peer review program" ; proeth:option3 "Accept the design-build invitation and proceed with proposal development in reliance on the one-year elapsed period and the absence of a formal confidentiality agreement, treating the peer review engagement as concluded and the information gained as no longer conferring a material competitive advantage" ; proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T22:21:46.934371"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 96 Extraction" .