DP6
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/96#DP6
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP6
Decision question
Is state agency approval — from an authority that is both the peer review client and the design-build procurement issuer — a sufficient ethical safeguard to permit ABC Engineering's post-review competitive participation, or must additional independent remediation measures be imposed to protect the integrity of the procurement and the fairness of competition?
Focus
Adequacy of State Agency Approval as Ethical Safeguard: Structural Bias of Approving Authority and Sufficiency of Conditional Consent
Option1
Obtain state agency approval and proceed with design-build proposal submission, treating the agency's informed consent and compliance with applicable state law as sufficient ethical authorization for participation
Option2
Obtain state agency approval and additionally implement self-directed remedial measures — including an information firewall between the peer review team and the proposal development team, recusal of Engineer A from proposal sections drawing on peer review knowledge, and voluntary disclosure to all competing firms of the specific design clarifications and refinements ABC Engineering contributed — before submitting a design-build proposal
Option3
Seek approval from an independent reviewing authority — such as a state ethics board, inspector general, or independent procurement officer with no stake in the design-build outcome — rather than relying solely on the state agency's consent, given the agency's structurally compromised dual role as both peer review client and procurement issuer
Role
Engineer
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:DP6 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Is state agency approval — from an authority that is both the peer review client and the design-build procurement issuer — a sufficient ethical safeguard to permit ABC Engineering's post-review competitive participation, or must additional independent remediation measures be imposed to protect the integrity of the procurement and the fairness of competition?" ;
proeth:focus "Adequacy of State Agency Approval as Ethical Safeguard: Structural Bias of Approving Authority and Sufficiency of Conditional Consent" ;
proeth:option1 "Obtain state agency approval and proceed with design-build proposal submission, treating the agency's informed consent and compliance with applicable state law as sufficient ethical authorization for participation" ;
proeth:option2 "Obtain state agency approval and additionally implement self-directed remedial measures — including an information firewall between the peer review team and the proposal development team, recusal of Engineer A from proposal sections drawing on peer review knowledge, and voluntary disclosure to all competing firms of the specific design clarifications and refinements ABC Engineering contributed — before submitting a design-build proposal" ;
proeth:option3 "Seek approval from an independent reviewing authority — such as a state ethics board, inspector general, or independent procurement officer with no stake in the design-build outcome — rather than relying solely on the state agency's consent, given the agency's structurally compromised dual role as both peer review client and procurement issuer" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T22:21:46.934517"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 96 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T22:21:46.934517
Generated by
ProEthica Case 96 Extraction