Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety Invoked Engineer A Consultation
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/98#Good_Intent_Does_Not_Cure_Procedural_Impropriety_Invoked_Engineer_A_Consultation
Properties
Instance of
GoodIntentDoesNotCureProceduralImpropriety
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#GoodIntentDoesNotCureProceduralImpropriety
Applied to
Proposed informal consultation with Contractor B on constructability issues
Balancing with
Design Quality Through Constructability Input Obligation
Concrete expression
Engineer A's genuine belief that informal consultation with Contractor B would improve the design documents does not render the informal consultation ethically permissible — the benign motivation to improve design quality does not cure the procedural impropriety of selectively sharing project information with a prospective bidder outside formal channels
Confidence
0.87
Importance
high
Interpretation
The principle applies directly: Engineer A's constructive intent to improve the project does not justify a process that creates unfair competitive advantage, regardless of how beneficial the design outcome might be
Invoked by
Engineer A Water Treatment Facility Design Engineer Present Case
Tension resolution
The principle confirms that good intent is not a sufficient ethical justification for informal selective consultation, and that the appropriate resolution is to pursue the constructability goal through formal equal-access channels
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A believes that the design documents and the overall project would benefit from discussions with Contractor B
Text references
Engineer A believes that the design documents and the overall project would benefit from discussions with Contractor B
Engineer A is concerned that by discussing technical and other aspects of the project with the contractor, Engineer A may be providing the contractor with an unfair advantage during the public bidding process
TTL
@prefix case98: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/98#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@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#> .
case98:Good_Intent_Does_Not_Cure_Procedural_Impropriety_Invoked_Engineer_A_Consultation a proeth:GoodIntentDoesNotCureProceduralImpropriety,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety Invoked Engineer A Consultation" ;
proeth:appliedto "Proposed informal consultation with Contractor B on constructability issues" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Design Quality Through Constructability Input Obligation" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's genuine belief that informal consultation with Contractor B would improve the design documents does not render the informal consultation ethically permissible — the benign motivation to improve design quality does not cure the procedural impropriety of selectively sharing project information with a prospective bidder outside formal channels" ;
proeth:confidence "0.87" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "98" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T00:33:01.909102+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "98" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T00:33:01.909102+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The principle applies directly: Engineer A's constructive intent to improve the project does not justify a process that creates unfair competitive advantage, regardless of how beneficial the design outcome might be" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Water Treatment Facility Design Engineer Present Case" ;
proeth:principleclass "Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A believes that the design documents and the overall project would benefit from discussions with Contractor B" ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The principle confirms that good intent is not a sufficient ethical justification for informal selective consultation, and that the appropriate resolution is to pursue the constructability goal through formal equal-access channels" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A believes that the design documents and the overall project would benefit from discussions with Contractor B",
"Engineer A is concerned that by discussing technical and other aspects of the project with the contractor, Engineer A may be providing the contractor with an unfair advantage during the public bidding process" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 98 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T00:43:22.144909"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 98 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
98
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-02-28T00:33:01.909102+00:00
First case
98
Generated
2026-02-28T00:33:01.909102+00:00
Attributed to
Case 98 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T00:43:22.144909
Generated by
ProEthica Case 98 Extraction