DP1
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#DP1
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP1
Decision question
Should Engineer A return Firm B's late and misdirected submittal unopened, or accept it into the QBS evaluation on the grounds that the procedural error was minor and Firm B has a strong prior performance record with City X?
Focus
Engineer A's obligation to strictly enforce the published QBS submittal deadline and location requirements by returning Firm B's misdirected and late submittal unopened, regardless of Firm B's prior satisfactory performance on City X projects or the apparent harmlessness of the procedural error.
Option1
Return Firm B's submittal unopened with written notice to Firm B that the SOQ was received after the published deadline and at the wrong location, and document the rejection in the procurement record
Option2
Accept Firm B's submittal into the evaluation pool on the grounds that the envelope arrived within the same governmental entity on the same day, treating the misdirection as a minor administrative irregularity that caused no demonstrable harm to other competing firms
Option3
Escalate the disposition decision to the city attorney or procurement officer rather than acting unilaterally, presenting the full chain-of-custody facts and requesting an official ruling on whether the city manager's office acceptance constitutes a valid city receipt that tolls the deadline
Role
Engineer A - QBS Point of Contact
TTL
@prefix case99: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#> .
@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#> .
case99:DP1 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP1" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP1" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A return Firm B's late and misdirected submittal unopened, or accept it into the QBS evaluation on the grounds that the procedural error was minor and Firm B has a strong prior performance record with City X?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's obligation to strictly enforce the published QBS submittal deadline and location requirements by returning Firm B's misdirected and late submittal unopened, regardless of Firm B's prior satisfactory performance on City X projects or the apparent harmlessness of the procedural error." ;
proeth:option1 "Return Firm B's submittal unopened with written notice to Firm B that the SOQ was received after the published deadline and at the wrong location, and document the rejection in the procurement record" ;
proeth:option2 "Accept Firm B's submittal into the evaluation pool on the grounds that the envelope arrived within the same governmental entity on the same day, treating the misdirection as a minor administrative irregularity that caused no demonstrable harm to other competing firms" ;
proeth:option3 "Escalate the disposition decision to the city attorney or procurement officer rather than acting unilaterally, presenting the full chain-of-custody facts and requesting an official ruling on whether the city manager's office acceptance constitutes a valid city receipt that tolls the deadline" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A - QBS Point of Contact" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T23:21:49.607690"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 99 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T23:21:49.607690
Generated by
ProEthica Case 99 Extraction