Engineer A Harmless Error Non-Exception Firm B Submittal
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#Engineer_A_Harmless_Error_Non-Exception_Firm_B_Submittal
Properties
Instance of
HarmlessErrorNon-ExceptioninQBSProcurementComplianceObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#HarmlessErrorNon-ExceptioninQBSProcurementComplianceObligation
Case context
The Board found no nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver to the correct office by the required time, but nonetheless concluded that accepting the submittal would undermine procurement integrity.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.91
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A (QBS Review Team Point of Contact, City X)
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to reject Firm B's submittal notwithstanding the apparent absence of nefarious intent or actual harm to the procurement process, recognizing that accepting a harmless-appearing procedural error would create a climate tolerating non-adherence to procurement rules and expose the process to challenge.
Temporal scope
Upon receipt and evaluation of Firm B's non-compliant submittal
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Late SOQ Submission Outside Formal Process
Source Evidence
Source text
while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
Text references
Such a situation would not reflect well on that process, the city, or the engineering profession
while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
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-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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:Engineer_A_Harmless_Error_Non-Exception_Firm_B_Submittal a proeth:HarmlessErrorNon-ExceptioninQBSProcurementComplianceObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Harmless Error Non-Exception Firm B Submittal" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case99:Engineer_A_QBS_Deadline_Strict_Enforcement_Firm_B_Rejection ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case99:Late_SOQ_Submission_Outside_Formal_Process ;
proeth:casecontext "The Board found no nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver to the correct office by the required time, but nonetheless concluded that accepting the submittal would undermine procurement integrity." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#Good_Intent_Does_Not_Cure_Procedural_Impropriety_—_Engineer_A_Sympathy_for_Firm_B>,
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#QBS_Submittal_Deadline_Integrity_—_Firm_B_Misdirected_Submittal_Rejection> ;
proeth:discoveredincase "99" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "99" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (QBS Review Team Point of Contact, City X)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Harmless Error Non-Exception in QBS Procurement Compliance Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to reject Firm B's submittal notwithstanding the apparent absence of nefarious intent or actual harm to the procurement process, recognizing that accepting a harmless-appearing procedural error would create a climate tolerating non-adherence to procurement rules and expose the process to challenge." ;
proeth:sourcetext "while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated" ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon receipt and evaluation of Firm B's non-compliant submittal" ;
proeth:textreferences "Such a situation would not reflect well on that process, the city, or the engineering profession",
"while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 99 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T23:08:45.591374"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 99 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
99
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
First case
99
Generated
2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
Attributed to
Case 99 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-27T23:08:45.591374
Generated by
ProEthica Case 99 Extraction