Firm B Late Submission Procurement Integrity Tension
S · State
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#Firm_B_Late_Submission_Procurement_Integrity_Tension
Properties
Instance of
ProcurementRuleStrictAdherencevs.HarmlessErrorTensionState
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ProcurementRuleStrictAdherencevs.HarmlessErrorTensionState
Active period
From the moment Engineer A became aware that Firm B's SOQ was received late and at the wrong location through the procurement decision on whether to consider Firm B's submission
Affected parties
All other competing firms
City procurement authority
Engineer A
Firm B
General public
Confidence
0.91
Importance
high
Subject
Engineer A's decision whether to accept or reject Firm B's late submission delivered to the wrong city office
Terminated by
Board determination that strict adherence to procurement rules was required and Firm B's submission should not be considered
Triggering event
Firm B's failure to deliver its Statement of Qualifications to the correct city office by the required hour
Urgency level
medium
Source Evidence
Source text
While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error, any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question.
Text references
While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error, any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question.
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 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:Firm_B_Late_Submission_Procurement_Integrity_Tension a proeth:ProcurementRuleStrictAdherencevs.HarmlessErrorTensionState,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Firm B Late Submission Procurement Integrity Tension" ;
proeth:activeperiod "From the moment Engineer A became aware that Firm B's SOQ was received late and at the wrong location through the procurement decision on whether to consider Firm B's submission" ;
proeth:affectedparties "All other competing firms",
"City procurement authority",
"Engineer A",
"Firm B",
"General public" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "State" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "99" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "99" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:sourcetext "While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error, any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question." ;
proeth:stateclass "Procurement Rule Strict Adherence vs. Harmless Error Tension State" ;
proeth:subject "Engineer A's decision whether to accept or reject Firm B's late submission delivered to the wrong city office" ;
proeth:terminatedby "Board determination that strict adherence to procurement rules was required and Firm B's submission should not be considered" ;
proeth:textreferences "While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error, any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question.",
"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:triggeringevent "Firm B's failure to deliver its Statement of Qualifications to the correct city office by the required hour" ;
proeth:urgencylevel "medium" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 99 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T23:08:45.583651"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 99 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
99
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00
First case
99
Generated
2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00
Attributed to
Case 99 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-27T23:08:45.583651
Generated by
ProEthica Case 99 Extraction