Misdirected Submittal Non-Acceptance — City Manager Office Receipt
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#Misdirected_Submittal_Non-Acceptance_—_City_Manager_Office_Receipt
Properties
Instance of
MisdirectedSubmittalNon-AcceptanceObligationinPublicProcurement
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#MisdirectedSubmittalNon-AcceptanceObligationinPublicProcurement
Applied to
Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
Balancing with
Harmless Error Non-Exception in Public Procurement Compliance
Concrete expression
The city manager's administrative assistant received Firm B's submittal at the city manager's office at 2:05 pm — after the deadline and at the wrong location — creating an obligation on Engineer A not to treat this as a compliant submission even though it arrived within the same governmental entity
Confidence
0.91
Importance
high
Interpretation
Delivery to the wrong office within the same governmental entity does not constitute compliance with the published submission location requirement; the designated submission location is a material procurement term
Invoked by
City Manager Administrative Assistant Submittal Intermediary
Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
Tension resolution
The Board confirmed that the misdirected submittal could not be accepted, notwithstanding the absence of nefarious intent
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
Text references
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
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
TTL
@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#> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#Misdirected_Submittal_Non-Acceptance_—_City_Manager_Office_Receipt> a proeth:MisdirectedSubmittalNon-AcceptanceObligationinPublicProcurement,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Misdirected Submittal Non-Acceptance — City Manager Office Receipt" ;
proeth:appliedto "Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Harmless Error Non-Exception in Public Procurement Compliance" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The city manager's administrative assistant received Firm B's submittal at the city manager's office at 2:05 pm — after the deadline and at the wrong location — creating an obligation on Engineer A not to treat this as a compliant submission even though it arrived within the same governmental entity" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "99" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "99" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Delivery to the wrong office within the same governmental entity does not constitute compliance with the published submission location requirement; the designated submission location is a material procurement term" ;
proeth:invokedby "City Manager Administrative Assistant Submittal Intermediary",
"Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact" ;
proeth:principleclass "Misdirected Submittal Non-Acceptance Obligation in Public Procurement" ;
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" ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The Board confirmed that the misdirected submittal could not be accepted, notwithstanding the absence of nefarious intent" ;
proeth:textreferences "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",
"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" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 99 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T23:08:45.589943"^^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
2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
First case
99
Generated
2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
Attributed to
Case 99 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-27T23:08:45.589943
Generated by
ProEthica Case 99 Extraction