ProEthica Case 117 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.939013
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Antitrust and First Amendment Reshaping
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Antitrust_Law_Compliance_Constraint
activates constraint: First_Amendment_Speech_Protection_For_Engineers
activates constraint: NSPE_Code_Current_Version_Applies
causes state change: The operative ethical and legal framework for the case is established; parties cannot rely on pre-reform ethics code provisions; competitive procurement and public selection processes are the governing norm
concept category: Event
creates obligation: All_Parties_Must_Comply_With_Current_NSPE_Code_As_Shaped_By_Law
creates obligation: Analysis_Must_Apply_Post_Reform_Ethical_Standards
emergency status: low
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Over the 40 years preceding the present case; background condition established before case events begin
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: low
comment: Over the preceding 40 years, antitrust rulings and First Amendment decisions fundamentally altered the landscape of engineering ethics codes, particularly restricting prohibitions on competitive bidding and fee advertising. This exogenous historical event defines the legal and ethical environment within which all parties in the present case operate.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.939772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Antitrust and First Amendment Reshaping → Verbal Promise Conveyed (undermined enforceability)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Over the preceding 40 years, antitrust rulings and First Amendment decisions fundamentally altered the legal and ethical landscape governing professional engineering selection, reshaping the context in which Engineer C's verbal promise and the speculative retention arrangement must be evaluated
cause: Antitrust and First Amendment Reshaping
counterfactual: Without these legal and regulatory changes, the speculative retention and verbal promise of future selection might have been considered standard professional practice rather than potentially problematic arrangements; the ethical analysis of all parties' conduct would differ substantially
effect: Verbal Promise Conveyed (undermined enforceability)
necessary factors: Decades of antitrust litigation targeting professional fee schedules and non-competitive selection practices
necessary factors: First Amendment rulings affecting engineers' rights to solicit and advertise services
necessary factors: The original promise and speculative arrangement having been made under an older professional norms regime
necessary factors: The passage of sufficient time for these legal changes to become embedded in professional codes and municipal procurement practices
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: No single agent, systemic/legal evolution
sufficient factors: Accumulated antitrust precedents + First Amendment rulings + time elapsed together were sufficient to render the original speculative arrangement and verbal promise ethically and legally ambiguous under contemporary standards
within agent control: false
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.964497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance — Engineer C Verbal Promise to Engineer A's Firm
type: AppearanceofImproprietyAvoidanceinPublicProcurementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C's verbal promise to Engineer A's firm, made in recognition of grant-securing services, creates an appearance of impropriety that undermines the integrity of City X's public procurement process.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained from making any informal verbal promise of future contract award to Engineer A's firm, as such a promise — even if well-intentioned as recognition of prior service — creates an appearance of favoritism and preferential treatment that is ethically impermissible in public procurement regardless of benign subjective intent.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
temporalscope: At the time the verbal promise was made and for the duration of any future procurement involving Engineer A's firm
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.954263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

BER Case Precedent - Public Procurement Promise
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Cases on Public Procurement and Verbal Commitments
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:14.520368+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:14.520368+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
usedby: Ethics reviewers analyzing Engineer A and Engineer C conduct
usedincontext: Prior BER decisions addressing the ethical propriety of verbal promises or informal commitments by public officials to award future engineering contracts, providing analogical reasoning for evaluating Engineer C's promise and Engineer A's response
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.944565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Case 117 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 4
event count: 4
total elements: 8
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.964837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

CausalLink_Retain Engineer B for Design
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

CausalLink_Retain Firm Speculatively
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

CausalLink_Submit Federal Grant Applicati
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

CausalLink_Verbally Promise Future Select
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

City X Future Engineering Contract — Minimum Public Announcement and Open Opportunity Requirement
type: PublicProcurementMinimumPublicAnnouncementandOpenOpportunityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER establishes that regardless of the specific procurement method used in City X, the minimum irreducible requirement of public announcement and open competition was violated by Engineer C's pre-selection promise to Engineer A.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer C; City X procurement authority
constraintclass: Public Procurement Minimum Public Announcement and Open Opportunity Constraint
constraintstatement: Any method of selecting an engineering firm for the future City X project must, at minimum, include a public announcement of the opportunity and a free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered — a minimum floor that Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise entirely bypassed.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: City X procurement laws and regulations (assumed); BER interpretive principle on minimum procurement standards
sourcetext: Regardless of the method of professional selection utilized in City X, one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract
temporalscope: Applicable to the future City X engineering project referenced in Engineer C's verbal promise
textreferences: Regardless of the method of professional selection utilized in City X, one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.962825
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

City X Municipal Infrastructure Client
type: MunicipalInfrastructureClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'project_type': 'Wastewater treatment equipment upgrades', 'funding_source': 'Federal grant'}
caseinvolvement: City X is the public municipal client that obtains a federal grant for wastewater treatment equipment upgrades and retains engineering services for the design of those upgrades, bearing obligations of lawful and impartial procurement of engineering services.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:27.599255+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:27.599255+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'benefits_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Grant Procurement Consulting Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer B Civil Engineer Grant-Coordinating Prime Consultant'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Municipal Infrastructure Client
sourcetext: assist City X in applying for a federal grant for certain wastewater treatment equipment upgrades for the city's wastewater treatment facility
textreferences: City X obtains the grant
textreferences: Engineer B is retained to design the waste water equipment upgrades
textreferences: assist City X in applying for a federal grant for certain wastewater treatment equipment upgrades for the city's wastewater treatment facility
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.947217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

City X Procurement Authority — Competitive Process Enforcement Obligation Constraint
type: PublicProcurementProceduralComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER assumes City X procurement laws were in place and that Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise violated those laws by bypassing the required competitive selection process.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer C; City X procurement authority
constraintclass: Public Procurement Procedural Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: City X public engineering contracts must be awarded only through formally mandated competitive qualification-based selection processes that comply with applicable procurement laws and regulations — prohibiting sole-source or pre-committed awards that bypass statutory procurement procedures, regardless of the prior relationship between the public official and the firm.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: City X public procurement laws and regulations (assumed in force); NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: For purposes of this case, this Board is assuming that public procurement laws and regulations were in place that outlined the policies and the procedures for selecting an engineering firm
temporalscope: Throughout all City X engineering procurement activities, including the future project referenced by Engineer C's verbal promise
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X
textreferences: For purposes of this case, this Board is assuming that public procurement laws and regulations were in place that outlined the policies and the procedures for selecting an engineering firm
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.964276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

City X Procurement Law Primacy — Full Force and Effect Despite Antitrust Code Modifications
type: ProcurementLawPrimacyOverAntitrust-ModifiedCodeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER grounds its analysis in the principle that procurement law primacy is the fundamental outcome of antitrust actions — meaning Engineer C's verbal promise must be evaluated against applicable procurement law, not merely against the reduced scope of NSPE code guidance.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer C; City X procurement authority; Engineer A
constraintclass: Procurement Law Primacy Over Antitrust-Modified Code Constraint
constraintstatement: Federal, state, and local procurement laws governing the selection of engineering firms for City X projects remain in full force and effect and are not diminished by antitrust-driven modifications to the NSPE Code of Ethics.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Federal, state, and local procurement statutes; BER interpretive principle
sourcetext: among one of the most fundamental outcomes of these antitrust actions and rules was the basic principle that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect
temporalscope: Throughout all City X engineering procurement activities
textreferences: among one of the most fundamental outcomes of these antitrust actions and rules was the basic principle that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect
textreferences: the Board believes that this case should be viewed in light of that basic principle
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.962371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

City X Public Procurement Laws and Regulations
type: Qualification-BasedSelectionProcurementLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: City X / applicable governmental authority
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: City X Public Procurement Laws and Regulations for Engineering Services
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:45:07.414042+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:45:07.414042+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
sourcetext: this Board is assuming that public procurement laws and regulations were in place that outlined the policies and the procedures for selecting an engineering firm
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X
textreferences: this Board is assuming that public procurement laws and regulations were in place that outlined the policies and the procedures for selecting an engineering firm
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer C's conduct
usedincontext: The Board assumes public procurement laws and regulations were in place in City X governing the policies and procedures for selecting an engineering firm; Engineer C's verbal promise is evaluated as a subversion of these laws
version: Current (assumed in force)
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.940960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Competitive Procurement Fairness — Engineer C City X Future Contract Promise
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C verbally promised to select Engineer A's firm on a future City X engineering project in recognition of the firm's speculative grant-securing work, bypassing competitive procurement requirements.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C, as chief city engineer with procurement authority over City X engineering contracts, was constrained from making any verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm for a future project, as all qualified firms must have equal opportunity to compete through open, advertised qualification-based selection processes.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; City X public procurement laws and regulations; Public Procurement Open Competition Requirement
sourcetext: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
temporalscope: At the time of and following the verbal promise made to Engineer A's firm
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.953811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was not ethical for Engineer C to promise to select Engineer A’s firm on a future engineering project for City X.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.637725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer C's verbal promise was unethical, Engineer A bore an independent ethical obligation to refuse or disavow the promise upon receiving it. The NSPE Code's requirement that engineers conduct themselves honorably and avoid improper competitive methods applies symmetrically to both the party making and the party accepting an improper pre-selection commitment. By acquiescing to or continuing to rely on Engineer C's verbal promise without objecting, disclosing the arrangement, or requesting that any future City X project be awarded through a proper competitive process, Engineer A participated in the same structural subversion of procurement integrity that the Board condemned in Engineer C. The speculative, at-risk nature of Engineer A's grant work — while genuinely meritorious — does not create an entitlement to preferential future consideration, and Engineer A's professional sophistication as a firm principal should have made the impropriety of the arrangement apparent. Honorable professional conduct required Engineer A to affirmatively reject the improper advantage, not merely to refrain from soliciting it.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.641125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: I.6.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer C's promise was unethical applies with equal force regardless of whether the promise was verbal or written, and regardless of Engineer C's benevolent intent. From a deontological standpoint, the ethical violation inheres in the act of pre-committing a public procurement outcome to a specific firm before any qualification assessment, competitive announcement, or deliberative selection process has occurred — not in the formality of the instrument used to convey that commitment. A verbal promise by a chief city engineer carries the same structural harm to procurement integrity as a written one: it forecloses fair competition, creates a conflict of interest in Engineer C's future procurement decisions, and signals to other qualified firms that the opportunity is effectively closed. Engineer C's gratitude toward Engineer A's speculative contribution, while understandable as a human impulse, cannot serve as an ethical justification for bypassing the competitive process. Good intent does not neutralize structural procurement harm, and the Board's reasoning implicitly recognizes that the spirit and intent of public procurement law — not merely its formal procedural requirements — govern the ethical analysis.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.641523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: I.6.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: Even if Engineer C had subsequently disclosed the verbal promise to City X's governing body and recused himself from the future procurement decision, such remedial steps — while ethically preferable to silence — would not fully cure the ethical violation already committed. The promise itself, once made, created a structural distortion in the procurement environment: Engineer A's firm would enter any subsequent competitive process with knowledge of a prior commitment from the chief city engineer, other firms would compete without awareness of that advantage, and the integrity of the qualification-based selection process would be compromised at its foundation. Disclosure and recusal address the conflict of interest prospectively but cannot retroactively restore the competitive equality that the promise destroyed. The Board's conclusion therefore implies that the ethical obligation runs not only to avoiding the consequences of the promise but to never issuing the promise in the first instance — a categorical prohibition that no subsequent remediation can fully satisfy. This analysis also underscores that Engineer C's ethical duty was to sequence procurement correctly: qualification assessment and open competition must precede any selection commitment, not follow it.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.641598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Engineer A bore an independent ethical obligation to reject or at minimum not acquiesce to Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise. The NSPE Code's requirement that engineers conduct themselves honorably and avoid improper competitive methods is not passive — it imposes an affirmative duty on the beneficiary of an improper arrangement, not merely on its architect. By accepting or silently relying on the promise, Engineer A effectively participated in the subversion of the same public procurement integrity that the Code is designed to protect. The fact that the advantage arose unsolicited does not extinguish Engineer A's obligation; honorable professional conduct requires rejecting improper competitive advantages regardless of their origin. Engineer A's speculative contribution to the grant application, while genuine, does not create a license to benefit from procurement irregularities, and Engineer A's failure to object or disclose the arrangement compounds rather than mitigates the ethical harm.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.641679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: I.6.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Engineer A's speculative, at-risk contribution to securing the federal grant for City X does not create any legitimate basis for preferential consideration in future City X procurements. The public procurement context categorically extinguishes any such entitlement, regardless of the genuine merit or value of Engineer A's prior service. Public procurement law and engineering ethics both operate on the principle that past favorable performance — even performance rendered at personal financial risk — cannot be converted into a private claim on future public contracts outside of a competitive or qualification-based selection process. To hold otherwise would create a perverse incentive structure in which speculative contributions to public projects become informal currency for bypassing competitive procurement, directly undermining the public interest that procurement integrity is designed to serve. The merit of Engineer A's prior work is properly recognized through reputation, references, and qualifications submitted in an open competitive process — not through a private verbal promise from a public official.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.641765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: Once Engineer C had made the verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A's firm, he incurred an immediate and continuing obligation to disclose that promise to City X's procurement authority and to recuse himself from any future procurement decision involving Engineer A's firm. The conflict of interest created by the promise did not dissolve with time or inaction — it persisted and would have materially tainted any subsequent procurement decision in which Engineer C participated. Disclosure and recusal are the minimum remedial steps required by the principles of professional accountability and the avoidance of the appearance of impropriety. However, disclosure and recusal alone would not retroactively render the promise itself ethical; the promise remained an independent ethical violation regardless of subsequent remedial action. The Board's conclusion that the promise was unethical is therefore not contingent on whether Engineer C later disclosed or recused — the violation was complete at the moment the promise was made.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.642250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: The informal, verbal nature of Engineer C's pre-selection promise does not mitigate its ethical severity relative to a written pre-award commitment. The NSPE Code's ethical standards are grounded in principles of honesty, integrity, and public welfare — none of which are contingent on the documentary form of a commitment. A verbal promise from a public official with procurement authority is ethically equivalent to a written one in its capacity to distort competitive procurement, create a conflict of interest, and undermine the public's confidence in the integrity of the selection process. Indeed, the informality of a verbal promise may aggravate rather than mitigate the ethical harm, because it is less visible to oversight mechanisms and more difficult for other stakeholders to detect and challenge. The Board's conclusion that the promise was unethical is therefore fully applicable regardless of whether the commitment was oral or written.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.642331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: There is a genuine but ultimately resolvable tension between the principle that public welfare is paramount — which underlies procurement integrity — and the principle of honesty applied to Engineer A's situation. Engineer A's honest acknowledgment of a real, at-risk contribution to the grant process might superficially appear to justify some form of recognition. However, the resolution of this tension is clear: procurement integrity is itself an expression of the public welfare principle, not a competing value. Allowing informal pre-selection as a form of recognition for past speculative service would corrode the very system that protects the public from favoritism and inefficiency in public contracting. Honesty, properly understood, requires Engineer A to acknowledge both the legitimacy of the contribution and the illegitimacy of the mechanism chosen to recognize it. The two principles do not genuinely conflict — they converge on the conclusion that Engineer A's contribution deserved acknowledgment through proper channels, not through procurement bypass.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.642444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: The antitrust-constrained scope of the NSPE Code creates a structural tension with the Board's competition-based ethical conclusions, but this tension does not undermine the Board's analysis. Following U.S. Department of Justice antitrust actions and Supreme Court First Amendment rulings, NSPE removed provisions that directly regulated competitive conduct such as competitive bidding prohibitions. However, the ethical obligation to preserve free and open competition in public procurement does not derive solely from NSPE Code provisions — it is independently grounded in public procurement law, public official conflict of interest standards, and the overarching Code principle that engineers must act in the public interest. The antitrust constraint limits NSPE's ability to regulate engineer-to-engineer competitive conduct, but it does not and cannot immunize a public official's abuse of procurement authority from ethical scrutiny. Engineer C's conduct is ethically impermissible not because it violates a competition-regulation provision of the Code, but because it violates the foundational duties of honesty, public welfare, and honorable conduct that remain fully intact after antitrust modifications.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.637834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: Engineer C's benevolent intent — recognizing Engineer A's genuine contribution to the grant process — does not mitigate the ethical violation created by the pre-selection promise. From a professional accountability standpoint, the structural harm to procurement integrity is identical whether the pre-selection promise arises from corrupt self-dealing or from well-intentioned gratitude. Public procurement systems are designed to be objective and process-driven precisely because subjective judgments — even benevolent ones — by individual officials cannot be reliably distinguished from biased ones by outside observers or competing firms. The Board should weigh intent as contextually relevant to understanding the conduct but not as a factor that diminishes the ethical severity of the outcome. Good intent is a mitigating consideration in assessing Engineer C's character, but it is not a defense to the ethical violation itself. The principle that good intent does not justify procurement promises is a necessary bright-line rule to prevent the gradual erosion of procurement integrity through well-meaning exceptions.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.637917
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: I.6.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: The possibility that Engineer A's firm might genuinely be the most qualified firm for the future City X project does not render Engineer C's pre-selection promise ethically permissible. Strict procedural procurement integrity must override a substantively meritorious outcome in this context, for two reasons. First, the merit of Engineer A's firm for the future project cannot be assessed at the time the promise is made — it is speculative, and the promise is made without any qualification assessment of competing firms. Second, and more fundamentally, the value of competitive procurement lies not only in selecting the best firm but in demonstrating to the public, to competing firms, and to the broader profession that selection decisions are made impartially. A pre-selection promise, even one that happens to identify the most qualified firm, destroys this demonstrative value and creates a precedent that public officials may bypass process whenever they are confident in their preferred outcome. The ethical rule must therefore be categorical: procurement integrity is not subject to a merit-balancing exception.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.637987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer C violated a categorical duty to uphold impartial public procurement by issuing the verbal pre-selection promise, regardless of intent or outcome. The duty of a public official with procurement authority to conduct impartial selection processes is not a consequentialist rule that can be overridden when outcomes appear favorable — it is a deontological constraint grounded in the nature of the public trust Engineer C holds. Engineer C's role as chief city engineer creates a fiduciary-like obligation to City X and its citizens that is incompatible with private pre-commitments to any particular firm. The verbal promise constituted a unilateral appropriation of public procurement authority for a private purpose — recognition of a personal professional relationship — which is categorically impermissible regardless of the benevolence of the motive. The deontological analysis thus fully supports and deepens the Board's conclusion.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638080
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: I.6.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer C's verbal promise produced net harm to the public interest even if it was never formally acted upon. The harm is not limited to the direct distortion of a specific procurement outcome — it extends to the systemic effects of the promise itself. Other qualified engineering firms were effectively deterred from a fair opportunity to compete for the future City X project from the moment the promise was made. Engineer C's own decision-making capacity was compromised by the conflict of interest the promise created, reducing the quality of future procurement judgments. The promise, if known, would erode public confidence in City X's procurement system. And if unknown, it created an invisible structural bias that could not be corrected by other oversight mechanisms. Even under a consequentialist framework that is sensitive to outcomes, the aggregate harms of normalizing informal pre-selection promises in public procurement vastly outweigh any benefit derived from recognizing Engineer A's contribution through this mechanism.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer C failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and impartiality expected of a chief city engineer. The virtues most relevant to Engineer C's role are fairness, impartiality, practical wisdom, and accountability — all of which are constitutive of what it means to be a trustworthy public official. Engineer C's decision to allow gratitude toward Engineer A's speculative grant work to override these virtues reflects a failure of practical wisdom: the inability to recognize that a benevolent impulse, when expressed through an abuse of procurement authority, becomes an ethical violation. A virtuous chief city engineer would have found appropriate ways to acknowledge Engineer A's contribution — public recognition, a letter of commendation, ensuring Engineer A's firm was aware of and invited to participate in future competitive processes — without compromising the impartiality of the procurement function. The virtue ethics analysis thus identifies not merely a rule violation but a character failure in Engineer C's exercise of professional judgment.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's acquiescence to Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise fell short of the professional honesty and integrity the NSPE Code demands. A virtuous engineer, upon receiving an unsolicited promise of future contract selection from a public official, would recognize the impropriety of the arrangement and decline it — not because declining is strategically advantageous, but because honorable professional conduct is intrinsically valued. Engineer A's failure to object or disclose reflects either an insufficient appreciation of the ethical dimensions of public procurement or a willingness to subordinate professional integrity to commercial self-interest. Either way, it represents a departure from the virtue of honesty as applied to competitive conduct. The virtue ethics framework thus supports the implicit conclusion that Engineer A bore independent ethical responsibility for the arrangement, complementing the Board's explicit focus on Engineer C's conduct.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.642790
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: Engineer C's conduct would have been ethical if, instead of issuing a verbal pre-selection promise, he had publicly acknowledged Engineer A's contribution and then ensured Engineer A's firm received fair consideration through a properly announced, open qualification-based selection process for the future City X project. This counterfactual identifies the precise ethical boundary: recognition of past service is not inherently impermissible, but the mechanism of recognition must be consistent with procurement integrity. Public acknowledgment, invitation to compete, and fair evaluation within a proper process would have honored Engineer A's contribution without distorting the competitive environment or creating a conflict of interest. This counterfactual also clarifies that the ethical violation in the actual case was not Engineer C's gratitude but his choice to express that gratitude through a procurement commitment rather than through legitimate means.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.642920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: Had Engineer A explicitly refused Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise and requested that any future City X project be awarded through a proper competitive or qualification-based selection process, Engineer A's ethical standing would have been fully preserved and the harm to procurement integrity would have been substantially mitigated. Engineer A's refusal would have constituted an affirmative act of professional integrity that not only protected Engineer A's own ethical position but also served the broader public interest by preventing the pre-selection arrangement from taking effect. While Engineer C's initial promise would remain an ethical violation regardless of Engineer A's response, Engineer A's refusal would have prevented the arrangement from persisting and would have signaled to Engineer C that the promise was inappropriate. This counterfactual reinforces the conclusion that Engineer A bore an independent ethical obligation to reject the promise, and that the failure to do so was itself ethically significant.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.643073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: I.6.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: Even if Engineer A's firm had performed the speculative grant work under a formal written agreement directly with City X rather than through Engineer B, this would not have created a legitimate basis for preferential consideration in future procurements sufficient to justify Engineer C's pre-selection promise. A formal contractual relationship with City X would have established Engineer A's firm as a known and experienced contractor, which is relevant to qualifications — but qualifications are properly assessed within a competitive or qualification-based selection process, not converted into a private pre-commitment by a public official. The existence of a prior contract might legitimately inform City X's evaluation of Engineer A's firm in a future competitive process, but it cannot substitute for that process. The ethical analysis would therefore not change in any material respect: Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise would remain impermissible regardless of the formal or informal nature of Engineer A's prior engagement with the city.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.643177
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: Even if Engineer C had disclosed the verbal promise to City X's governing body and recused himself from the future procurement decision, this disclosure and recusal would not have been sufficient to remedy the ethical violation — the promise itself would remain an irreparable ethical breach. Disclosure and recusal are necessary but not sufficient responses once a pre-selection promise has been made. The promise, once conveyed to Engineer A's firm, has already distorted the competitive environment: Engineer A's firm now possesses information about its preferred status that other competing firms do not have, creating an asymmetry that cannot be fully corrected by Engineer C's subsequent withdrawal from the process. Moreover, the promise may have influenced Engineer A's firm's decision to invest resources in pursuing the City X project, further entrenching the distortion. Disclosure and recusal are the minimum ethical obligations that arise after the promise is made, but they do not retroactively render the promise permissible or eliminate all of its harmful effects.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.643262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: I.6.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between recognizing Engineer A's legitimate speculative contribution and maintaining categorical procurement integrity was resolved decisively in favor of procurement integrity, with no residual weight given to merit-based equities. The Board's reasoning implicitly establishes a hierarchy in which the principle that public welfare is paramount — as expressed through open, competitive procurement — overrides any principle of fairness or recognition owed to an engineer for prior at-risk service. This resolution teaches that in public procurement contexts, the mechanism of selection is not merely procedural but is itself a substantive public interest requirement: even a genuinely meritorious firm cannot receive preferential treatment through informal pre-selection, because the harm to the procurement system's integrity is independent of whether the selected firm would have won a fair competition. The case thus subordinates individual equitable claims to systemic procurement integrity as a categorical rule, not a balancing test.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.643457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The principle of professional accountability applied to Engineer C's abuse of procurement authority and the principle that good intent does not justify structural procurement harm were not in tension — they were mutually reinforcing. The Board's implicit reasoning treats Engineer C's benevolent motive as ethically irrelevant to the wrongfulness of the pre-selection promise. This synthesis teaches a critical lesson about the ethics of public office: the structural harm caused by bypassing competitive procurement is the same whether the bypassing official acts from corrupt self-interest or from genuine gratitude. Intent may be relevant to moral culpability in other contexts, but in public procurement ethics, the act of pre-committing a public contract outside proper process is itself the violation, regardless of the purity of the official's motivation. Engineer C's capability to resist procurement rationalization — the temptation to justify the promise as a reasonable reward — was the precise professional virtue the Code demanded, and its absence constitutes the ethical failure.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.643575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 1
cites provision: I 6
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The antitrust-constrained scope of the NSPE Code creates a latent but significant tension with the principle of free and open competition that the Board otherwise treats as foundational to procurement ethics. Because antitrust rulings and First Amendment constraints have limited NSPE's ability to directly regulate competitive conduct — particularly around engineer selection and compensation — the Code's competition-based ethical obligations in the procurement context must be grounded in public welfare and honorable conduct provisions rather than explicit competitive practice rules. This means the enforceability of the anti-pre-selection norm depends on general provisions such as the duty to conduct oneself honorably and lawfully, rather than on specific competitive conduct prohibitions. The case teaches that where antitrust constraints erode the Code's direct regulatory reach over competition, the Board must rely on broader ethical principles — public welfare, honesty, and professional accountability — to carry the normative weight that more specific competition rules cannot. This structural gap does not weaken the ethical conclusion, but it does reveal that the Code's competition-protecting function in public procurement is sustained by principle synthesis rather than explicit rule application, making the Board's reasoning more dependent on the coherence of its underlying ethical framework than on textual specificity.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.643675
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Convenience-Based Sole Source Prohibition — Engineer C City X Future Contract
type: Convenience-BasedSoleSourceProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm effectively pre-commits a sole-source award based on prior relationship and appreciation rather than competitive merit, which is prohibited under public procurement norms.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Convenience-Based Sole Source Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained from justifying a non-competitive, sole-source award of a future City X engineering contract to Engineer A's firm on the basis of familiarity, prior relationship, or appreciation for speculative grant services, when statutory procurement procedures mandate competitive qualification-based selection.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: City X public procurement laws; NSPE Code of Ethics procurement provisions
sourcetext: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
temporalscope: For any future City X engineering procurement following the verbal promise
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.954496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer C issue a verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A's firm for a future City X project, or refrain from any pre-commitment and ensure selection proceeds through a formal competitive qualification-based process?
focus: Engineer C, as chief city engineer of City X with procurement authority, faces the decision of whether to verbally promise Engineer A's firm future contract selection as recognition for Engineer A's speculative grant work, or to channel any recognition through proper procurement processes.
option1: Verbally promise Engineer A's firm selection on the future City X project as recognition for the speculative grant contribution, treating the informal commitment as a reasonable reward outside formal procurement channels.
option2: Publicly acknowledge Engineer A's contribution through commendation or public recognition, then ensure Engineer A's firm is invited to participate in a properly announced, open qualification-based selection process for the future project — without any pre-commitment to the outcome.
option3: Make no promise or acknowledgment to Engineer A regarding future projects, and refer all future City X engineering contract decisions to a formal procurement process administered without Engineer C's personal involvement, given the prior relationship.
role label: Engineer C
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A accept or acquiesce to Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise as recognition for prior speculative grant work, or affirmatively decline the promise and request that any future City X project be awarded through a proper competitive or qualification-based selection process?
focus: Engineer A, upon receiving Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise, must decide whether to accept or acquiesce to the promise as legitimate recognition for speculative grant work, or to affirmatively reject it and insist on participation in a proper competitive process.
option1: Accept or silently acquiesce to Engineer C's verbal promise, treating it as reasonable recognition for genuine at-risk speculative service rendered to City X, and structure business expectations around the anticipated future award.
option2: Affirmatively decline or repudiate Engineer C's verbal promise and explicitly request that any future City X project be awarded through a properly announced, open qualification-based selection process in which Engineer A's firm will compete on equal terms with other qualified firms.
option3: Neither formally accept nor explicitly reject the promise, but refrain from actively relying upon it or structuring business decisions around it, treating the verbal commitment as non-binding while awaiting a formal procurement announcement before investing resources in pursuit of the project.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639426
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: After making the verbal pre-selection promise, should Engineer C disclose the promise to City X's procurement authority and recuse himself from future procurement decisions involving Engineer A's firm, or allow the procurement to proceed without disclosure or recusal?
focus: Engineer C, having already made the verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A's firm, must decide whether to disclose the promise to City X's governing procurement authority and recuse himself from future procurement decisions involving Engineer A's firm, or to allow the procurement to proceed without disclosure.
option1: Immediately disclose the verbal pre-selection promise to City X's governing body and procurement authority, recuse himself from all future procurement decisions involving Engineer A's firm, and ensure the future project proceeds through an open competitive qualification-based process administered by a different official.
option2: Allow the future procurement to proceed under Engineer C's authority without disclosing the prior verbal promise, treating the informal commitment as a private matter that does not rise to the level of a formal conflict of interest requiring disclosure under City X's procurement regulations.
option3: Quietly withdraw from the future procurement decision by delegating it to another official without formally disclosing the prior verbal promise to City X's governing body, treating recusal alone as sufficient to cure the conflict of interest without creating a public record of the improper promise.
role label: Engineer C
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A treat the speculative grant contribution as creating a legitimate basis for preferential consideration in future City X procurements, or acknowledge that public procurement integrity categorically forecloses any such entitlement regardless of the genuine merit of the prior service?
focus: The board must determine whether Engineer A's speculative, at-risk contribution to securing the federal grant for City X creates any legitimate basis for preferential consideration in future City X procurements, or whether the public procurement context categorically extinguishes any such entitlement regardless of the merit of the prior service.
option1: Treat the speculative grant contribution as creating a legitimate basis for preferential consideration in future City X procurements, accepting Engineer C's promise as a reasonable recognition of genuine at-risk service and structuring expectations around that entitlement.
option2: Acknowledge that the speculative contribution creates no entitlement to preferential selection, decline any informal pre-selection arrangement, and compete for the future City X project through a properly announced open qualification-based process — leveraging the prior grant work only as a qualification reference within that process.
option3: Request that City X formally evaluate whether its procurement regulations permit a continuity-of-service or demonstrated-familiarity preference that could legitimately weight Engineer A's prior grant work within a formal qualification assessment process, rather than relying on an informal verbal promise.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should the board ground its condemnation of Engineer C's pre-selection promise in the NSPE Code's antitrust-constrained competition provisions, or rely instead on the foundational Code principles of public welfare, honesty, and honorable conduct — together with independent procurement law — to sustain the ethical prohibition against pre-selection?
focus: The board must address whether the antitrust-constrained scope of the NSPE Code — which removed explicit competitive conduct provisions following DOJ antitrust actions and First Amendment rulings — weakens the ethical enforceability of competition-based obligations against Engineer C's pre-selection promise, or whether foundational Code principles of public welfare, honesty, and honorable conduct independently sustain the anti-pre-selection norm.
option1: Base the ethical condemnation of Engineer C's promise primarily on whatever competition-related Code provisions survived antitrust modification, accepting that the Board's authority to regulate competitive procurement conduct is correspondingly limited in scope and enforceability.
option2: Ground the ethical condemnation of Engineer C's promise in the foundational Code principles of public welfare, honesty, and honorable conduct — which remain fully intact after antitrust modifications — together with the independent authority of applicable federal, state, and local procurement laws, without relying on removed competition-specific provisions.
option3: Explicitly acknowledge that the antitrust-constrained Code creates a structural gap in direct competition regulation, decline to extend Code analysis into that gap, and defer entirely to applicable procurement law as the operative ethical standard — treating the Code's role as supplementary rather than primary in this procurement context.
role label: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639718
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should the board treat Engineer C's benevolent intent as a mitigating factor that reduces the ethical severity of the pre-selection promise, or apply a categorical bright-line rule under which good intent provides no defense to structural procurement harm regardless of the purity of the official's motivation?
focus: The board must determine how to weigh Engineer C's benevolent intent — genuine gratitude for Engineer A's speculative contribution — against the structural harm to procurement integrity caused by the pre-selection promise, and whether good intent constitutes any mitigation of the ethical violation or whether procurement ethics demands a categorical bright-line rule independent of intent.
option1: Recognize Engineer C's benevolent intent as a meaningful mitigating factor that reduces the ethical severity of the pre-selection promise, distinguishing gratitude-driven pre-selection from corrupt self-dealing and applying a less categorical condemnation that acknowledges the human reasonableness of the gesture.
option2: Apply a categorical bright-line rule under which good intent provides no defense to structural procurement harm — condemning Engineer C's promise as a full ethical violation regardless of the purity of the motivation, because the structural harm to competitive procurement integrity is identical whether the promise arises from gratitude or corruption.
option3: Treat the pre-selection promise as a full ethical rule violation while distinguishing the character assessment — acknowledging that Engineer C's benevolent motive is relevant to evaluating professional character and culpability even though it does not eliminate the procurement integrity violation itself.
role label: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Firm Client Relationship with Engineer B
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From initial retention through grant application completion
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A's firm
affectedparties: Engineer B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:23.750941+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:23.750941+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Professional relationship between Engineer A's firm and Engineer B (acting on behalf of City X)
terminatedby: Completion of grant application work; Engineer B retained separately for design
textreferences: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant
triggeringevent: Engineer B retains Engineer A's firm to assist with grant application
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.945771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Grant Procurement Consulting Engineer
type: GrantProcurementConsultingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied as firm principal)', 'specialty': 'Mechanical and electrical engineering', 'firm_size': 'Medium-sized', 'engagement_basis': 'Speculative'}
caseinvolvement: Principal of a medium-sized mechanical/electrical engineering firm retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B to assist City X in applying for a federal grant for wastewater treatment equipment upgrades; later verbally promised a future city project by Engineer C as recognition for the grant work.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:27.599255+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:27.599255+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'receives_promise_from', 'target': 'Engineer C Chief City Engineer Procurement Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Civil Engineer Grant-Coordinating Prime Consultant'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'City X Municipal Infrastructure Client'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Grant Procurement Consulting Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm with expertise in mechanical and electrical engineering
textreferences: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm with expertise in mechanical and electrical engineering
textreferences: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.944866
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Honorable Procurement Conduct Pre-Selection Arrangement
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to conduct the firm honorably and fairly in all procurement-related matters, including by declining Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise and insisting that any future City X contract be awarded through proper competitive procurement processes.
casecontext: Engineer A received an informal pre-selection promise from Engineer C and was obligated to decline it to maintain honorable procurement conduct.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A's firm accepted the verbal pre-selection promise rather than declining it on honorable procurement conduct grounds.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.952828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Acceptance City X
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to conduct the firm honorably and fairly in all procurement-related matters, including declining or repudiating Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise rather than acquiescing to or relying upon it.
casecontext: Engineer A's acceptance of the verbal pre-selection promise was inconsistent with honorable procurement conduct and the spirit of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A's firm accepted or acquiesced to the improper verbal pre-selection promise.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.960707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition Pre-Selection Promise
type: ImproperCompetitiveAdvantageRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to recognize that the verbal pre-selection promise from Engineer C created an improper competitive advantage for the firm over other qualified engineering firms that would compete for the future City X project through proper procurement channels.
casecontext: Engineer A's firm received a verbal pre-selection promise that would give it an improper competitive advantage over other firms in the future City X procurement.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A did not recognize or act upon the improper competitive advantage conferred by Engineer C's verbal promise.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.953046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Public Procurement Integrity Articulation Pre-Selection Context
type: PublicProcurementIntegrityPublicInterestArticulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Procurement Integrity Public Interest Articulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to understand and articulate the public interest rationale underlying strict public procurement rules — including that free and open competitive processes protect the public and the profession — and to apply this understanding when evaluating whether to accept or decline Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise.
casecontext: Engineer A received a verbal pre-selection promise and required understanding of public procurement integrity principles to recognize the obligation to decline it.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A did not apply public procurement integrity rationale when receiving and responding to Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.953535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Speculative At-Risk Service Entitlement Non-Inference Grant Work
type: SpeculativeAt-RiskServiceEntitlementNon-InferenceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Speculative At-Risk Service Entitlement Non-Inference Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to recognize that the firm's successful speculative contribution to City X's federal grant application — undertaken without guarantee of compensation or future work — did not create a legitimate entitlement to future contract awards, and that any informal promise of preferential selection based on this contribution must be declined.
casecontext: Engineer A's firm provided speculative grant assistance and received a verbal pre-selection promise as recognition, which it was obligated to decline as an improper entitlement.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A's firm accepted the verbal pre-selection promise as appropriate recognition of its speculative grant contribution rather than recognizing it as an improper entitlement inference.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant
textreferences: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm
textreferences: The application is successful, City X obtains the grant
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.953319
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Speculative Grant Services Non-Entitlement — City X Future Contract
type: SpeculativeContributionNon-EntitlementtoPreferentialAwardConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's firm assisted City X in securing a federal grant without guaranteed compensation, and Engineer C subsequently promised future work as recognition — but the speculative nature of the prior services does not create a procurement entitlement that bypasses competitive selection.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement to Preferential Award Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's speculative contribution to City X's federal grant application — undertaken without guaranteed compensation — created no ethical entitlement to preferential or non-competitive award of the subsequent City X engineering contract, and any expectation of future award based on that prior speculative contribution is ethically impermissible.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; public procurement fairness norms; BER interpretive principle
sourcetext: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
temporalscope: From the completion of the speculative grant-securing services through any subsequent procurement process for the referenced City X project
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.964067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Acceptance City X
type: VerbalPre-SelectionPromiseNon-AcceptanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Acceptance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A, as principal of the engineering firm that received Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise, required the capability to recognize the promise as an improper pre-selection arrangement and to decline or actively repudiate it rather than acquiesce to or rely upon it.
casecontext: Engineer A received a verbal promise from Engineer C that the firm would be selected for a future City X engineering project as recognition for grant work.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A's firm received and apparently accepted Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise without repudiating it as an improper procurement commitment.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.952602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Acceptance Procurement Sequencing
type: Qualification-Prior-to-CommitmentProcurementSequencingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Qualification-Prior-to-Commitment Procurement Sequencing Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A, as principal of the receiving firm, was required to recognize that accepting an advance verbal promise of selection — made before any qualification review — was inconsistent with proper procurement sequencing and professional ethics obligations.
casecontext: Engineer A received a verbal promise of future selection from Engineer C without the promise being grounded in any qualification review process.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer A's firm accepted or acquiesced to Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.939381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Verbal Procurement Promise Non-Reliance — City X Future Contract
type: VerbalProcurementPromiseNon-RelianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A received a verbal pre-selection promise from Engineer C as recognition for the firm's speculative grant-securing services, but was ethically prohibited from treating that promise as a legitimate basis for expecting or claiming the future contract.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Verbal Procurement Promise Non-Reliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from relying upon or structuring business expectations around Engineer C's informal verbal promise of future City X contract award, and was required to compete for any subsequent public contract through proper competitive or qualification-based selection processes regardless of the prior verbal commitment received.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; City X procurement laws and regulations
sourcetext: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
temporalscope: From the time Engineer A received Engineer C's verbal promise through any subsequent procurement process for the referenced City X project
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.963568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A's firm retained on speculative basis for grant application before grant application success and City X obtaining the grant
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B...to assist City X in applying for a federal grant...The application is successful, City X obtains the grant.
from entity text: Engineer A's firm retained on speculative basis for grant application
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: grant application success and City X obtaining the grant
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: grant application success and City X obtaining the
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.964548
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A's grant assistance work before Engineer C's verbal promise
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
from entity text: Engineer A's grant assistance work
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer C's verbal promise
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer C s verbal promise
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.964802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer B Civil Engineer Grant-Coordinating Prime Consultant
type: CivilEngineerGrant-CoordinatingPrimeConsultant
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer — Civil', 'specialty': 'Civil engineering', 'locality': 'Local'}
caseinvolvement: Local civil engineer who retains Engineer A's firm on a speculative basis to assist City X with a federal grant application, and who is subsequently retained as the design engineer for the wastewater treatment equipment upgrades after the grant is awarded.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:27.599255+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:27.599255+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'designs_for', 'target': 'City X Municipal Infrastructure Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Grant Procurement Consulting Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'City X Municipal Infrastructure Client'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Civil Engineer Grant-Coordinating Prime Consultant
sourcetext: Engineer B, a local civil engineer
textreferences: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant
textreferences: Engineer B is retained to design the waste water equipment upgrades
textreferences: Engineer B, a local civil engineer
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.946774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer B Retained for Design
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Competitive_Selection_Requirement
activates constraint: Conflict_of_Interest_Avoidance
activates constraint: NSPE_Code_Fairness_in_Competition
activates constraint: Public_Procurement_Law_Compliance
causes state change: Engineer B transitions from grant facilitator to retained design engineer; a formal contractual relationship between Engineer B and City X is established; Engineer B's financial interest in the project is now direct and documented; the question of whether Engineer A's firm will receive any recognition becomes more acute
concept category: Event
creates obligation: City_X_Must_Document_Selection_Rationale
creates obligation: City_X_Must_Ensure_Federal_Grant_Compliance_In_Engineer_Selection
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Disclose_Prior_Speculative_Arrangement_To_City_X
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Perform_Design_Competently_And_Independently
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After grant application succeeds; before Engineer C's verbal promise
temporal sequence: 6
urgency level: medium
comment: Following the grant success, City X retains Engineer B to design the wastewater treatment upgrades, an outcome that materializes Engineer B's position from grant facilitator to compensated designer. This outcome raises questions about whether Engineer B's dual role as grant applicant and design beneficiary reflects a conflict of interest or improper advantage.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.939687
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer B retained to design wastewater upgrades meets Engineer C's verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm on a future project
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: meets
evidence: Engineer B is retained to design the waste water equipment upgrades. In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C...verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project.
from entity text: Engineer B retained to design wastewater upgrades
owl time property: time:intervalMeets
to entity text: Engineer C's verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm on a future project
comment: Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
interval meets: Engineer C s verbal promise to select Engineer A s
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.964617
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Antitrust Procurement Law Contextual Awareness City X
type: AntitrustandProcurementLawContextualAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Antitrust and Procurement Law Contextual Awareness Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C was required to understand the historical and legal context of engineering procurement law — including that antitrust actions constrained NSPE ethics code guidance but left federal, state, and local procurement laws fully operative — and to apply this understanding when evaluating the legality and ethics of his verbal pre-selection promise.
casecontext: Engineer C's conduct must be evaluated against the backdrop of antitrust rulings that constrained NSPE guidance but preserved the full force of procurement law.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The Board's analysis situating Engineer C's conduct within the antitrust-constrained but procurement-law-operative framework.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Over the past 40 years, as a result of a series of actions undertaken by the U.S. Justice Department, antitrust, and First Amendment rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, NSPE and other engineering organizations have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions.
textreferences: Among one of the most fundamental outcomes of these antitrust actions and rules was the basic principle that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect.
textreferences: Over the past 40 years, as a result of a series of actions undertaken by the U.S. Justice Department, antitrust, and First Amendment rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, NSPE and other engineering organizations have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.960942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Appearance of Impropriety — Verbal Pre-Selection Promise to Engineer A
type: AppearanceofImproprietyAvoidanceinPublicProcurementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER's analysis implicitly invokes the appearance-of-impropriety standard by characterizing Engineer C's promise as inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code, even where the motivation was appreciative rather than corrupt.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C's verbal promise to award a future City X contract to Engineer A's firm — even if motivated by genuine appreciation for prior grant-securing services — created an appearance of favoritism and impropriety in public procurement that is ethically impermissible regardless of benign intent.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; public procurement fairness norms
sourcetext: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
temporalscope: At the time of Engineer C's verbal promise and throughout any subsequent procurement process for the referenced City X project
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.963292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Procurement Promise
type: BenevolentMotiveNon-JustificationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C required the capability to recognize that the benevolent and appreciative motivation behind the verbal pre-selection promise — recognition of Engineer A's speculative grant contribution — did not render the promise ethically permissible, and that good intentions cannot justify procedurally improper procurement conduct.
casecontext: Engineer C's verbal promise was motivated by recognition of Engineer A's grant work, but this benevolent motive did not excuse the procurement impropriety.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer C issued the verbal promise motivated by genuine appreciation, without recognizing that benevolent intent does not justify bypassing competitive procurement.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.951489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment City X Future Contract
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C was required to assess whether his conduct — verbally promising future selection to Engineer A's firm — provided fair and open competitive opportunity to all qualified firms, and to recognize that it did not.
casecontext: As chief city engineer with procurement authority, Engineer C was obligated to ensure that the future City X project was awarded through open, competitive, qualification-based selection.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer C's verbal promise foreclosed competitive opportunity for other qualified firms.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Regardless of the method of professional selection utilized in City X, one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract.
textreferences: Regardless of the method of professional selection utilized in City X, one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.960049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Engineering Profession Free Competition Legal Framework Recognition City X
type: EngineeringProfessionFreeCompetitionLegalFrameworkRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Profession Free Competition Legal Framework Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C was required to recognize that engineering procurement operates within a legal framework of free and open competition — including that NSPE code provisions formerly restricting competition were removed following antitrust action — and that his verbal pre-selection promise violated this framework.
casecontext: Engineer C's verbal promise to Engineer A's firm was inconsistent with the free and open competition framework that governs engineering procurement.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The Board's framing of the case within the free competition legal framework established by antitrust rulings.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Among one of the most fundamental outcomes of these antitrust actions and rules was the basic principle that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect.
textreferences: Among one of the most fundamental outcomes of these antitrust actions and rules was the basic principle that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect.
textreferences: Regardless of the method of professional selection utilized in City X, one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.961155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification — Verbal Pre-Selection Promise City X
type: PublicOfficialGoodIntentNon-JustificationforProcurementPromiseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER's analysis establishes that even well-intentioned recognition of prior meritorious service cannot justify a procurement promise that subverts competitive fairness — the structural impropriety is the operative ethical violation, not the subjective motivation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Public Official Good Intent Non-Justification for Procurement Promise Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C's benign and appreciative motivation — recognizing Engineer A's firm for its meritorious grant-securing services — does not justify the verbal pre-selection promise, as the propriety of procurement conduct is assessed by its structural effect on competitive fairness rather than by the subjective intent of the official making the promise.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics (spirit and intent); BER interpretive principle
sourcetext: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
temporalscope: At the time Engineer C made the verbal promise to Engineer A
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.963811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation City X
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C was required to conduct himself honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all procurement-related matters — including refraining from making informal verbal pre-selection promises that disadvantage other qualified competitors through non-merit means.
casecontext: Engineer C's verbal promise to Engineer A's firm was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics governing honorable procurement conduct.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer C made a verbal pre-selection promise inconsistent with honorable procurement conduct.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.960455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Pre-Award Promise Without Qualification Assessment — City X Future Project
type: Pre-AwardQualificationAssessmentNon-BypassProcurementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C, as chief city engineer with procurement authority, verbally promised Engineer A's firm future work as recognition for grant-securing services, bypassing any qualification review or competitive process — a direct violation of procurement integrity.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Pre-Award Qualification Assessment Non-Bypass Procurement Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from verbally promising Engineer A's firm the future City X engineering contract without first conducting any assessment of qualifications, experience, and other relevant selection factors, as such a promise constitutes a subversion of procurement policies and is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics (spirit and intent); City X procurement policies and procedures
sourcetext: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
temporalscope: At the time Engineer C made the verbal promise to Engineer A
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.962585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Procurement Fairness Appearance Management City X
type: ProcurementFairnessAppearanceManagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Fairness Appearance Management Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C required the capability to recognize that verbally promising future contract selection to Engineer A's firm — even when well-intentioned as recognition of prior grant contributions — created an appearance of favoritism and improper competitive advantage that would not withstand public scrutiny.
casecontext: Engineer C, as chief city engineer with procurement authority, made a verbal pre-selection promise that created an appearance of procurement impropriety.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer C's verbal promise created an appearance of improper favoritism in City X's future procurement process.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.950923
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Procurement Fairness Appearance Management City X Verbal Promise
type: ProcurementFairnessAppearanceManagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Fairness Appearance Management Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C was required to recognize that his verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A's firm created an appearance of favoritism and impropriety in the City X procurement process, regardless of his appreciative motivation.
casecontext: Engineer C's verbal promise, even if well-intentioned, created an appearance of improper favoritism inconsistent with public procurement integrity.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer C made an informal verbal commitment that created an appearance of procurement favoritism.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X.
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.960269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Procurement Law Knowledge City X
type: ProcurementLawKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Law Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C, as chief city engineer with procurement authority, required knowledge of public procurement laws and QBS statutes governing municipal engineering contract awards, including the requirement that all awards be made through competitive processes rather than informal verbal pre-selection.
casecontext: Engineer C held procurement authority over City X engineering contracts and was required to apply procurement law in all contracting decisions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer C's verbal promise demonstrated insufficient application of procurement law requirements to informal pre-selection commitments.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.952112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Procurement Policy Subversion Recognition City X Verbal Promise
type: ProcurementPolicySubversionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Policy Subversion Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C, as chief city engineer of City X, was required to recognize that verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm for a future project constituted a subversion or misuse of City X's existing procurement policies and procedures.
casecontext: Engineer C verbally promised Engineer A's firm future contract selection as recognition for speculative grant assistance, bypassing City X's procurement process.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer C made a verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A's firm, which the Board characterized as a subversion of procurement policies.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X.
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.956925
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Procurement Rationalization Resistance City X Promise
type: ProcurementRationalizationResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Rationalization Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C required the capability to recognize and resist the rationalization that a verbal pre-selection promise was harmless or justified because it expressed appreciation for Engineer A's prior speculative grant contributions, and to maintain ethical procurement standards in the face of this sympathetic rationale.
casecontext: Engineer C's verbal promise was rationalized as recognition of Engineer A's grant work, but this rationalization did not excuse the procurement violation.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer C rationalized the verbal promise as appropriate recognition of prior contributions rather than recognizing it as an improper procurement commitment.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.952400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Procurement Subversion — Verbal Pre-Selection as Misuse of Procurement Authority
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C used his position as chief city engineer to make an informal pre-selection commitment to Engineer A's firm, structurally excluding all other qualified firms from fair consideration before any competitive process was initiated.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C's verbal agreement to select Engineer A's firm for a future City X engineering project constituted a subversion and misuse of existing procurement policies and procedures, violating the constraint that public agency engineers must ensure all qualified firms have equal opportunity to compete through open, advertised qualification-based selection processes.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: City X procurement policies and procedures; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X
temporalscope: At the time of and following Engineer C's verbal promise to Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.963089
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Public Contracting Authority Integrity City X
type: PublicContractingAuthorityIntegrityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Contracting Authority Integrity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C, as chief city engineer bearing procurement authority over City X engineering contracts, required the capability to maintain the integrity of that authority by ensuring all contract awards were made on the basis of qualifications and merit through competitive processes, free from preferential commitments to specific firms.
casecontext: Engineer C held procurement authority as chief city engineer and was obligated to enforce competitive procurement processes for all City X engineering contracts.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer C made a verbal pre-selection commitment to Engineer A's firm, compromising the integrity of City X's future procurement process.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.951797
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Public Contracting Authority Integrity Maintenance City X
type: PublicContractingAuthorityIntegrityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Contracting Authority Integrity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C was required to maintain the integrity of his public contracting authority as chief city engineer — ensuring that all contract awards were made on the basis of qualifications and merit, free from informal pre-selection commitments that compromise the integrity of the process.
casecontext: As chief city engineer with procurement authority over City X engineering contracts, Engineer C bore a heightened obligation to maintain the integrity of his contracting authority.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer C's verbal promise compromised the integrity of his public contracting authority.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X.
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.961756
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Public Procurement Integrity Public Interest Articulation City X
type: PublicProcurementIntegrityPublicInterestArticulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Procurement Integrity Public Interest Articulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C was required to understand and internalize the public interest rationale underlying strict public procurement rules — including that free and open procurement processes protect the public and the profession — and to apply this understanding when evaluating whether his verbal pre-selection promise was permissible.
casecontext: The Board's analysis emphasized that procurement integrity serves the public interest, which Engineer C's verbal promise undermined.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer C's verbal promise undermined the public interest rationale of open procurement.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Regardless of the method of professional selection utilized in City X, one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract.
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Regardless of the method of professional selection utilized in City X, one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.961414
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Qualification-Prior-to-Commitment Procurement Sequencing City X
type: Qualification-Prior-to-CommitmentProcurementSequencingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Qualification-Prior-to-Commitment Procurement Sequencing Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C was required to recognize that committing to select Engineer A's firm before reviewing qualifications, experience, and other relevant factors violated the correct procurement sequence and was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
casecontext: Engineer C's verbal promise to Engineer A preceded any formal qualification consideration, bypassing the required sequence of public announcement, open competition, and qualification-based selection.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer C promised selection in advance without conducting any qualification review.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:04.898837+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.957125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Issuance City X
type: VerbalPre-SelectionPromiseNon-IssuanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Issuance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C, as chief city engineer of City X with procurement authority, required the capability to recognize that verbally promising future contract selection to Engineer A's firm — even as appreciation for grant work — constituted an improper pre-selection commitment bypassing competitive procurement, and to refrain from making such a promise.
casecontext: Engineer C held procurement authority as chief city engineer and verbally promised Engineer A's firm future selection on a City X engineering project as recognition for speculative grant work.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer C issued a verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A's firm in recognition of grant assistance, bypassing competitive procurement requirements.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:25.331303+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.947966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C's verbal promise to select Engineer A before future City X engineering project procurement
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
from entity text: Engineer C's verbal promise to select Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: future City X engineering project procurement
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: future City X engineering project procurement
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.964743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard - Grant Work Context
type: EngineerSolicitationandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review; professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:14.520368+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:14.520368+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's ethical obligations regarding the propriety of accepting or relying upon a verbal promise of future work as recognition for prior grant-securing services, and whether such an arrangement constitutes improper solicitation or competition conduct
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.944408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Free and Open Competition Regulatory Deference — City X Future Engineering Procurement
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionRegulatoryDeferenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City X's public procurement environment is governed by laws and regulations requiring free and open competition. Engineer C's verbal promise to pre-select Engineer A's firm directly conflicts with this legal framework.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Free and Open Competition Regulatory Deference Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained to conduct any future City X engineering procurement in conformance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations governing free and open competition, and could not treat the verbal promise as a permissible substitute for the legally mandated competitive process.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: City X public procurement laws and regulations; Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
temporalscope: For any future City X engineering procurement following the verbal promise
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.956228
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Grant Application Succeeds
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_Compensation_Fairness_Constraint
activates constraint: Equitable_Selection_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Procurement_Law_Compliance
causes state change: Federal funds committed to City X; project moves from speculative to active; formal procurement obligations now apply to all subsequent engineer selections; Engineer A's firm's speculative contribution becomes a recognized factor in the project history
concept category: Event
creates obligation: City_X_Must_Fairly_Select_Design_Engineer
creates obligation: City_X_Must_Follow_Public_Procurement_Procedures
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Firm_Entitled_To_Compensation_For_Speculative_Work
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Must_Disclose_Speculative_Arrangement
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After submission of the federal grant application; prior to Engineer B's retention for design
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: low
comment: The federal grant application submitted by Engineer B with Engineer A's firm's assistance is approved, securing federal funding for City X's wastewater treatment upgrades. This outcome is the direct result of the collaborative speculative effort and triggers a cascade of downstream obligations and relationships.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.939639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Grant Application Succeeds → Retain Engineer B for Design
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: After the grant was secured, City X decided to retain Engineer B to design the wastewater equipment, with the grant success serving as the triggering condition for the design phase engagement
cause: Grant Application Succeeds
counterfactual: Without grant approval, no funded design project would exist; without City X's discretionary decision, Engineer B would not have been selected regardless of grant success
effect: Retain Engineer B for Design
necessary factors: Absence of a formal competitive selection process for the design contract
necessary factors: City X's authority and discretion to select a design engineer
necessary factors: Engineer B's demonstrated involvement and familiarity with the project from the grant phase
necessary factors: Successful grant approval providing the funding basis for the project
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: City X (municipal decision-makers)
sufficient factors: Grant success + City X's discretionary authority + Engineer B's existing project familiarity together were sufficient to produce Engineer B's retention for design
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.964429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

I.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

II.4.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

III.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Improper Competitive Method Prohibition — Engineer A Reliance on Pre-Selection Promise
type: ImproperCompetitiveMethodProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The verbal promise from Engineer C creates a potential improper competitive advantage for Engineer A's firm if relied upon, constituting an improper method of obtaining professional engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Improper Competitive Method Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from relying upon or exploiting Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise as a method of obtaining future City X engineering work, as using informal pre-selection arrangements constitutes an improper or questionable method of obtaining employment regardless of whether Engineer A's intent was to exploit the arrangement.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.6; Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
temporalscope: From receipt of the verbal promise through any future City X procurement
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.955276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

NSPE Antitrust-Constrained Code Guidance Prohibition — Selection and Compensation Provisions
type: Antitrust-ConstrainedProfessionalCodeGuidanceProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER must evaluate Engineer C's conduct without relying on NSPE code provisions that have been removed or modified due to antitrust constraints, limiting the normative tools available for ethical analysis of selection and compensation practices.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: NSPE and professional engineering societies
constraintclass: Antitrust-Constrained Professional Code Guidance Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: NSPE is prohibited from issuing ethical or policy guidance on professional selection, compensation, competitive bidding, free engineering, supplanting, and advertising as a result of DOJ antitrust actions and U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment rulings.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:56:11.716033+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: U.S. Department of Justice antitrust actions; U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment rulings
sourcetext: as a result of a series of actions undertaken by the U.S. Justice Department, antitrust, and First Amendment rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, NSPE and other engineering organizations...have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions
temporalscope: Ongoing — constraint has been in effect for approximately 40 years as of the case date
textreferences: as a result of a series of actions undertaken by the U.S. Justice Department, antitrust, and First Amendment rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, NSPE and other engineering organizations...have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions
textreferences: these professional groups, including NSPE, are prohibited from issuing ethical or other policy guidance in these and other areas
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.962069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

NSPE Board of Ethical Review Prior Opinions on Engineer Selection and Compensation
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Opinions on Engineer Selection and Compensation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:45:07.414042+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:45:07.414042+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: The manner in which engineers and engineering firms are selected and compensated has, in the past, been the subject of various provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics as well as NSPE Board of Ethical Review opinions
textreferences: The manner in which engineers and engineering firms are selected and compensated has, in the past, been the subject of various provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics as well as NSPE Board of Ethical Review opinions
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in framing the discussion
usedincontext: Cited as a body of prior BER opinions that previously addressed engineer selection and compensation practices, providing precedential context for the current case
version: Historical (pre- and post-antitrust)
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.940412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:14.520368+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:14.520368+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm
textreferences: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
usedby: Engineer A, Engineer B, Engineer C
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations when offered a verbal promise of future public work, Engineer C's obligations as a public official making such a promise, and Engineer B's role in the procurement chain
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.943518
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Procurement and Competition Provisions
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:45:07.414042+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:45:07.414042+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: the manner in which engineers and engineering firms are selected and compensated has, in the past, been the subject of various provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: the manner in which engineers and engineering firms are selected and compensated has, in the past, been the subject of various provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in deliberating Engineer C's conduct
usedincontext: Referenced as the primary normative authority for evaluating Engineer C's verbal promise to award a future contract to Engineer A, specifically regarding the spirit and intent of ethical procurement conduct
version: Current (post-antitrust revision)
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.940197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Prior Favorable Relationship Procurement Recusal or Disclosure — Engineer C Conflict from Promise
type: PriorFavorableRelationshipProcurementRecusalorDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C's verbal promise to Engineer A's firm creates a documented prior favorable commitment that constitutes a conflict of interest requiring recusal or disclosure in any subsequent procurement involving that firm.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Prior Favorable Relationship Procurement Recusal or Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C, having made a verbal promise to Engineer A's firm and thereby establishing a prior favorable commitment relationship, was constrained to either recuse from any procurement evaluation decisions affecting Engineer A's firm or make full disclosure of the relationship and promise to procurement supervisors or governing authorities.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
temporalscope: For any future City X procurement in which Engineer A's firm participates
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.956443
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct — Engineer A Verbal Promise Receipt
type: ProcurementCompetitionHonorableConductConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A received a verbal promise from Engineer C to be selected for a future City X project. Honorable competitive conduct constrains Engineer A from treating this promise as a legitimate basis for future contract expectation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from accepting, relying upon, or acting in furtherance of Engineer C's verbal promise of future contract award, as honorable competitive conduct requires that Engineer A's firm compete for any future City X contracts through merit-based, legitimate competitive processes rather than through informal pre-selection arrangements.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6, III.7; Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
temporalscope: From the moment the verbal promise was received through any future City X procurement process
textreferences: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm with expertise in mechanical and electrical engineering.
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.955006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard - City Engineer Promise
type: PublicOfficialConflictofInterestStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies; NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:14.520368+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:14.520368+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
usedby: Engineer C as chief city engineer
usedincontext: Governs Engineer C's conduct as chief city engineer in making a verbal promise to award future work to Engineer A's firm, raising conflict of interest and impartiality concerns in public contract award decisions
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.943956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Public Official Good Intent Non-Justification — Engineer C Procurement Promise City X
type: PublicOfficialGoodIntentNon-JustificationforProcurementPromiseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C made the verbal promise in recognition of Engineer A's firm's contribution to securing the federal grant, but good intent does not cure the structural impropriety of a pre-selection commitment in public procurement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Public Official Good Intent Non-Justification for Procurement Promise Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained from treating the benign, appreciative motivation behind the verbal promise — recognition of Engineer A's firm's successful grant-securing work — as justification for making the promise, as the propriety of procurement conduct is assessed by its structural effect on competitive fairness, not by the official's subjective intent.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard; BER Case Precedent on Public Procurement Promise
sourcetext: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
temporalscope: At the time the verbal promise was made
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.955477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Public Procurement Fairness Standard - Verbal Promise Application
type: PublicProcurementFairnessStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies; NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Procurement Fairness Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:14.520368+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:14.520368+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Procurement Fairness Standard
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
usedby: Engineer A (as promisee), Engineer C (as public official making promise)
usedincontext: Governs whether Engineer C's verbal promise to award future work to Engineer A's firm as recognition for grant-securing services is ethically permissible; establishes that public engineering contracts must be awarded through equitable, competitive processes rather than informal pre-commitments
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.943726
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Public Procurement Open Competition Requirement
type: PublicProcurementFairnessStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: Professional and regulatory consensus
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Public Procurement Open Competition and Equal Opportunity Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:45:07.414042+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:45:07.414042+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Procurement Fairness Standard
sourcetext: one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract
textreferences: one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating the ethical propriety of Engineer C's verbal promise
usedincontext: The Board invokes the principle that any legitimate procurement method must at minimum involve public announcement and free and open opportunity for all qualified engineers to compete, against which Engineer C's pre-commitment is measured
version: General professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.941175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Public Procurement Procedural Compliance — Engineer C City X Future Project Award
type: PublicProcurementProceduralComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm on a future project constitutes a pre-commitment that bypasses the statutory procurement procedures assumed to be in place in City X.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Public Procurement Procedural Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained from pre-committing any future City X engineering contract to Engineer A's firm outside of formally mandated competitive qualification-based selection processes, including RFQ advertisement and governing body authorization.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: City X public procurement laws and regulations; Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer C's tenure as chief city engineer with procurement authority
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.954042
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QBS Procurement Balance Public Interest vs. Strict Rule Adherence — City X Engineer C Promise
type: QBSProcurementBalancePublicInterestvs.StrictRuleAdherenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Even if Engineer A's firm is highly qualified, Engineer C's verbal promise to pre-select the firm cannot be justified as a QBS shortcut, as procurement integrity requires strict adherence to competitive processes.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: QBS Procurement Balance Public Interest vs. Strict Rule Adherence Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained to balance the goal of selecting qualified engineering firms with strict adherence to City X's procurement rules and policies, and could not treat the verbal promise as a permissible shortcut to securing a qualified firm — as procurement integrity is itself a public interest value that overrides administrative convenience.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law; BER Case Precedent on Public Procurement Promise
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
temporalscope: For any future City X engineering procurement
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
textreferences: The application is successful, City X obtains the grant, and Engineer B is retained to design the waste water equipment upgrades.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.956699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law - City X Application
type: Qualification-BasedSelectionProcurementLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: State and local legislative bodies
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:14.520368+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:14.520368+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
sourcetext: Engineer B is retained to design the waste water equipment upgrades
textreferences: Engineer B is retained to design the waste water equipment upgrades
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
usedby: Engineer A, Engineer C, City X
usedincontext: Establishes the legal framework requiring that public engineering contracts for City X be awarded through merit-based, competitive qualification processes rather than through verbal pre-commitments or recognition-based awards
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.944160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638372
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638864
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638952
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638429
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.638695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer C to offer to select Engineer A’s firm on a future engineering project for City X?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to continue relying on or accepting Engineer C's verbal promise of future selection without objecting to or disclosing the arrangement, given Engineer A's own obligations under the NSPE Code to conduct themselves honorably and avoid improper competitive methods?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does Engineer A's speculative, at-risk contribution to securing the federal grant create any legitimate basis for preferential consideration in future City X procurements, or does the public procurement context categorically extinguish any such entitlement regardless of the merit of Engineer A's prior service?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Should Engineer C have recused himself from future procurement decisions involving Engineer A's firm, or at minimum disclosed his prior verbal promise to City X's procurement authority, once the promise had been made?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640232
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does the informal, verbal nature of Engineer C's promise mitigate its ethical severity compared to a written pre-selection commitment, or does the NSPE Code treat verbal and written pre-award procurement promises as equally impermissible?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle that public welfare is paramount and underlies procurement integrity conflict with the principle of honesty applied to Engineer A's participation, in the sense that Engineer A's honest acknowledgment of a legitimate speculative contribution might be seen as justifying some form of recognition — yet procurement integrity categorically forecloses any such recognition through informal pre-selection?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640523
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Where the antitrust-constrained ethics code scope limits NSPE's ability to regulate competitive conduct directly, does this create a tension with the principle of free and open competition violated by Engineer C's pre-selection promise — specifically, does the antitrust constraint inadvertently weaken the enforceability of competition-based ethical obligations that the Board otherwise wishes to uphold?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of professional accountability applied to Engineer C's abuse of procurement authority conflict with the principle that procurement process spirit and intent compliance governs pre-selection arrangements, in cases where Engineer C's intent was benevolent recognition of Engineer A's contribution rather than corrupt self-dealing — and if so, how should the Board weigh intent against structural procurement harm?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of fairness in professional competition violated by the pre-selection arrangement conflict with the principle of procurement integrity over merit balancing, when Engineer A's firm may genuinely be the most qualified firm for the future project — raising the question of whether strict procedural procurement integrity can override a substantively meritorious outcome?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer C violate a categorical duty to uphold impartial public procurement by issuing a verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A's firm, regardless of the benevolent intent behind the gesture?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer C's verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm produce net harm to the public interest by undermining competitive procurement outcomes for City X, even if the promise was never formally acted upon?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer C demonstrate the professional integrity and impartiality expected of a chief city engineer by allowing gratitude toward Engineer A's speculative grant work to override the virtues of fairness and accountability in public procurement?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.640991
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A act with professional honesty and integrity by accepting or acquiescing to Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise, given that honorable conduct requires rejecting improper competitive advantages even when they arise unsolicited?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.641045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would Engineer C's conduct have been ethical if, instead of issuing a verbal pre-selection promise, he had publicly acknowledged Engineer A's contribution and then ensured Engineer A's firm received fair consideration through a properly announced, open qualification-based selection process for the future City X project?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.641181
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had explicitly refused Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise and instead requested that any future City X project be awarded through a proper competitive or qualification-based selection process — would Engineer A's ethical standing have been preserved, and would this refusal have mitigated the harm to procurement integrity?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.641254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Would the ethical analysis change if Engineer A's firm had performed the speculative grant work under a formal written agreement with City X rather than through Engineer B, thereby establishing a direct contractual relationship with the city — and could such a relationship have created a legitimate basis for preferential consideration without subverting competitive procurement?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.641330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if Engineer C had disclosed the verbal promise to City X's governing body and recused himself from the future procurement decision — would this disclosure and recusal have been sufficient to remedy the conflict of interest created by the pre-selection promise, or would the promise itself remain an irreparable ethical violation?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.641413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.643749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644654
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.643783
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639086
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.639231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.643857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.643981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:14:06.644430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Retain Engineer B for Design
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: municipal government, acting through its authorized representatives
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A's firm, which contributed to the grant, is not included in the design contract, potentially motivating Engineer C's subsequent informal promise
foreseen unintended effects: Selecting Engineer B without documented open competition could set a precedent for informal selection practices
fulfills obligation text: Engaged a professionally qualified engineer with direct project knowledge
fulfills obligation text: Moved forward on publicly beneficial infrastructure improvements funded by the secured grant
guided by principle text: Efficiency, leveraging Engineer B's existing project familiarity
guided by principle text: Fairness, obligation to provide open opportunity to all qualified firms (potentially underweighted)
guided by principle text: Public welfare, advancing funded infrastructure improvements
has agent: City X
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Engage a qualified engineer already familiar with the project scope and grant requirements to efficiently execute the wastewater facility design
requires capability text: Assessment of engineering firm qualifications
requires capability text: Knowledge of applicable public procurement laws and federal grant conditions
requires capability text: Municipal procurement decision-making authority
temporal marker: After grant award; before design phase commencement
temporal sequence: 5
violates obligation text: Did not transparently consider all qualified engineering firms for the design contract
violates obligation text: Potentially failed to conduct an open and competitive selection process as required by public procurement laws
within competence: true
comment: After the grant was secured, City X decided to retain Engineer B to design the wastewater equipment upgrades. This was a deliberate procurement decision by City X to assign the design work to the civil engineer who led the grant application effort.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.939541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Retain Firm Speculatively
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: local civil engineer
foreseen unintended effects: Blurs lines between speculative work and formal procurement processes
foreseen unintended effects: Creates informal obligation or expectation of future recognition if grant succeeds
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A's firm assumes financial risk with no guaranteed compensation
fulfills obligation text: Acted in client's (City X's) interest by assembling a capable team for the grant application
fulfills obligation text: Sought qualified expertise to serve the public interest in improving wastewater infrastructure
guided by principle text: Competence, engaging specialized expertise appropriate to the task
guided by principle text: Professional cooperation, collaborating across engineering disciplines
guided by principle text: Service to public welfare, pursuing infrastructure improvements for the city
has agent: Engineer B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Strengthen the grant application by leveraging Engineer A's mechanical and electrical engineering expertise, increasing the likelihood of securing federal funding for City X
raises obligation text: Did not ensure a formal, documented agreement protecting Engineer A's firm's interests or clarifying compensation terms
raises obligation text: Potential failure to ensure that the engagement of Engineer A's firm was consistent with public procurement transparency requirements
requires capability text: Ability to identify and engage qualified subconsultants
requires capability text: Knowledge of federal grant application processes
requires capability text: Project coordination across engineering disciplines
requires capability text: Understanding of public procurement norms
temporal marker: Before grant application submission; initial project phase
temporal sequence: 2
within competence: true
comment: Engineer B retained Engineer A's firm on a speculative basis to assist City X in applying for a federal grant for wastewater treatment equipment upgrades. This was a deliberate business and professional decision to engage outside expertise without guaranteed compensation.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.939434
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Retain Firm Speculatively → Grant Application Succeeds
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer B retained Engineer A's firm on a speculative basis to assist City X in applying for a federal grant, which was subsequently submitted and approved
cause: Retain Firm Speculatively
counterfactual: Without Engineer A's firm's involvement, Engineer B alone may have lacked the specialized expertise to produce a competitive grant application, making approval less likely or impossible
effect: Grant Application Succeeds
necessary factors: City X's eligibility for the federal grant program
necessary factors: Engineer A's firm's technical competence in preparing the grant application
necessary factors: Engineer B's decision to engage Engineer A's firm for specialized grant expertise
necessary factors: Speculative arrangement enabling collaboration without upfront city commitment
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer B
sufficient factors: Combination of speculative retention + joint submission + technical expertise was sufficient to produce a successful grant application
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.964385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Speculative Service Non-Entitlement to Preferential Award — Engineer A Grant Work City X
type: SpeculativeServiceNon-EntitlementtoPreferentialAwardConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's firm performed speculative grant-securing services for City X without guaranteed compensation. The successful outcome of those services does not create a legitimate basis for preferential future contract award.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Speculative Service Non-Entitlement to Preferential Award Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from treating the firm's speculative grant-securing services for City X as creating any entitlement to preferential, non-competitive award of a future City X engineering contract, as speculative prior services do not override public procurement fairness requirements.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Public Procurement Open Competition Requirement; BER Case Precedent on Public Procurement Promise
sourcetext: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant for certain wastewater treatment equipment upgrades
temporalscope: From completion of the grant application work through any future City X procurement
textreferences: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant for certain wastewater treatment equipment upgrades
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
textreferences: The application is successful, City X obtains the grant
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.955785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Submit Federal Grant Application
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
agent relation: with
concept category: Action
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A's speculative contribution would become a basis for informal recognition or reward
foreseen unintended effects: Grant success could trigger informal quid pro quo arrangements outside formal procurement channels
foreseen unintended effects: Successful grant award would create expectations about future project assignments
fulfills obligation text: Acted in the public interest by pursuing infrastructure improvements for City X
fulfills obligation text: Applied relevant professional competence to prepare a successful grant application
fulfills obligation text: Served the client (City X) diligently
guided by principle text: Client service, acting in City X's best interest
guided by principle text: Professional competence, applying engineering expertise to the grant process
guided by principle text: Public welfare, improving municipal wastewater infrastructure
has agent: Engineer B (local civil engineer, acting on behalf of City X) with Engineer A's firm's assistance
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Secure federal funding for City X's wastewater treatment facility upgrades, serving the public infrastructure interest and creating a pathway for subsequent engineering design work
multi agent: true
raises obligation text: No explicit violation documented at this action stage; however, the speculative arrangement underlying the submission may not have been transparently disclosed under applicable procurement rules
requires capability text: Civil engineering and wastewater treatment expertise (Engineer B)
requires capability text: Coordination of multi-disciplinary engineering inputs
requires capability text: Federal grant writing and application expertise
requires capability text: Mechanical and electrical engineering knowledge (Engineer A's firm)
temporal marker: After Engineer A's firm was retained; prior to grant award
temporal sequence: 3
within competence: true
comment: Engineer B and Engineer A's firm, on behalf of City X, decided to submit the federal grant application for wastewater treatment equipment upgrades. This was a deliberate professional action taken with the combined expertise of both engineering firms.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.939488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

U.S. DOJ Antitrust Actions and U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment Rulings on Professional Codes
type: AntitrustLegalPrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Supreme Court
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Actions and U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment Rulings Affecting Professional Society Codes
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:45:07.414042+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:45:07.414042+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Antitrust Legal Precedent
sourcetext: as a result of a series of actions undertaken by the U.S. Justice Department, antitrust, and First Amendment rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, NSPE and other engineering organizations...have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions
textreferences: as a result of a series of actions undertaken by the U.S. Justice Department, antitrust, and First Amendment rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, NSPE and other engineering organizations...have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions
textreferences: these professional groups, including NSPE, are prohibited from issuing ethical or other policy guidance in these and other areas
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in framing the permissible scope of ethical guidance
usedincontext: Cited as the legal basis requiring NSPE and other professional societies to remove or modify code provisions on competitive bidding, advertising, solicitation, and related practices; establishes the legal boundary within which the Board's analysis must operate
version: Series of actions over past 40 years
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.940629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Verbal Procurement Promise Non-Reliance — Engineer A City X Future Project
type: VerbalProcurementPromiseNon-RelianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C verbally promised to select Engineer A's firm for a future City X project. Engineer A was constrained from treating this promise as a legitimate basis for future contract expectation or from declining to compete through proper channels.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Verbal Procurement Promise Non-Reliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from relying upon, acting in furtherance of, or structuring business expectations around Engineer C's verbal promise of future City X contract award, and was required to compete for any subsequent City X contract through proper competitive or qualification-based selection processes.
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:50:47.792727+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Public Procurement Fairness Standard; Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
temporalscope: From receipt of the verbal promise through any future City X procurement process
textreferences: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm with expertise in mechanical and electrical engineering.
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.955953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Verbal Promise Conveyed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Conflict_of_Interest_Avoidance
activates constraint: Engineer_C_Authority_Limits_Constraint
activates constraint: NSPE_Code_Prohibition_On_Improper_Solicitation
activates constraint: NSPE_Code_Section_III_5_Improper_Advantage
activates constraint: Public_Procurement_Law_Compliance
causes state change: An informal moral expectation is created in Engineer A's firm; Engineer C's authority is implicitly tested; the integrity of City X's future procurement process is placed at risk; the ethical standing of all parties becomes contingent on how they respond to this promise
concept category: Event
creates obligation: City_X_Must_Conduct_Lawful_Competitive_Selection_For_Future_Project_Regardless_Of_Promise
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Firm_Must_Not_Rely_On_Promise_If_It_Violates_Procurement_Law
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Firm_Should_Seek_Clarification_On_Legality_Of_Promise
creates obligation: Engineer_C_Must_Not_Act_On_Promise_If_It_Bypasses_Competitive_Selection
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After Engineer B is retained for design; timing relative to any formal procurement process for the future project is unspecified
temporal sequence: 8
urgency level: high
comment: Engineer C's verbal promise to Engineer A's firm of future project selection becomes a recognized fact in the case, constituting an informal commitment made outside formal procurement channels. This event marks the point at which an ethically and legally problematic assurance enters the record, potentially binding neither party legally but creating moral expectations and ethical complications.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.939731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Verbally Promise Future Selection
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: chief city engineer, City X
foreseen unintended effects: Circumvents public procurement laws requiring open and competitive selection of engineering firms
foreseen unintended effects: Creates an informal quid pro quo culture in municipal engineering procurement
foreseen unintended effects: Disadvantages other qualified engineering firms who would otherwise have the right to compete for the project
foreseen unintended effects: Exposes Engineer C and City X to legal liability under public procurement statutes
foreseen unintended effects: Predetermines a future contract award without evaluating qualifications, experience, or other required factors
foreseen unintended effects: Undermines the integrity of City X's procurement process and public trust in municipal contracting
fulfills obligation text: Acknowledged Engineer A's firm's contribution to the grant success (intent to recognize legitimate professional work)
guided by principle text: Fairness and equal opportunity (violated, other firms denied competitive consideration)
guided by principle text: Integrity of public institutions (violated, procurement process subverted)
guided by principle text: Personal gratitude and reciprocity (informal, non-codified principle driving the action)
guided by principle text: Public interest and welfare (violated, public deserves transparent procurement)
has agent: Engineer C
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Reward Engineer A's firm for its speculative, uncompensated contribution to securing the federal grant by guaranteeing future project selection as a form of informal recognition and reciprocity
requires capability text: Ability to distinguish between appropriate recognition and unlawful procurement subversion
requires capability text: Authority to make or influence engineering firm selection decisions for City X
requires capability text: Knowledge of public procurement laws and municipal contracting requirements
requires capability text: Understanding of NSPE Code of Ethics obligations for public engineers
temporal marker: After grant was secured and Engineer B was retained for design; prior to any future project procurement
temporal sequence: 7
violates obligation text: Fiduciary duty to City X and its taxpayers to conduct procurement transparently and lawfully
violates obligation text: NSPE Code of Ethics, acting in a manner consistent with the spirit and intent of fair and open professional competition
violates obligation text: Obligation to act in the public interest rather than in fulfillment of personal gratitude
violates obligation text: Obligation to ensure open and competitive consideration of all qualified engineering firms
violates obligation text: Obligation to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the municipal engineering selection process
violates obligation text: Obligation to uphold and administer public procurement laws and City X procurement policies
within competence: false
comment: Engineer C, as chief city engineer, verbally promised Engineer A's firm that it would be selected on a future City X engineering project as recognition for Engineer A's role in securing the federal grant. This is the central ethical violation identified in the case.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.939588
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Verbally Promise Future Selection → Verbal Promise Conveyed
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer C, as chief city engineer, verbally promised Engineer A's firm that it would be selected on a future project, with this promise becoming a recognized fact shaping the parties' expectations and ethical obligations
cause: Verbally Promise Future Selection
counterfactual: Without Engineer C's verbal promise, Engineer A's firm would have had no basis for any expectation of future compensation or project involvement, potentially leading to immediate dispute or complaint
effect: Verbal Promise Conveyed
necessary factors: Engineer A's firm's prior speculative contribution creating a moral claim warranting acknowledgment
necessary factors: Engineer C's awareness that Engineer A's firm had not been compensated through the design contract
necessary factors: Engineer C's positional authority as chief city engineer to make credible representations about future selections
necessary factors: The verbal (rather than written) form of the promise, which limited its enforceability
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer C
sufficient factors: Engineer C's authority + awareness of Engineer A's firm's uncompensated contribution + verbal assurance together were sufficient to create a recognized, if unenforceable, promise
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.964464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

antitrust and First Amendment rulings (40-year period) before present case evaluation by NSPE Board
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Over the past 40 years, as a result of a series of actions...NSPE and other engineering organizations have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions...The Board believes that this case should be viewed in light of that basic principle.
from entity text: antitrust and First Amendment rulings (40-year period)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: present case evaluation by NSPE Board
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: present case evaluation by NSPE Board
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.964658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.064865+00:00
value: Procedural integrity prevails; the fact that Engineer A may have been deserving does not cure the ethical defect of the pre-selection arrangement

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067205+00:00
value: The honesty obligation requires Engineer A to decline the pre-selection promise and insist on a transparent competitive process, thereby ensuring that any future engagement accurately reflects merit-based selection

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.065957+00:00
value: Procedural integrity prevails; the fact that Engineer A may have been deserving does not cure the ethical defect of the pre-selection arrangement

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.064976+00:00
value: Public welfare in obtaining qualified engineering services through fair processes overrides private relational obligations between engineers

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067276+00:00
value: The honesty obligation requires Engineer A to decline the pre-selection promise and insist on a transparent competitive process, thereby ensuring that any future engagement accurately reflects merit-based selection

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.066046+00:00
value: Public welfare in obtaining qualified engineering services through fair processes overrides private relational obligations between engineers

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.068002+00:00
value: Procedural integrity prevails; the fact that Engineer A may have been deserving does not cure the ethical defect of the pre-selection arrangement

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.068823+00:00
value: Public welfare in obtaining qualified engineering services through fair processes overrides private relational obligations between engineers

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067750+00:00
value: The obligation to decline improper pre-selection promises is not overridden by the engineer's prior speculative contributions or by the gratitude of the public official; the competitive integrity of public procurement takes precedence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.066581+00:00
value: Procedural integrity prevails; the fact that Engineer A may have been deserving does not cure the ethical defect of the pre-selection arrangement

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.066701+00:00
value: Public welfare in obtaining qualified engineering services through fair processes overrides private relational obligations between engineers

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.066641+00:00
value: The obligation to decline improper pre-selection promises is not overridden by the engineer's prior speculative contributions or by the gratitude of the public official; the competitive integrity of public procurement takes precedence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.064073+00:00
value: The obligation to decline improper pre-selection promises is not overridden by the engineer's prior speculative contributions or by the gratitude of the public official; the competitive integrity of public procurement takes precedence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067095+00:00
value: The obligation to decline improper pre-selection promises is not overridden by the engineer's prior speculative contributions or by the gratitude of the public official; the competitive integrity of public procurement takes precedence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067152+00:00
value: The obligation to decline improper pre-selection promises is not overridden by the engineer's prior speculative contributions or by the gratitude of the public official; the competitive integrity of public procurement takes precedence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.065885+00:00
value: The obligation to decline improper pre-selection promises is not overridden by the engineer's prior speculative contributions or by the gratitude of the public official; the competitive integrity of public procurement takes precedence

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067036+00:00
value: The Board resolves the tension by treating procurement law as the governing standard, allowing ethical analysis to proceed despite the antitrust-imposed prohibition on direct ethics code guidance on selection practices

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.066973+00:00
value: The Board resolves the tension by treating procurement law as the governing standard, allowing ethical analysis to proceed despite the antitrust-imposed prohibition on direct ethics code guidance on selection practices

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.063488+00:00
value: Fairness to all competitors prevails over loyalty or gratitude to a specific prior contributor

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.065088+00:00
value: Fairness to all competitors prevails over loyalty or gratitude to a specific prior contributor

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.063706+00:00
value: Competitive fairness admits no exception for gratitude-based pre-selection; the principle requires equal access regardless of the prior relationship between the official and the favored firm

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.065192+00:00
value: Competitive fairness admits no exception for gratitude-based pre-selection; the principle requires equal access regardless of the prior relationship between the official and the favored firm

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067571+00:00
value: Fairness to all competitors prevails over loyalty or gratitude to a specific prior contributor

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067627+00:00
value: Competitive fairness admits no exception for gratitude-based pre-selection; the principle requires equal access regardless of the prior relationship between the official and the favored firm

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067953+00:00
value: Public welfare obligations of a chief city engineer extend to procurement integrity; the official's duty to the public overrides any personal obligation of gratitude to a private engineering firm

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067804+00:00
value: The Board finds that procurement integrity is not subordinate to gratitude for prior contributions; the obligation to follow lawful procedures is absolute regardless of the merit of the firm's past work

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067904+00:00
value: The prohibition on pre-selection promises is not subject to override by gratitude or recognition; Engineer C's obligation was to channel appreciation through lawful means such as positive evaluation in a future competitive process

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067854+00:00
value: Accountability to the public and to professional standards overrides personal loyalty obligations; Engineer C's accountability as a public official is not diminished by genuine appreciation for Engineer A's prior contributions

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067683+00:00
value: The Board holds that no degree of prior contribution or good faith appreciation justifies bypassing the competitive selection process; free and open competition is a non-negotiable boundary condition

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.066454+00:00
value: Public welfare obligations of a chief city engineer extend to procurement integrity; the official's duty to the public overrides any personal obligation of gratitude to a private engineering firm

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.066521+00:00
value: Accountability to the public and to professional standards overrides personal loyalty obligations; Engineer C's accountability as a public official is not diminished by genuine appreciation for Engineer A's prior contributions

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.066319+00:00
value: Procurement integrity as a domain-specific principle governing public engineering roles admits no exception for gratitude-based pre-selection; the principle requires strict adherence to competitive selection procedures regardless of the official's motivations

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.066138+00:00
value: The Board holds that no degree of prior contribution or good faith appreciation justifies bypassing the competitive selection process; free and open competition is a non-negotiable boundary condition

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.066388+00:00
value: Competition integrity is not subject to balancing against gratitude or recognition obligations; the principle operates as a near-absolute constraint on public procurement conduct

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.066229+00:00
value: The Board finds that procurement integrity is not subordinate to gratitude for prior contributions; the obligation to follow lawful procedures is absolute regardless of the merit of the firm's past work

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.064707+00:00
value: Public welfare obligations of a chief city engineer extend to procurement integrity; the official's duty to the public overrides any personal obligation of gratitude to a private engineering firm

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.065764+00:00
value: Public welfare obligations of a chief city engineer extend to procurement integrity; the official's duty to the public overrides any personal obligation of gratitude to a private engineering firm

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.066858+00:00
value: Procurement integrity as a domain-specific principle governing public engineering roles admits no exception for gratitude-based pre-selection; the principle requires strict adherence to competitive selection procedures regardless of the official's motivations

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.066796+00:00
value: The Board holds that spirit-and-intent compliance is the operative standard; literal non-violation of specific written rules is insufficient to discharge the ethical obligation

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.064223+00:00
value: The Board finds that procurement integrity is not subordinate to gratitude for prior contributions; the obligation to follow lawful procedures is absolute regardless of the merit of the firm's past work

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067515+00:00
value: The Board finds that procurement integrity is not subordinate to gratitude for prior contributions; the obligation to follow lawful procedures is absolute regardless of the merit of the firm's past work

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067462+00:00
value: The Board finds that procurement integrity is not subordinate to gratitude for prior contributions; the obligation to follow lawful procedures is absolute regardless of the merit of the firm's past work

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.065505+00:00
value: The Board finds that procurement integrity is not subordinate to gratitude for prior contributions; the obligation to follow lawful procedures is absolute regardless of the merit of the firm's past work

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.064565+00:00
value: The prohibition on pre-selection promises is not subject to override by gratitude or recognition; Engineer C's obligation was to channel appreciation through lawful means such as positive evaluation in a future competitive process

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.065693+00:00
value: The prohibition on pre-selection promises is not subject to override by gratitude or recognition; Engineer C's obligation was to channel appreciation through lawful means such as positive evaluation in a future competitive process

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.064410+00:00
value: Accountability to the public and to professional standards overrides personal loyalty obligations; Engineer C's accountability as a public official is not diminished by genuine appreciation for Engineer A's prior contributions

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.065588+00:00
value: Accountability to the public and to professional standards overrides personal loyalty obligations; Engineer C's accountability as a public official is not diminished by genuine appreciation for Engineer A's prior contributions

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.063913+00:00
value: The Board holds that no degree of prior contribution or good faith appreciation justifies bypassing the competitive selection process; free and open competition is a non-negotiable boundary condition

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067351+00:00
value: Accountability to the public and to professional standards overrides personal loyalty obligations; Engineer C's accountability as a public official is not diminished by genuine appreciation for Engineer A's prior contributions

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.067408+00:00
value: Competition integrity is not subject to balancing against gratitude or recognition obligations; the principle operates as a near-absolute constraint on public procurement conduct

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:12:43.065416+00:00
value: Competition integrity is not subject to balancing against gratitude or recognition obligations; the principle operates as a near-absolute constraint on public procurement conduct

grant application success before Engineer B retained to design wastewater equipment upgrades
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The application is successful, City X obtains the grant, and Engineer B is retained to design the waste water equipment upgrades.
from entity text: grant application success
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer B retained to design wastewater equipment upgrades
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer B retained to design wastewater equipment
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.964585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as chief city engineer with procurement authority over City X engineering contracts, violates procurement integrity by making an informal verbal promise to award a future contract to Engineer A's firm as recognition for prior sp

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm on a future City X project — made outside any competitive selection process — directly violates the principle that engineering contracts must be awarded through free and open competiti

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C makes a verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A's firm as a form of recognition for the firm's speculative grant work, constituting an abuse of public procurement authority that bypasses competitive selection requirements and

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: By promising Engineer A's firm the future contract in advance, Engineer C denied all other qualified engineering firms the fair and equal competitive access to which they were entitled, violating the relational fairness norm that governs pu

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The public welfare interest in transparent, competitive, and merit-based public engineering procurement — including the protection of taxpayer resources and public trust in government contracting — is undermined by Engineer C's informal pre

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as chief city engineer, bears professional accountability for the exercise of procurement authority in a manner consistent with applicable statutes, regulations, and ethical standards; the informal verbal promise of future contr

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's participation in — or acquiescence to — an informal pre-selection arrangement creates a representation to City X and to competing firms that Engineer A's future selection (if it occurs) was the result of a lawful competitive pr

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The verbal pre-selection promise from Engineer C to Engineer A's firm denies all other qualified engineering firms fair and equal competitive access to the future City X engineering project, constituting an exclusionary practice that favors

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's firm accepts — or at minimum fails to decline — Engineer C's verbal promise of future contract selection, thereby participating in an arrangement that bypasses competitive procurement and confers an improper advantage on Engine

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board evaluates Engineer C's and Engineer A's conduct not merely against the literal text of specific procurement rules but against the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics and procurement law, finding that advance verbal promis

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Even if Engineer A's firm was genuinely the most qualified for the future City X contract, the pre-selection promise was ethically impermissible because procedural integrity cannot be sacrificed in the name of rewarding merit or prior contr

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to recognize that while NSPE ethics code guidance on professional selection practices is constrained by antitrust rulings, applicable federal, state, and local procurement laws governing engineering service selectio

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from committing to select Engineer A's firm for a future City X engineering contract before conducting a proper evaluation of qualifications, experience, and other relevant factors for all competing firms

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from committing to select Engineer A's firm for a future City X engineering contract before conducting a proper evaluation of qualifications, experience, and other relevant factors for all competing firms

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, serving as chief city engineer with procurement authority, was obligated to ensure that the future City X engineering project referenced in the verbal promise was awarded through an open, competitive, qualification-based process

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, serving as chief city engineer with procurement authority, was obligated to ensure that the future City X engineering project referenced in the verbal promise was awarded through an open, competitive, qualification-based process

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to ensure that the future City X engineering contract was awarded through an open, competitive, and qualification-based process providing all qualified firms a fair opportunity to compete, and to refrain from establ

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to ensure that the future City X engineering contract was awarded through an open, competitive, and qualification-based process providing all qualified firms a fair opportunity to compete, and to refrain from establ

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to conduct himself honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all procurement-related matters — consistent with the spirit as well as the letter of the NSPE Code of Ethics — and to refrain from making a verbal pre-select

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to ensure that any selection of an engineering firm for a future City X project included at minimum a public announcement of the opportunity and a free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers a

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to ensure that any selection of an engineering firm for a future City X project included at minimum a public announcement of the opportunity and a free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers a

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as chief city engineer bearing procurement authority over City X engineering contracts, was obligated to affirmatively enforce competitive qualification-based selection processes for all future engineering contracts, including t

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as chief city engineer bearing procurement authority over City X engineering contracts, was obligated to affirmatively enforce competitive qualification-based selection processes for all future engineering contracts, including t

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to ensure that the future City X engineering contract was awarded in compliance with applicable procurement laws — including required public announcement and open competition procedures — and to refrain from approvi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to ensure that the future City X engineering contract was awarded in compliance with applicable procurement laws — including required public announcement and open competition procedures — and to refrain from approvi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as chief city engineer of City X with procurement authority over engineering contracts, was obligated to refrain from making any verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm on a future City X engineering project, regardless of En

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as chief city engineer of City X with procurement authority over engineering contracts, was obligated to refrain from making any verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm on a future City X engineering project, regardless of En

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to recognize that the benign and appreciative motivation behind the verbal pre-selection promise — recognition of Engineer A's genuine contribution to securing the grant — did not render the promise ethically permis

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to recognize that the benign and appreciative motivation behind the verbal pre-selection promise — recognition of Engineer A's genuine contribution to securing the grant — did not render the promise ethically permis

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to conduct himself honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all procurement-related matters — including declining or repudiating Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise — so as to maintain the public's trust in profe

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to conduct the firm honorably and fairly in all procurement-related matters, including by declining Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise and insisting on participation in a formal competitive process, so as to

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as principal of the engineering firm that received Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise, was obligated to decline or actively repudiate that promise and to refrain from acquiescing to or acting upon it, recognizing that acc

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as principal of the engineering firm that received Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise, was obligated to decline or actively repudiate that promise and to refrain from acquiescing to or acting upon it, recognizing that acc

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the firm's speculative contribution to City X's federal grant application — undertaken without guaranteed compensation — did not create an entitlement to subsequent contract awards, and to refrain

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the firm's speculative contribution to City X's federal grant application — undertaken without guaranteed compensation — did not create an entitlement to subsequent contract awards, and to refrain

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to recognize that while NSPE ethics code guidance on professional selection practices is constrained by antitrust rulings, applicable federal, state, and local procurement laws governing engineering service selectio

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from committing to select Engineer A's firm for a future City X engineering contract before conducting a proper evaluation of qualifications, experience, and other relevant factors for all competing firms

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to conduct himself honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all procurement-related matters — including declining or repudiating Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise — so as to maintain the public's trust in profe

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to conduct the firm honorably and fairly in all procurement-related matters, including by declining Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise and insisting on participation in a formal competitive process, so as to

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as principal of the engineering firm that received Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise, was obligated to decline or actively repudiate that promise and to refrain from acquiescing to or acting upon it, recognizing that acc

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the firm's speculative contribution to City X's federal grant application — undertaken without guaranteed compensation — did not create an entitlement to subsequent contract awards, and to refrain

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's firm accepts — or at minimum fails to decline — Engineer C's verbal promise of future contract selection, thereby participating in an arrangement that bypasses competitive procurement and confers an improper advantage on Engine

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A was obligated to conduct the firm honorably and fairly in all procurement-related matters, including by declining Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise and insisting on participation in a formal competitive process, so as to

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, serving as chief city engineer with procurement authority, was obligated to ensure that the future City X engineering project referenced in the verbal promise was awarded through an open, competitive, qualification-based process

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to ensure that the future City X engineering contract was awarded through an open, competitive, and qualification-based process providing all qualified firms a fair opportunity to compete, and to refrain from establ

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to conduct himself honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all procurement-related matters — consistent with the spirit as well as the letter of the NSPE Code of Ethics — and to refrain from making a verbal pre-select

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to ensure that any selection of an engineering firm for a future City X project included at minimum a public announcement of the opportunity and a free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers a

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as chief city engineer bearing procurement authority over City X engineering contracts, was obligated to affirmatively enforce competitive qualification-based selection processes for all future engineering contracts, including t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to ensure that the future City X engineering contract was awarded in compliance with applicable procurement laws — including required public announcement and open competition procedures — and to refrain from approvi

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, as chief city engineer of City X with procurement authority over engineering contracts, was obligated to refrain from making any verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm on a future City X engineering project, regardless of En

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to recognize that the benign and appreciative motivation behind the verbal pre-selection promise — recognition of Engineer A's genuine contribution to securing the grant — did not render the promise ethically permis

City X Public Procurement Integrity Obligation
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionLegalFrameworkActiveState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — applies to all future City X engineering procurements
affectedparties: All competing engineering firms
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Engineer A's firm
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:23.750941+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:23.750941+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
stateclass: Free and Open Competition Legal Framework Active State
subject: City X's obligation to conduct future engineering procurement through proper competitive or qualification-based selection processes
terminatedby: Not terminated — persistent regulatory context
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
triggeringevent: City X's status as a public entity subject to procurement law and engineering ethics requirements
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.946271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Firm Speculative Grant Engagement
type: SpeculativeBasisEngagementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From initial retention through successful grant award
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A's firm
affectedparties: Engineer B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:23.750941+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:23.750941+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant for certain wastewater treatment equipment upgrades
stateclass: Speculative Basis Engagement State
subject: Engineer A's firm retained by Engineer B to assist City X with federal grant application
terminatedby: Successful grant award and Engineer B's retention for design work
textreferences: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant for certain wastewater treatment equipment upgrades
triggeringevent: Engineer B retains Engineer A's firm on speculative basis to assist with federal grant application
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.945456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment — City X
type: CompetitiveProcurementPublicInterestAlignmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Active at the time of Engineer C's verbal commitment to Engineer A; assumed to be in place per the Board's analysis
affectedparties: All qualified engineering firms
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:45:19.151015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:45:19.151015+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: this Board is assuming that public procurement laws and regulations were in place that outlined the policies and the procedures for selecting an engineering firm
stateclass: Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment State
subject: City X's public procurement system for engineering services
terminatedby: Not terminated within the scope of this case
textreferences: one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract
textreferences: this Board is assuming that public procurement laws and regulations were in place that outlined the policies and the procedures for selecting an engineering firm
triggeringevent: Board's assumption that public procurement laws and regulations were in place outlining policies and procedures for selecting an engineering firm in City X
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.942038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Conflict of Interest from Promise
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment of the verbal promise through any future procurement decision involving Engineer A's firm
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Competing firms
affectedparties: Engineer A's firm
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:23.750941+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:23.750941+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer C's personal commitment to Engineer A's firm conflicting with official duty to conduct impartial procurement
terminatedby: Formal recusal from future procurement, or rescission of promise and proper process
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant
triggeringevent: Engineer C makes a personal verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm, creating a personal obligation that conflicts with official impartiality duties
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.946578
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement-Bypassing Engineering Firm
type: Procurement-BypassingEngineeringFirm
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Violated by Pre-Selection Arrangement
adheres to principle: Honesty Applied to Engineer A Participation in Pre-Selection Arrangement
adheres to principle: Verbal Pre-Selection Acceptance Prohibition Applied to Engineer A
has obligation: Engineer A Honorable Professional Conduct Procurement Pre-Selection Arrangement
has obligation: Engineer A Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Acceptance City X Future Project
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Engineering firm', 'procurement_context': 'Public municipal engineering services', 'improper_commitment': 'Verbal advance promise of future contract selection'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A's firm received a verbal advance promise from Engineer C (Chief City Engineer) that it would be selected for a future City X engineering contract, outside of open and competitive procurement procedures, in violation of the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics and applicable public procurement laws.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:45:06.410296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:45:06.410296+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'improper_promise_recipient_from', 'target': 'Chief City Engineer Procurement Authority (Engineer C)'}
relationships: {'type': 'prospective_service_provider_to', 'target': 'City X Municipal Client'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Procurement-Bypassing Engineering Firm
sourcetext: verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors
textreferences: verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.941438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Recognition City X Procurement
type: Antitrust-ConstrainedEthicsCodeScopeRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment — City X
defeasible under: Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
casecontext: Engineer C, as chief city engineer with procurement authority over City X engineering contracts, made a verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A's firm. The Board frames its analysis by first establishing that procurement laws remain in full force notwithstanding antitrust constraints on NSPE ethics code guidance.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Invoked by NSPE BER in Procurement Context
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C (Chief City Engineer, City X)
obligationclass: Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to recognize that while NSPE ethics code guidance on professional selection practices is constrained by antitrust rulings, applicable federal, state, and local procurement laws governing engineering service selection remain in full force and must be complied with — and that the absence of direct ethics code guidance on selection does not create a permissive space for procurement violations.
sourcetext: federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer C exercised procurement authority and made the verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X.
textreferences: The Board believes that this case should be viewed in light of that basic principle.
textreferences: federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.958346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Invoked by NSPE BER in Procurement Context
type: Antitrust-ConstrainedEthicsCodeScopePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X engineering procurement process
appliedto: NSPE ethics code guidance authority
balancingwith: Professional self-regulation authority
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board acknowledges that antitrust and First Amendment rulings have prohibited NSPE from issuing ethical guidance on professional selection and compensation, but affirms that procurement laws remain operative and govern the analysis of Engineer C's and Engineer A's conduct
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board frames its analysis not through ethics code provisions on selection (which are prohibited) but through the principle that procurement law remains in force, treating that law as the operative ethical floor for evaluating the pre-selection arrangement
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle
sourcetext: among one of the most fundamental outcomes of these antitrust actions and rules was the basic principle that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect
tensionresolution: The Board resolves the tension by treating procurement law as the governing standard, allowing ethical analysis to proceed despite the antitrust-imposed prohibition on direct ethics code guidance on selection practices
textreferences: The Board believes that this case should be viewed in light of that basic principle
textreferences: among one of the most fundamental outcomes of these antitrust actions and rules was the basic principle that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect
textreferences: over the past 40 years, as a result of a series of actions undertaken by the U.S. Justice Department, antitrust, and First Amendment rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, NSPE and other engineering organizations (as well as medical, legal, dental, and accounting professional societies) have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions
textreferences: these professional groups, including NSPE, are prohibited from issuing ethical or other policy guidance in these and other areas
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.948755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A MEP Firm Principal
type: MEPFirmPrincipalEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Procurement Integrity Over Merit Balancing Applied to Pre-Selection Arrangement
adheres to principle: Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Applied to Pre-Selection Arrangement
has obligation: Engineer A Honorable Professional Conduct Procurement Acceptance City X
has obligation: Engineer A Honorable Professional Conduct Procurement Pre-Selection Arrangement
has obligation: Engineer A Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement Acknowledgment Grant Work
has obligation: Engineer A Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Acceptance City X Future Project
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Mechanical and electrical engineering', 'firm_role': 'Principal'}
caseinvolvement: Serves as principal of the medium-sized mechanical and electrical engineering firm, bearing institutional authority over the firm's engagement decisions and ethical acceptability of the speculative grant-assistance arrangement and the subsequent verbal promise of future work.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:27.599255+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:27.599255+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'leads', 'target': "Engineer A's engineering firm"}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: MEP Firm Principal Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm with expertise in mechanical and electrical engineering
textreferences: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm with expertise in mechanical and electrical engineering
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.945191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Pre-Selection Qualification Consideration Non-Bypass City X Future Contract
type: Pre-SelectionQualificationConsiderationNon-BypassObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract
defeasible under: Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm
casecontext: Engineer C promised Engineer A's firm future contract selection as recognition for prior speculative grant work, without evaluating qualifications, experience, or other factors, and without providing other qualified firms the opportunity to compete.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Violated by Engineer C
derived from principle: Public Official Pre-Selection Promise Prohibition Violated by Engineer C
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C (Chief City Engineer, City X)
obligationclass: Pre-Selection Qualification Consideration Non-Bypass Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from committing to select Engineer A's firm for a future City X engineering contract before conducting a proper evaluation of qualifications, experience, and other relevant factors for all competing firms, and was prohibited from substituting a gratitude-based advance promise for the substantive merit evaluation that procurement processes require.
sourcetext: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer C made the verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.958828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionLegalFrameworkActiveState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — established through federal antitrust actions and Supreme Court rulings over the past 40 years, in full force at the time of Engineer C's commitment to Engineer A
affectedparties: All qualified engineering firms eligible to compete for City X contracts
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer C
affectedparties: NSPE
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:45:19.151015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:45:19.151015+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect
stateclass: Free and Open Competition Legal Framework Active State
subject: City X public engineering procurement environment
terminatedby: Not terminated — persists as the governing legal framework
textreferences: NSPE and other engineering organizations have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions
textreferences: federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect
textreferences: free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract
triggeringevent: Series of U.S. Justice Department antitrust actions and U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment rulings requiring removal of restrictive professional code provisions and affirming that public procurement laws remain in full force
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.941769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Honesty Applied to Engineer A Participation in Pre-Selection Arrangement
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's participation in pre-selection arrangement
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's participation in — or acquiescence to — an informal pre-selection arrangement creates a representation to City X and to competing firms that Engineer A's future selection (if it occurs) was the result of a lawful competitive process, when in fact it was predetermined by an informal promise; this implicit misrepresentation implicates the honesty principle
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Honesty requires not only accurate affirmative representations but also avoidance of arrangements that create false impressions about the legitimacy of professional engagements; accepting a pre-selection promise creates the false impression of competitive legitimacy
invokedby: Engineer A Procurement-Bypassing Engineering Firm
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
tensionresolution: The honesty obligation requires Engineer A to decline the pre-selection promise and insist on a transparent competitive process, thereby ensuring that any future engagement accurately reflects merit-based selection
textreferences: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.948427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Applied to Procurement Integrity Context
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X public engineering procurement integrity
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The public welfare interest in transparent, competitive, and merit-based public engineering procurement — including the protection of taxpayer resources and public trust in government contracting — is undermined by Engineer C's informal pre-selection promise, which prioritizes a private professional relationship over the public's interest in fair and open competition for engineering services
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare in the procurement context encompasses not only physical safety but also the integrity of public institutions and the fair use of public resources; informal pre-selection arrangements harm the public by bypassing the competitive processes designed to secure the most qualified engineering services at fair cost
invokedby: Engineer C Chief City Engineer Procurement Authority
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligations of a chief city engineer extend to procurement integrity; the official's duty to the public overrides any personal obligation of gratitude to a private engineering firm
textreferences: City X obtains the grant
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.943269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Underlying Procurement Integrity Requirement
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X public procurement process
appliedto: Wastewater treatment engineering contract
balancingwith: Engineer loyalty to collaborators
balancingwith: Recognition of prior speculative contributions
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board's insistence that procurement laws remain in full force and that competitive selection must be preserved reflects the foundational public welfare interest in obtaining the best-qualified engineering services through fair processes that protect taxpayer resources and public trust
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Public welfare is served not only by technically sound engineering but by procurement processes that ensure the public receives the most qualified engineering services through transparent, competitive selection — a pre-selection arrangement undermines this welfare interest
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: among one of the most fundamental outcomes of these antitrust actions and rules was the basic principle that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect
tensionresolution: Public welfare in obtaining qualified engineering services through fair processes overrides private relational obligations between engineers
textreferences: federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect
textreferences: free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.958106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Honorable Professional Conduct Procurement City X
type: HonorableProfessionalConductinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
prevails over: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
casecontext: Engineer C's verbal promise to Engineer A's firm, even if motivated by genuine appreciation for prior speculative contributions, was found by the Board to be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Applied to Pre-Selection Arrangement
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C (Chief City Engineer, City X)
obligationclass: Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to conduct himself honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all procurement-related matters — consistent with the spirit as well as the letter of the NSPE Code of Ethics — and to refrain from making a verbal pre-selection promise that, while perhaps motivated by gratitude, violated the spirit and intent of the ethics code and the public's trust in professional procurement processes.
sourcetext: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer C's exercise of procurement authority as chief city engineer.
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.959239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Violated by Pre-Selection Arrangement
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Future City X engineering project procurement
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The verbal pre-selection promise from Engineer C to Engineer A's firm denies all other qualified engineering firms fair and equal competitive access to the future City X engineering project, constituting an exclusionary practice that favors one firm without lawful justification
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Fairness in professional competition requires that public engineering contracts be open to all qualified firms on equal terms; informal pre-selection arrangements — even those motivated by genuine appreciation for prior contributions — are structurally exclusionary and violate this principle
invokedby: Engineer A Procurement-Bypassing Engineering Firm
invokedby: Engineer C Chief City Engineer Procurement Authority
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
tensionresolution: Competitive fairness admits no exception for gratitude-based pre-selection; the principle requires equal access regardless of the prior relationship between the official and the favored firm
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.942995
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Free and Open Competition Invoked Against Engineer C Pre-Selection Promise
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionasEngineeringEthicsBoundaryCondition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Verbal pre-selection promise for future City X engineering project
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C's verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm on a future City X project — made outside any competitive selection process — directly violates the principle that engineering contracts must be awarded through free and open competition, not through informal pre-selection arrangements made in recognition of prior services
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Free and open competition requires that all qualified firms have equal access to public engineering contracts; Engineer C's verbal promise forecloses that access by pre-committing the contract to Engineer A's firm before any competitive process has occurred
invokedby: Engineer C Chief City Engineer Procurement Authority
principleclass: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
tensionresolution: Competition integrity is not subject to balancing against gratitude or recognition obligations; the principle operates as a near-absolute constraint on public procurement conduct
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.939957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Honorable Professional Conduct Procurement Acceptance City X
type: HonorableProfessionalConductinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement Acknowledgment Grant Work
defeasible under: Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm
prevails over: Engineer A Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement Acknowledgment Grant Work
casecontext: Engineer A's firm received or acquiesced to Engineer C's verbal promise of future contract selection, making the firm a participant in the procurement integrity violation identified by the Board.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
derived from principle: Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Applied to Pre-Selection Arrangement
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Principal, MEP Firm)
obligationclass: Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct himself honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all procurement-related matters — including declining or repudiating Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise — so as to maintain the public's trust in professional procurement processes and to avoid complicity in a procurement integrity violation.
sourcetext: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A's firm received or acquiesced to Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise.
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.959470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Competitive Procurement Fairness City X Future Contract
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
prevails over: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
casecontext: Engineer C's verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm on a future City X project, made outside any competitive selection process, denied all other qualified engineering firms fair and equal competitive access to that project.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Violated by Advance Promise to Engineer A
derived from principle: Free and Open Competition Violated by Engineer C Pre-Selection Promise
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C, serving as chief city engineer with procurement authority, was obligated to ensure that the future City X engineering project referenced in the verbal promise was awarded through an open, competitive, qualification-based process providing all qualified firms a fair opportunity to compete, rather than through an informal pre-selection arrangement.
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
temporalscope: At the time of making the verbal promise and in administering the future contract award process
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.950698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Competitive Procurement Fairness City X Future Project
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
prevails over: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
casecontext: Engineer C's verbal promise to Engineer A's firm constituted an exclusive pre-selection arrangement that denied all other qualified engineering firms fair and equal competitive access to the future City X contract.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Violated by Advance Promise to Engineer A
derived from principle: Free and Open Competition Violated by Engineer C Pre-Selection Promise
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C (Chief City Engineer, City X)
obligationclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to ensure that the future City X engineering contract was awarded through an open, competitive, and qualification-based process providing all qualified firms a fair opportunity to compete, and to refrain from establishing an exclusive pre-selection arrangement with Engineer A's firm that circumvented competitive procurement requirements.
sourcetext: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer C exercised procurement authority over the future City X engineering project.
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X.
textreferences: free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.959050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract
type: PublicOfficialProcurementSubversionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer C verbally agreed to select Engineer A's firm, persisting until the commitment is rescinded or formal open procurement is initiated
affectedparties: All other qualified engineering firms excluded from fair consideration
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:45:19.151015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:45:19.151015+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X
stateclass: Public Official Procurement Subversion State
subject: Engineer C's verbal pre-commitment to select Engineer A's firm for a future City X engineering contract
terminatedby: Not resolved within the scope of this case discussion
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X
triggeringevent: Engineer C verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X outside any formal procurement process
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.947460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Public Announcement Open Competition Minimum Standard City X
type: PublicAnnouncementandOpenCompetitionProcurementMinimumStandardObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
prevails over: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
casecontext: Engineer C verbally promised Engineer A's firm future contract selection as recognition for speculative grant work, without any public announcement or open competition, thereby bypassing the minimum procurement floor the Board identifies as applicable regardless of the specific procurement method used.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Free and Open Competition Invoked Against Engineer C Pre-Selection Promise
derived from principle: Free and Open Competition Violated by Engineer C Pre-Selection Promise
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C (Chief City Engineer, City X)
obligationclass: Public Announcement and Open Competition Procurement Minimum Standard Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to ensure that any selection of an engineering firm for a future City X project included at minimum a public announcement of the opportunity and a free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered — and was prohibited from making any advance commitment to Engineer A's firm that foreclosed this minimum competitive process.
sourcetext: Regardless of the method of professional selection utilized in City X, one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract.
temporalscope: Prior to and at the time of making the verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
textreferences: Regardless of the method of professional selection utilized in City X, one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.958559
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Public Procurement Authority Competitive Process Enforcement City X
type: PublicProcurementAuthorityCompetitiveProcessEnforcementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
prevails over: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
casecontext: Engineer C holds the role of chief city engineer with procurement authority over City X engineering contracts and made a verbal pre-selection promise outside any formal competitive process.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Violated by Engineer C
derived from principle: Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer C Procurement Authority Abuse
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Public Procurement Authority Competitive Process Enforcement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C, as chief city engineer bearing procurement authority over City X engineering contracts, was obligated to affirmatively enforce competitive qualification-based selection processes for all future engineering contracts, including the project for which Engineer A's firm was verbally promised selection, and to ensure that gratitude-based or recognition-based informal arrangements were not substituted for formal competitive processes.
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
temporalscope: Continuously, as an ongoing duty of the chief city engineer role, and specifically at the time of making the verbal promise and in administering any subsequent contract award
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.950271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm
type: InformalPre-AwardSelectionCommitmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer C makes the verbal promise onward, persisting until future procurement occurs or promise is rescinded
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A's firm
affectedparties: Engineer C
affectedparties: Other competing firms
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:23.750941+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:23.750941+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
stateclass: Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment State
subject: Engineer C's verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm on a future City X project
terminatedby: Future procurement process conducted properly without reliance on promise, or formal rescission of promise
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant
triggeringevent: Engineer C verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project as recognition for grant work
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.945979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
type: InformalPre-AwardSelectionCommitmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer C's verbal commitment through the Board's ethical analysis; unresolved within the case
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Competing engineering firms
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:45:19.151015+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:45:19.151015+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
stateclass: Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment State
subject: Engineer C's verbal promise to Engineer A regarding future City X contract selection
terminatedby: Not terminated within the scope of this case
textreferences: By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
triggeringevent: Engineer C verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm for a future City X engineering project
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.947720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Procurement Integrity Subverted by Engineer C Verbal Promise
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X future engineering contract award
appliedto: Engineer C's role as Chief City Engineer
balancingwith: Loyalty to collaborating engineers
balancingwith: Recognition of prior speculative contributions
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C, as chief city engineer with procurement authority, subverted City X's procurement policies by verbally promising Engineer A's firm a future contract without following lawful competitive selection procedures
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A public engineer with procurement authority who makes advance selection promises outside the lawful competitive process violates the fundamental obligation to ensure contracts are awarded through fair, qualification-based procedures
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X
tensionresolution: The Board finds that procurement integrity is not subordinate to gratitude for prior contributions; the obligation to follow lawful procedures is absolute regardless of the merit of the firm's past work
textreferences: it is the Board's view that Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X
textreferences: this Board is assuming that public procurement laws and regulations were in place that outlined the policies and the procedures for selecting an engineering firm
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.949241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Violated by Advance Promise to Engineer A
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: All qualified engineering firms excluded from consideration for City X future contract
appliedto: Engineer C's procurement authority role
balancingwith: Loyalty to collaborating engineers
balancingwith: Recognition of speculative service contributions
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: By promising Engineer A's firm the future contract in advance, Engineer C denied all other qualified engineering firms the fair and equal competitive access to which they were entitled, violating the relational fairness norm that governs public procurement
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Fairness in professional competition requires that no firm receive advance assurance of selection that forecloses equal opportunity for others; the promise to Engineer A structurally excluded all competitors before the process began
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract
tensionresolution: Fairness to all competitors prevails over loyalty or gratitude to a specific prior contributor
textreferences: one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract
textreferences: promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.957856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Free and Open Competition Violated by Engineer C Pre-Selection Promise
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionasEngineeringEthicsBoundaryCondition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X future engineering contract
appliedto: Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A
balancingwith: Loyalty to past contributors
balancingwith: Recognition of speculative service contributions
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C's verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm for a future City X contract — without public announcement or consideration of other qualified firms — directly violated the free and open competition norm that governs public engineering procurement
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Free and open competition requires, at minimum, public announcement and equal opportunity for all qualified engineers to be considered; a pre-selection promise forecloses this process entirely
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
sourcetext: one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract
tensionresolution: The Board holds that no degree of prior contribution or good faith appreciation justifies bypassing the competitive selection process; free and open competition is a non-negotiable boundary condition
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X
textreferences: one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.949005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Applied to Pre-Selection Arrangement
type: ProcurementProcessSpiritandIntentComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's acceptance of the pre-selection arrangement
appliedto: Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise
balancingwith: Gratitude and recognition of prior contributions
balancingwith: Literal compliance with written procurement rules
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board evaluates Engineer C's and Engineer A's conduct not merely against the literal text of specific procurement rules but against the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics and procurement law, finding that advance verbal promises of selection violate that spirit even if no single written provision is explicitly transgressed
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The spirit and intent standard requires that all procurement conduct support the underlying values of public announcement, equal competitive access, and qualifications-based review — not merely avoid explicit rule violations
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Obligation
sourcetext: promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
tensionresolution: The Board holds that spirit-and-intent compliance is the operative standard; literal non-violation of specific written rules is insufficient to discharge the ethical obligation
textreferences: promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.957620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer C Procurement Authority Abuse
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Exercise of chief city engineer procurement authority
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C, as chief city engineer, bears professional accountability for the exercise of procurement authority in a manner consistent with applicable statutes, regulations, and ethical standards; the informal verbal promise of future contract selection constitutes an accountable breach of that authority that cannot be excused by the benevolent motive of recognizing prior contributions
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability for public engineers in procurement roles requires that all exercises of contracting authority be defensible under applicable law and ethical standards; informal pre-selection promises fail this standard regardless of the official's intent
invokedby: Engineer C Chief City Engineer Procurement Authority
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
tensionresolution: Accountability to the public and to professional standards overrides personal loyalty obligations; Engineer C's accountability as a public official is not diminished by genuine appreciation for Engineer A's prior contributions
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.948207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Public Official Pre-Selection Promise Prohibition Violated by Engineer C
type: PublicOfficialPre-SelectionPromiseProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Verbal promise of future City X engineering contract to Engineer A's firm
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C makes a verbal pre-selection promise to Engineer A's firm as a form of recognition for the firm's speculative grant work, constituting an abuse of public procurement authority that bypasses competitive selection requirements and creates an improper informal entitlement to a public contract
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A sitting public official's gratitude for prior services does not justify informal pre-selection promises; even benevolent motivations do not cure the ethical violation of bypassing competitive procurement
invokedby: Engineer C Chief City Engineer Procurement Authority
principleclass: Public Official Pre-Selection Promise Prohibition
sourcetext: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
tensionresolution: The prohibition on pre-selection promises is not subject to override by gratitude or recognition; Engineer C's obligation was to channel appreciation through lawful means such as positive evaluation in a future competitive process
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.942563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Honorable Professional Conduct Procurement Pre-Selection Arrangement
type: HonorableProfessionalConductinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement Acknowledgment Grant Work
defeasible under: Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
prevails over: Engineer A Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement Acknowledgment Grant Work
casecontext: Engineer A's firm received a verbal pre-selection promise from Engineer C outside any formal competitive process, creating an informal arrangement that undermined procurement integrity.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Applied to Pre-Selection Arrangement
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct the firm honorably and fairly in all procurement-related matters, including by declining Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise and insisting on participation in a formal competitive process, so as to maintain the public's trust in professional procurement processes.
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer C's verbal promise and throughout any subsequent procurement process
textreferences: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.950477
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Procurement Law Compliance City X Verbal Promise
type: ProcurementLawComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
defeasible under: City X Public Procurement Integrity Obligation
defeasible under: Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract
prevails over: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
casecontext: The Board assumes public procurement laws and regulations were in place in City X outlining policies and procedures for selecting engineering firms; Engineer C's verbal promise subverted those laws.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Invoked by NSPE BER in Procurement Context
derived from principle: Procurement Integrity Subverted by Engineer C Verbal Promise
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:54:23.669424+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C (Chief City Engineer, City X)
obligationclass: Procurement Law Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to ensure that the future City X engineering contract was awarded in compliance with applicable procurement laws — including required public announcement and open competition procedures — and to refrain from approving or ratifying a pre-selection arrangement that circumvented those legal requirements.
sourcetext: this Board is assuming that public procurement laws and regulations were in place that outlined the policies and the procedures for selecting an engineering firm.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer C made the verbal pre-selection promise and at the time of any subsequent contract award.
textreferences: Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X.
textreferences: federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect.
textreferences: this Board is assuming that public procurement laws and regulations were in place that outlined the policies and the procedures for selecting an engineering firm.
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.954741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Issuance City X Future Project
type: VerbalPre-SelectionPromiseNon-IssuanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
defeasible under: Engineer C Conflict of Interest from Promise
defeasible under: Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract
prevails over: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
casecontext: Engineer C verbally promised to select Engineer A's firm on a future City X engineering project as recognition for Engineer A's role in securing the federal grant for wastewater treatment equipment upgrades.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Violated by Engineer C
derived from principle: Public Official Pre-Selection Promise Prohibition Violated by Engineer C
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Issuance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C, as chief city engineer of City X with procurement authority over engineering contracts, was obligated to refrain from making any verbal promise to select Engineer A's firm on a future City X engineering project, regardless of Engineer A's prior contributions to the grant application, and to ensure that any future contract award would proceed through a formal competitive qualification-based selection process.
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
temporalscope: At the time Engineer C made the verbal promise to Engineer A's firm, and continuing through any future contract award process
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.949576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Procurement Integrity Over Merit Balancing Applied to Pre-Selection Arrangement
type: ProcurementIntegrityOverQualificationMeritBalancingPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's prior speculative grant procurement contribution
appliedto: Engineer C's advance selection promise
balancingwith: Recognition of prior service contributions
balancingwith: Speculative Work Non-Entitlement to Subsequent Contract Award
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Even if Engineer A's firm was genuinely the most qualified for the future City X contract, the pre-selection promise was ethically impermissible because procedural integrity cannot be sacrificed in the name of rewarding merit or prior contribution
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:52:44.038907+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board's reasoning implicitly holds that qualifications and prior merit cannot justify bypassing competitive procedures — both substantive qualification and procedural integrity must be pursued simultaneously
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Procurement Integrity Over Qualification Merit Balancing Principle
sourcetext: promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
tensionresolution: Procedural integrity prevails; the fact that Engineer A may have been deserving does not cure the ethical defect of the pre-selection arrangement
textreferences: one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract
textreferences: promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.957404
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Violated by Engineer C
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Future City X engineering project contract award
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Professional Accountability
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C, as chief city engineer with procurement authority over City X engineering contracts, violates procurement integrity by making an informal verbal promise to award a future contract to Engineer A's firm as recognition for prior speculative grant work, bypassing the qualification-based competitive selection process required by statute and regulation
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A chief city engineer's procurement authority is a public trust that must be exercised through lawful competitive processes; informal pre-selection promises — however well-intentioned — constitute a breach of that trust and a violation of procurement integrity
invokedby: Engineer C Chief City Engineer Procurement Authority
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
tensionresolution: Procurement integrity as a domain-specific principle governing public engineering roles admits no exception for gratitude-based pre-selection; the principle requires strict adherence to competitive selection procedures regardless of the official's motivations
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.942242
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Verbal Pre-Selection Acceptance Prohibition Applied to Engineer A
type: VerbalPre-SelectionAcceptanceProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Acceptance of Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise
balancingwith: Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's firm accepts — or at minimum fails to decline — Engineer C's verbal promise of future contract selection, thereby participating in an arrangement that bypasses competitive procurement and confers an improper advantage on Engineer A's firm relative to other qualified engineering firms that will never have the opportunity to compete for the promised project
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:47:33.923942+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Even as the passive recipient of an unsolicited pre-selection promise, Engineer A bears an ethical obligation to decline the arrangement and insist on participation in a lawful competitive process; silence or acquiescence constitutes participation in the ethical violation
invokedby: Engineer A Procurement-Bypassing Engineering Firm
principleclass: Verbal Pre-Selection Acceptance Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
tensionresolution: The obligation to decline improper pre-selection promises is not overridden by the engineer's prior speculative contributions or by the gratitude of the public official; the competitive integrity of public procurement takes precedence
textreferences: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm with expertise in mechanical and electrical engineering
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.942799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Acceptance City X Future Project
type: VerbalPre-SelectionPromiseNon-AcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement Acknowledgment Grant Work
defeasible under: Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm
defeasible under: Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
prevails over: Engineer A Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement Acknowledgment Grant Work
casecontext: Engineer C verbally promised to select Engineer A's firm on a future City X engineering project as recognition for Engineer A's speculative grant work. Engineer A's firm received this promise without documented declination.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Violated by Pre-Selection Arrangement
derived from principle: Verbal Pre-Selection Acceptance Prohibition Applied to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as principal of the engineering firm that received Engineer C's verbal pre-selection promise, was obligated to decline or actively repudiate that promise and to refrain from acquiescing to or acting upon it, recognizing that acceptance or acquiescence made the firm complicit in a procurement integrity violation and conferred an unfair competitive advantage over other qualified firms.
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer C's verbal promise
textreferences: Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm with expertise in mechanical and electrical engineering
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.949791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Chief City Engineer Procurement Authority
type: ChiefCityEngineerProcurementAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Violated by Advance Promise to Engineer A
adheres to principle: Free and Open Competition Invoked Against Engineer C Pre-Selection Promise
adheres to principle: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Violated by Engineer C
adheres to principle: Professional Accountability Applied to Engineer C Procurement Authority Abuse
adheres to principle: Public Official Pre-Selection Promise Prohibition Violated by Engineer C
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Applied to Procurement Integrity Context
has obligation: Engineer C Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Recognition City X Procurement
has obligation: Engineer C Competitive Procurement Fairness City X Future Contract
has obligation: Engineer C Competitive Procurement Fairness City X Future Project
has obligation: Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
has obligation: Engineer C Honorable Professional Conduct Procurement City X
has obligation: Engineer C Pre-Selection Qualification Consideration Non-Bypass City X Future Contract
has obligation: Engineer C Procurement Law Compliance City X Verbal Promise
has obligation: Engineer C Public Announcement Open Competition Minimum Standard City X
has obligation: Engineer C Public Procurement Authority Competitive Process Enforcement City X
has obligation: Engineer C Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Issuance City X Future Project
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied as chief city engineer)', 'title': 'Chief City Engineer', 'authority': 'Engineering contract selection for City X'}
caseinvolvement: Chief city engineer of City X who verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project as recognition for Engineer A's role in securing the federal grant — raising serious ethical concerns about improper procurement promises and quid pro quo arrangements.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:44:27.599255+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:44:27.599255+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'City X Municipal Infrastructure Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'promises_future_work_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Grant Procurement Consulting Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Chief City Engineer Procurement Authority
sourcetext: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
textreferences: Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.947041
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer A Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement Acknowledgment Grant Work
type: SpeculativeContributionNon-EntitlementAcknowledgmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Honorable Professional Conduct Procurement Acceptance City X
competes with: Engineer A Honorable Professional Conduct Procurement Pre-Selection Arrangement
competes with: Engineer A Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Acceptance City X Future Project
defeasible under: Engineer A Firm Speculative Grant Engagement
defeasible under: Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
defeasible under: Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
casecontext: Engineer A's firm was retained on a speculative basis to assist with a federal grant application. After the grant was secured, Engineer C offered a future contract as recognition for this speculative work.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Honesty Applied to Engineer A Participation in Pre-Selection Arrangement
derived from principle: Procurement Integrity Over Merit Balancing Applied to Pre-Selection Arrangement
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement Acknowledgment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the firm's speculative contribution to City X's federal grant application — undertaken without guaranteed compensation — did not create an entitlement to subsequent contract awards, and to refrain from treating, representing, or accepting Engineer C's promise as a legitimate basis for preferential selection on future City X projects.
sourcetext: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer C's verbal promise and throughout any subsequent procurement process
textreferences: Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.950046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction

Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
type: GoodIntentNon-JustificationforProceduralImproprietyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Competitive Procurement Fairness City X Future Contract
competes with: Engineer C Competitive Procurement Fairness City X Future Project
competes with: Engineer C Honorable Professional Conduct Procurement City X
competes with: Engineer C Procurement Law Compliance City X Verbal Promise
competes with: Engineer C Public Announcement Open Competition Minimum Standard City X
competes with: Engineer C Public Procurement Authority Competitive Process Enforcement City X
competes with: Engineer C Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Issuance City X Future Project
defeasible under: Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment — City X
defeasible under: Engineer C Conflict of Interest from Promise
defeasible under: Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract
defeasible under: Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm
defeasible under: Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
defeasible under: Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
casecontext: Engineer C's verbal promise was made 'in recognition' of Engineer A's work, suggesting a constructive and appreciative motivation rather than corrupt intent, but the promise nonetheless circumvented competitive procurement requirements.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Procurement Integrity Over Merit Balancing Applied to Pre-Selection Arrangement
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Underlying Procurement Integrity Requirement
discoveredincase: 117
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 117
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:49:01.734296+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Good Intent Non-Justification for Procedural Impropriety Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to recognize that the benign and appreciative motivation behind the verbal pre-selection promise — recognition of Engineer A's genuine contribution to securing the grant — did not render the promise ethically permissible, and that good intent cannot justify bypassing formal competitive procurement processes.
sourcetext: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
temporalscope: At the time Engineer C made the verbal promise
textreferences: In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
wasattributedto: Case 117 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T16:01:19.959703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 117 Extraction