ProEthica Case 141 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.685810
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Agent-Trustee Loyal Dealing Doctrine
type: Agent-TrusteeLoyaltyObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from agency law and professional ethics doctrine)
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Faithful Agent and Trustee Duty of Loyalty Principle
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:40:45.106187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:40:45.106187+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Agent-Trustee Loyalty Obligation Standard
sourcetext: the general duty of loyalty and fair dealing denotes that a person has the duty of carrying out a transaction, in which he and another person are interested, in such manner as will be most for the benefit of the latter, and not in such a way that he himself might be tempted, for the sake of his personal advantage, to neglect the interests of the other
textreferences: the general duty of loyalty and fair dealing denotes that a person has the duty of carrying out a transaction, in which he and another person are interested, in such manner as will be most for the benefit of the latter, and not in such a way that he himself might be tempted, for the sake of his personal advantage, to neglect the interests of the other
textreferences: the role of the engineer in serving the legitimate needs of the client and the role of the engineer as the employer or client's 'faithful agent and trustee'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case No. 93-3 and the present case
usedincontext: Applied as an authoritative interpretive standard to define the scope of an engineer's loyalty obligation to a client, specifically the duty to carry out transactions in the manner most beneficial to the client rather than for personal advantage
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.688499
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

BER 93-3 Faithful Agent Duty Activation
type: FaithfulAgentBoundaryState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's retention by franchiser through the conclusion of the engagement
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Franchiser
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:41:57.865272+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:41:57.865272+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B had an obligation as 'faithful agent and trustee' to not to tell Engineer A of his relationship with the client
stateclass: Faithful Agent Boundary State
subject: Engineer B's obligation as faithful agent and trustee to the franchiser, constraining disclosure of the new client relationship to Engineer A
terminatedby: Conclusion of Engineer B's engagement with franchiser
textreferences: Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client
textreferences: Engineer B had an obligation as 'faithful agent and trustee' to not to tell Engineer A of his relationship with the client
textreferences: the general duty of loyalty and fair dealing denotes that a person has the duty of carrying out a transaction, in which he and another person are interested, in such manner as will be most for the benefit of the latter
triggeringevent: Engineer B's acceptance of retention by franchiser as new design engineer, creating faithful agent obligations
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.690494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

BER 93-3 Franchiser-Engineer B Covert Transition Engagement
type: ClientTransitionOverlapEngagementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From franchiser's initial retention of Engineer B through Engineer A's contract expiration; covert phase ended when Engineer B notified Engineer A of the relationship
affectedparties: Engineer A (incumbent)
affectedparties: Engineer B (incoming)
affectedparties: Franchiser (client)
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:41:57.865272+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:41:57.865272+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: franchiser began discussions with Engineer B and retained Engineer B to provide immediate review of design concerns that were pending
stateclass: Client Transition Overlap Engagement State
subject: Engineer B's engagement by franchiser to review design concerns while Engineer A's contract was still active, under instruction not to disclose the relationship to Engineer A
terminatedby: Engineer A's agreement with franchiser expired; Engineer B's disclosure to Engineer A of the relationship (which the Board found constituted neglect of client interests)
textreferences: Engineer B reviewed the design information the following week and following his review, notified Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser
textreferences: Engineer B's disclosure of his relationship with client constituted a neglect of the interests of his client
textreferences: franchiser began discussions with Engineer B and retained Engineer B to provide immediate review of design concerns that were pending
textreferences: franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to their relationship to Engineer A
triggeringevent: Franchiser's decision to transition from Engineer A to Engineer B before Engineer A's contract expired, combined with explicit instruction to Engineer B not to disclose the new relationship
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.690304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

BER 93-3 Precedent Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

BER Case 93-3: Engineer B Discloses Relationship to Engineer A
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705631
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

BER Case 93-3: Engineer B Discloses Relationship to Engineer A → BER 93-3 Precedent Established
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

BER Case 93-3: Engineer B Reviews Design Information
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

BER Case No. 93-3
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 93-3
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:40:45.106187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:40:45.106187+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: One example is BER Case No. 93-3.
textreferences: In deciding that Engineer B's actions were not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, the Board determined that Engineer B had an obligation as 'faithful agent and trustee' to not to tell Engineer A of his relationship with the client.
textreferences: One example is BER Case No. 93-3.
textreferences: While the facts in BER Case No. 93-3 are somewhat different than the facts in the present case, Case No. 93-3 makes an important point which is relevant to the case at hand
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review to ground reasoning about Engineer B's obligations in the present case
usedincontext: Cited as analogical precedent establishing the engineer's duty of loyalty as faithful agent and trustee to a client during competitive transitions, and the limits of disclosure to a prior engineer during a procurement transition
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.688311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

BER Case No. 93-3 events before present case events
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706418
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Benevolent Motive Non-Excuse Invoked in BER 93-3 Faithful Agent Analysis
type: BenevolentMotiveDoesNotCureEthicalViolation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B BER 93-3 Replacement Design Engineer
appliedto: Engineer B's disclosure to Engineer A
balancingwith: Client Interest Primacy Over Engineer Personal Advantage in Faithful Agent Role
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board's finding in BER 93-3 that Engineer B's disclosure was ethically impermissible despite the absence of personal advantage motivation establishes that good intentions do not cure a violation of the faithful agent duty — the ethical evaluation turns on whether the client's interests were neglected, not on the engineer's subjective motivation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Even where an engineer's departure from client instructions is motivated by collegiality, fairness to the incumbent, or other benign considerations rather than personal gain, the faithful agent duty is still violated if the departure neglects the client's interests
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation
sourcetext: Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client. The Board determined that Engineer B's disclosure of his relationship with client constituted a neglect of the interests of his client.
tensionresolution: The Board applied a client-interest balancing test rather than a motivation test, finding that the absence of personal advantage was noted but did not change the ethical conclusion
textreferences: Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client.
textreferences: The Board determined that Engineer B's disclosure of his relationship with client constituted a neglect of the interests of his client and that on balance the benefits to be derived by Engineer B's disclosure, for all parties involved, did not outweigh detriments that may be suffered by the client.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.699619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Case 141 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

CausalLink_BER Case 93-3: Engineer B Disc
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

CausalLink_BER Case 93-3: Engineer B Revi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282026
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Submits RFQ Qualifi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.281954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer B Files FOIA Request
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.281684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer B Submits Own Qualifi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.281994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Client Interest Primacy Over Personal Advantage Invoked in BER 93-3 Analysis
type: ClientInterestPrimacyOverEngineerPersonalAdvantageinFaithfulAgentRole
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's disclosure to Engineer A of his relationship with the franchiser client
appliedto: Franchiser client's confidentiality instruction
balancingwith: Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER Case No. 93-3, Engineer B disclosed his relationship with the franchiser client to incumbent Engineer A despite the client's explicit instruction of confidentiality; the Board found this violated the faithful agent duty even though Engineer B was not motivated by personal advantage, because the disclosure neglected the client's interests and the benefits did not outweigh the detriments to the client
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent duty requires prioritizing client interests over third-party relationships even when the engineer's motivation is benign; the absence of personal advantage does not excuse a disclosure that harms the client
invokedby: Engineer B BER 93-3 Replacement Design Engineer
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Client Interest Primacy Over Engineer Personal Advantage in Faithful Agent Role
sourcetext: Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client. The Board determined that Engineer B's disclosure of his relationship with client constituted a neglect of the interests of his client.
tensionresolution: The Board determined that the benefits of disclosure to all parties did not outweigh the detriments to the client, and that Engineer B's good intentions did not cure the ethical violation of the faithful agent duty
textreferences: Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client.
textreferences: The Board determined that Engineer B's disclosure of his relationship with client constituted a neglect of the interests of his client and that on balance the benefits to be derived by Engineer B's disclosure, for all parties involved, did not outweigh detriments that may be suffered by the client.
textreferences: the general duty of loyalty and fair dealing denotes that a person has the duty of carrying out a transaction, in which he and another person are interested, in such manner as will be most for the benefit of the latter, and not in such a way that he himself might be tempted, for the sake of his personal advantage, to neglect the interests of the other.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.698681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Client Loyalty Violated by Unauthorized Disclosure in BER 93-3
type: ClientLoyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B BER 93-3 Replacement Design Engineer
appliedto: Franchiser Client BER 93-3
balancingwith: Client Interest Primacy Over Engineer Personal Advantage in Faithful Agent Role
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's disclosure of his relationship with the franchiser to incumbent Engineer A, in violation of the client's explicit confidentiality instruction, was found to violate the duty of loyalty to the client — establishing that loyalty requires following client confidentiality directives even when the engineer believes disclosure would be beneficial
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Client loyalty in the replacement engineer context requires strict adherence to client confidentiality instructions regarding the transition from incumbent to replacement engineer, even when the replacement engineer's motivations for disclosure are not self-serving
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Client Loyalty
sourcetext: franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to their relationship to Engineer A. Nevertheless, Engineer B reviewed the design information the following week and following his review, notified Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser.
tensionresolution: Loyalty to client prevailed over any obligation to inform the incumbent engineer of the transition; the Board found the disclosure violated client loyalty regardless of Engineer B's benign intent
textreferences: Engineer B had an obligation as 'faithful agent and trustee' to not to tell Engineer A of his relationship with the client.
textreferences: Engineer B's actions were not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to their relationship to Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.699386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Competitive Information Asymmetry Created
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Competitor Conduct in Procurement Standard - FOIA Use Context
type: CompetitorConductinProcurementStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Competitor Conduct in Engineering Procurement
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:40:01.240628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:40:01.240628+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Competitor Conduct in Procurement Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
usedby: Engineer B; ethics reviewers
usedincontext: Governs whether Engineer B's use of a FOIA request to access Engineer A's submitted qualifications during an active procurement process constitutes an ethical or unethical competitive tactic, including whether it constitutes an attempt to gain unfair competitive advantage
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.687043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was ethical for Engineer B to make the FOIA request in connection with the state’s procurement of engineering services, pursuant to the State’s RFQ procedures.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.280076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: II.5.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: While the Board concluded that Engineer B's FOIA request was ethically permissible, the Board's reasoning implicitly distinguishes between the legality of obtaining competitor qualifications and the ethics of using them. The FOIA request itself may be defensible as an exercise of a public right, but the Board's caution that Engineer B should have submitted his own qualifications first signals that the ethical weight of the conduct shifts materially once the information is actually received and potentially incorporated. If Engineer B reviewed Engineer A's submission and tailored his own qualifications in response—even without copying protected expression—this would constitute use of an improper competitive advantage that undermines the fairness principles embedded in qualification-based selection procurement law. The Board's conclusion of compliance therefore applies narrowly to the act of filing the FOIA request, not to any downstream exploitation of the information obtained.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.280158
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer B's FOIA request was ethical rests in part on the existence of a legally open competitive framework, but this reasoning exposes an unaddressed systemic vulnerability: the state agency's disclosure of Engineer A's qualifications during an active procurement process itself implicates procurement integrity. The state agency, as the public procurement authority, bears a co-responsibility for the informational equity of the selection process. By releasing a competitor's qualifications before the submission deadline had closed for all parties, the agency created a structural asymmetry that no individual engineer's ethical conduct alone could have prevented or remedied. This suggests that the Board's ethical analysis, while correctly focused on Engineer B's conduct, is incomplete without acknowledging that procurement regulations should be revised to exempt submitted qualifications from FOIA disclosure until after the selection process concludes, in order to protect the public interest in fair and competitive procurement outcomes.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.280224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.5.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's analogical invocation of the faithful agent principle from BER Case 93-3 introduces a tension that the Board does not fully resolve. In BER 93-3, the faithful agent duty ran from an engineer to a private client, constraining the engineer from acting in ways that prioritized personal or altruistic motives over the client's interests. In the present case, the Board applies this principle analogically to suggest that Engineer B owed a duty of honorable conduct to the integrity of the public procurement process itself—a duty that is not grounded in a bilateral client relationship but in a broader professional obligation to the public. This extension is conceptually significant: it implies that the faithful agent principle under NSPE Code Section II.4 is not limited to private client relationships but also constrains engineers from exploiting informational advantages within public procurement systems, even when those advantages are legally obtained. However, the Board stops short of declaring this duty violated, leaving open whether the timing of Engineer B's FOIA request—after Engineer A submitted but before Engineer B submitted—constitutes a breach of this extended faithful agent obligation or merely an appearance of impropriety that falls short of an ethical violation. A more complete analysis would require the Board to specify whether the appearance of impropriety standard, standing alone, is sufficient to constitute an ethical violation under the NSPE Code, or whether actual exploitation of the competitor's information is required.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.280306
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: II.5.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Even if Engineer B's FOIA request was legally permissible, reviewing and incorporating insights from a competitor's qualifications submission before submitting his own raises serious concerns about improper competitive advantage that violate the spirit of fair procurement. The legality of the acquisition does not sanitize the competitive distortion it creates. Engineer A submitted qualifications in good faith within a procurement framework that implicitly assumes informational parity among competing firms at the time of submission. Engineer B's pre-submission FOIA request shattered that parity by allowing him to calibrate his own submission against a competitor's already-disclosed strategy. The NSPE Code's prohibition on improper competitive methods is not limited to illegal acts; it encompasses conduct that, while technically lawful, undermines the integrity of the competitive process. The Board's own recommendation that Engineer B should have submitted his qualifications before filing the FOIA request implicitly acknowledges that the sequence of actions matters ethically, not merely the legal permissibility of the individual act. Accordingly, the informational advantage gained through pre-submission FOIA review constitutes a form of competitive impropriety even if no explicit rule was violated.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.280399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 201
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: The state agency bears a meaningful ethical and procedural responsibility for disclosing a competitor's qualifications submission during an active procurement process. While the state may have been legally obligated to comply with the FOIA request under existing statute, the disclosure created a structural inequity in the procurement that undermines the public interest the procurement system is designed to serve. Procurement regulations should be revised to include a procurement-integrity exception to FOIA disclosure, shielding submitted qualifications from release until after the selection process is complete. Such an exception would align FOIA law with the fairness norms embedded in qualification-based selection frameworks, which presuppose that competing firms are evaluated on equal informational footing. The absence of such a protection is a regulatory gap, not an ethical endorsement of mid-process disclosure. The state agency's compliance with the FOIA request, while legally defensible, contributed to the competitive information asymmetry that the Board itself found troubling, and this implicates the agency's own procurement integrity obligations.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.280480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: Engineer A bears some affirmative responsibility to protect the confidentiality of qualifications submitted to public procurement processes, but the scope of that obligation is limited by the practical realities of public records law. Engineer A could have proactively requested that the state agency treat certain portions of the submission as proprietary or confidential, particularly trade-sensitive methodologies, staffing structures, or pricing frameworks, to the extent permitted by the applicable FOIA statute. Failure to take such steps does not eliminate Engineer A's standing to object to Engineer B's conduct, because the ethical wrong lies in Engineer B's exploitation of the timing asymmetry, not solely in Engineer A's failure to anticipate it. However, Engineer A's inaction does diminish the force of any claim that the procurement system failed him, since the self-protection obligation is a recognized caution in the NSPE framework. The ethical burden is shared: Engineer A should have been more proactive, but Engineer B should not have exploited the window of vulnerability that Engineer A's inaction created.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.280545
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: II.5.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: If Engineer B did in fact use the content of Engineer A's qualifications to tailor or strengthen his own submission, that use would constitute a deceptive act under the NSPE Code even if the information was lawfully obtained through FOIA. The Code's prohibition on deceptive acts is not limited to misrepresentations of fact; it encompasses conduct that creates a false impression about the independent merit of one's own professional work product. A qualifications submission that has been calibrated against a competitor's submission without disclosure presents the submitting engineer's work as independently conceived when it is in part derivative of a competitor's strategy. This is a form of professional misrepresentation that violates the spirit of II.5. Furthermore, the lawfulness of the acquisition channel does not transform the downstream use into an ethical act. The analogy to BER 93-3 is instructive: just as good intent did not excuse Engineer B in that case from the consequences of a procedurally improper act, the legal availability of FOIA does not excuse Engineer B in the present case from the ethical consequences of exploiting a competitor's submission to gain an undisclosed advantage.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.280619
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 302
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: The principle of Public Procurement Transparency as a Public Interest Protection Mechanism and the principle of Fairness in Professional Competition are in genuine tension in this case, and the Board's resolution of that tension in favor of transparency is defensible but not without cost. FOIA exists to ensure government accountability and public access to government records, values that serve the public interest broadly. However, when FOIA is used not to scrutinize government conduct but to gain a competitive edge over a private party in an ongoing procurement, the transparency rationale is instrumentalized in a way that undermines the fairness norm it is supposed to coexist with. The two principles can be reconciled only if FOIA access is temporally constrained in procurement contexts, releasing competitor submissions only after the selection process concludes. Until such a reconciliation is achieved through regulatory reform, the Board's conclusion that Engineer B's FOIA request was ethical must be understood as a narrow legal compliance finding rather than a broad endorsement of the practice as consistent with professional fairness norms.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.280686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 103
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: The tension between the FOIA Procurement Timing Integrity principle and the Public Procurement Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation does not resolve cleanly in favor of either party. The Board's recommendation that Engineer B should have submitted his own qualifications before filing the FOIA request implies that the timing of the request is Engineer B's ethical responsibility to manage. However, the self-protection obligation imposed on Engineer A suggests that the risk of FOIA exposure is partly Engineer A's to bear. These two positions are not mutually exclusive: Engineer B had an obligation to sequence his actions to avoid creating an informational asymmetry, and Engineer A had an obligation to take reasonable steps to protect sensitive submission content. The ethical failure in this case is distributed, not singular. The Board's framing, which focuses primarily on Engineer B's timing, understates Engineer A's share of the responsibility while also understating the structural inadequacy of a procurement system that permits mid-process FOIA disclosure without any protective mechanism.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.280754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.5.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B's use of the FOIA mechanism to obtain a competitive advantage over Engineer A before submitting his own qualifications raises a serious question about categorical duty. The Kantian test asks whether the maxim underlying Engineer B's action could be universalized without contradiction. If every competing engineer routinely filed FOIA requests to obtain competitors' qualifications before submitting their own, the procurement system would collapse into a race to submit last, with each firm waiting to calibrate its submission against all others. This self-defeating universalization reveals that Engineer B's action, while individually rational, is categorically impermissible as a general rule of professional conduct. Engineer B's act treated Engineer A not as an equal participant in a fair process but as an unwitting source of competitive intelligence, instrumentalizing Engineer A's good-faith submission in a way that violates the duty of fair dealing that professional competition requires. The legal availability of FOIA does not discharge this categorical duty.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.280828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, normalizing pre-submission FOIA intelligence gathering in engineering procurement would produce long-term systemic harms that outweigh the short-term transparency benefits of any individual FOIA request. If the practice becomes routine, firms will respond by submitting qualifications that are strategically vague to minimize the intelligence value of early disclosure, degrading the quality of information available to public agencies for selection decisions. Alternatively, firms may delay submission to preserve informational advantage, distorting procurement timelines. Public trust in the fairness of qualification-based selection processes would erode, as engineers and firms perceive the system as rewarding strategic information exploitation rather than genuine professional merit. The consequentialist calculus therefore supports the Board's implicit discomfort with Engineer B's timing even while the Board found the act technically ethical, and it supports regulatory reform to close the FOIA disclosure window during active procurement periods.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.280894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.5.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B's strategic timing of the FOIA request to gain informational advantage over a competitor before submitting his own qualifications falls short of the professional integrity and honorable character expected of a licensed engineer. Virtue ethics asks not merely whether an act is permitted but whether it reflects the character of a person of good professional standing. An engineer of genuine integrity, confronted with the opportunity to review a competitor's qualifications before submitting his own, would recognize that the advantage gained is not earned through superior professional merit but through procedural exploitation. The virtuous engineer would either submit his own qualifications first or decline to use the competitor's submission as a calibration tool. The fact that no explicit rule prohibited Engineer B's sequence of actions does not resolve the virtue ethics question, because virtue ethics is precisely concerned with conduct in the spaces where rules are silent. Engineer B's conduct in this case reflects a disposition toward competitive advantage-seeking that is inconsistent with the honorable character the NSPE Code expects of its members.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.281027
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: The Board's analogical invocation of the faithful agent principle from BER Case 93-3 raises the question of whether that duty transfers to competitive relationships in public procurement. In BER 93-3, the faithful agent obligation ran from Engineer B to a private client, constraining Engineer B from acting in ways that prioritized personal interest over client welfare. In the present case, there is no private client relationship between Engineer B and Engineer A. However, the faithful agent principle can be extended analogically to the public procurement system itself: Engineer B, as a participant in a public procurement process, owes a duty of faithful dealing to the integrity of that process, which serves the public interest. This duty constrains Engineer B from exploiting procedural mechanisms in ways that undermine the fairness of the process, even in the absence of a direct client relationship with Engineer A. The Board's analogical transfer of the faithful agent principle is therefore defensible, but it should be understood as grounding a duty to the public procurement system rather than a duty to Engineer A as a competitor.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.281100
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: Even if Engineer B had submitted his own qualifications before filing the FOIA request, as the Board recommends, the competitive information asymmetry would not have been fully eliminated. Engineer B would still have had access to Engineer A's qualifications before the interview process concluded, and could have used that information to refine oral presentations, anticipate the agency's comparative questions, or identify weaknesses in Engineer A's submission to exploit during interviews. The Board's timing recommendation addresses the most visible form of the asymmetry, the pre-submission calibration problem, but does not address the downstream exploitation risk that persists throughout the selection process. A more complete ethical resolution would require Engineer B to refrain from using Engineer A's qualifications for any competitive purpose during the entire procurement process, not merely to submit his own qualifications first. This suggests that the Board's conclusion, while finding the FOIA request ethical, implicitly leaves open a residual ethical obligation of non-exploitation that extends beyond the timing question.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.281164
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 403
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: If Engineer A had proactively requested that the state agency treat his submitted qualifications as confidential or proprietary prior to Engineer B's FOIA request, the ethical calculus for both parties would have shifted significantly. Many FOIA statutes include exemptions for trade secrets or proprietary business information, and a timely confidentiality designation by Engineer A might have obligated the state to withhold the documents or at least to notify Engineer A before disclosure, allowing him to seek legal protection. Had the state withheld the documents on this basis, Engineer B's act of filing the FOIA request would not itself constitute an ethical violation, because the request would have been denied and no competitive harm would have resulted. The ethical weight of Engineer B's conduct depends in part on the actual acquisition and potential use of the information, not merely on the filing of the request. However, the act of filing a pre-submission FOIA request targeting a competitor's qualifications would still reflect a disposition toward competitive advantage-seeking that raises professional character concerns independent of whether the information was actually obtained.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.281260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.5.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: If the state agency had declined to release Engineer A's qualifications under a procurement-integrity exception to the FOIA statute, Engineer B's act of filing the request would not constitute a clear ethical violation in isolation, but it would still warrant scrutiny. The ethical analysis of Engineer B's conduct cannot be reduced entirely to whether the information was actually obtained, because the intent behind the request, to gain competitive intelligence from a competitor's submission before submitting his own, reflects a disposition that is ethically problematic regardless of outcome. An engineer who attempts to exploit a procedural mechanism for competitive advantage but is thwarted by the system has not thereby demonstrated ethical compliance; he has merely been prevented from completing an ethically questionable act. The ethical weight of the conduct is diminished when no information is obtained, because no actual harm to the competitive process results, but the underlying intent and the appearance of impropriety it creates remain relevant to a full professional character assessment.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.281330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: The Board's reasoning in the present case does not depend critically on the analogical transfer from BER Case 93-3, but the absence of that precedent would likely have produced a less nuanced conclusion. Without BER 93-3, the Board would have lacked a ready framework for articulating why good intent, or the legal availability of FOIA, does not automatically render Engineer B's conduct ethical. The faithful agent principle from BER 93-3 provided the Board with a conceptual bridge to the idea that procedural propriety matters independently of outcome or intent. Without that bridge, the Board might have resolved the case more simply on the basis of legal permissibility, concluding that because FOIA access is lawful, the request was ethical, without the important qualification about timing and appearance of impropriety. The BER 93-3 precedent therefore enriched the Board's analysis by introducing a principle that constrains conduct even within legally permissible boundaries, and its absence would have left the ethical reasoning thinner and potentially more permissive than the facts warrant.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.281405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: II.5.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Public Procurement Transparency as a Public Interest Protection Mechanism and Fairness in Professional Competition was resolved in this case by treating legal access as a necessary but insufficient condition for ethical conduct. The Board did not declare Engineer B's FOIA request unethical, but it declined to endorse the timing and sequence of his actions as fully honorable. This resolution reveals a layered principle hierarchy: transparency rights operate as a floor, not a ceiling, for ethical behavior. An engineer may lawfully invoke FOIA without that invocation automatically satisfying the higher standard of fair dealing expected in professional competition. The case teaches that when two legitimate principles collide — open records access and competitive equity — the ethical resolution does not simply defer to legality, but asks whether the actor's conduct would withstand scrutiny from the standpoint of a reasonable, honorable professional. The Board's implicit answer is that Engineer B's pre-submission timing failed that scrutiny even while his legal right to file the request was affirmed.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.281494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.5.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The analogical transfer of the Faithful Agent Obligation from BER Case 93-3 to the present case reveals a significant principle extension: the duty to subordinate personal advantage to the integrity of a process is not confined to client relationships but extends, by analogy, to the integrity of public procurement systems in which engineers participate as competitors. In BER 93-3, the faithful agent principle constrained Engineer B from disclosing a new client relationship even with benevolent intent, because good intent does not cure procedural impropriety. Applied here, the same logic constrains Engineer B from exploiting a legal information-gathering mechanism to gain asymmetric competitive advantage, even if his intent was merely to be better informed. The principle synthesis that emerges is that the Benevolent Motive Non-Excuse principle and the Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety principle together form a meta-principle: the ethical evaluation of competitive conduct in engineering procurement is objective, not subjective. The actor's intent is irrelevant to whether the conduct created an unfair structural advantage. This case thus teaches that the faithful agent duty, while textually directed at client relationships under Code Section II.4, carries an analogical shadow obligation toward the fairness architecture of public procurement itself.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.281577
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: II.5.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The principle of Public Procurement Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation — which places a burden on Engineer A to safeguard sensitive submission content — interacts with the FOIA Procurement Timing Integrity principle in a way that distributes ethical responsibility across multiple actors rather than concentrating it solely on Engineer B. The Board's implicit recognition that Engineer A bears some responsibility for protecting his own submission acknowledges that public procurement is a shared ethical ecosystem: the state agency, the submitting engineer, and the requesting competitor each carry distinct obligations. However, this distribution of responsibility does not dissolve Engineer B's independent obligation to conduct himself honorably. The principle synthesis here is one of concurrent rather than exclusive duty: Engineer A's failure to seek confidentiality protections does not license Engineer B to exploit the resulting vulnerability. Instead, both obligations coexist, and Engineer B's ethical standing is evaluated independently of whether Engineer A took adequate self-protective measures. This teaches that in engineering ethics, the availability of an opportunity to act improperly does not become an ethical permission simply because another party failed to foreclose that opportunity.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.281650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Confidential Information in Public Procurement Submission Risk
type: ConfidentialInformationSubmittedtoPublicDisclosure-EligibleRepositoryState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of qualification documents to public agency through conclusion of applicable records retention period
affectedparties: Competing firms
affectedparties: Engineering firms submitting qualifications
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Public agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:41:57.865272+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:41:57.865272+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
stateclass: Confidential Information Submitted to Public Disclosure-Eligible Repository State
subject: The condition of engineering firms that include confidential or proprietary information in qualification statements or other submissions to public agencies subject to public records law
terminatedby: Expiration of statutory records retention period, or successful invocation of applicable disclosure exemption
textreferences: an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
triggeringevent: Engineering firm's submission of qualification documents containing potentially confidential or proprietary information to a public agency
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.691014
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer B file the FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the state agency, or should he submit his own qualifications first and only then file the FOIA request?
focus: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A in the same public RFQ, files a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's already-submitted qualifications before Engineer B has submitted his own firm's qualifications. The core question is whether Engineer B should have sequenced his FOIA request after submitting his own qualifications, or whether filing before his own submission — while legally permissible — creates an appearance of impropriety that violates the spirit of fair procurement and the NSPE Code's honorable conduct standard.
option1: Engineer B submits his firm's qualifications to the state agency before filing any FOIA request for Engineer A's submission, ensuring that the competitor intelligence obtained cannot have influenced the content of his own qualifications and thereby avoiding any appearance of impropriety in the procurement process.
option2: Engineer B files the FOIA request before submitting his own qualifications, treating the legal availability of FOIA access as sufficient ethical authorization for the request regardless of timing, on the grounds that public procurement submissions are public records and no regulation prohibits this sequence.
option3: Engineer B refrains from filing any FOIA request for a competitor's qualifications during the active procurement window — before the selection process concludes — recognizing that any pre-selection access to a competitor's submission creates an informational asymmetry incompatible with fair competition, regardless of whether the request is filed before or after his own submission.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.281768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

DP10
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP10
decision question: Should Engineer B file the FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own firm's qualifications, or should he first submit his own qualifications and then file the FOIA request?
focus: Engineer B's FOIA Timing and Appearance of Impropriety: Whether Engineer B should have submitted his own qualifications before filing the FOIA request targeting a competitor's submission during an active public procurement process.
option1: Engineer B submits his firm's own qualifications to the state agency before filing any FOIA request, ensuring that no competitive information asymmetry is created by the sequence of actions and that the appearance of impropriety is avoided.
option2: Engineer B files the FOIA request and reviews Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own, relying on the legal permissibility of FOIA access as sufficient justification and treating the public records framework as an open competitive resource available to all participants.
option3: Engineer B files the FOIA request for general procurement transparency purposes but refrains from reviewing the substantive content of Engineer A's qualifications submission, thereby preserving the legal exercise of public records access while avoiding exploitation of the competitive information asymmetry.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.284194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

DP11
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP11
decision question: Should Engineer B refrain from using the content of Engineer A's FOIA-obtained qualifications to calibrate or strengthen his own submission, or may he treat the lawfully obtained information as legitimate competitive intelligence to inform his own qualifications?
focus: Engineer B's Use of Competitor Qualifications Content: Whether Engineer B, having obtained Engineer A's qualifications through FOIA, may review and incorporate insights from that submission to tailor or strengthen his own qualifications, or whether good intent and legal acquisition are insufficient to justify such downstream use.
option1: Engineer B refrains from using any substantive content from Engineer A's qualifications to calibrate, tailor, or strengthen his own submission or interview preparation, treating the obtained documents as off-limits for competitive purposes throughout the entire procurement process.
option2: Engineer B reviews Engineer A's qualifications and uses the insights gained to inform and strengthen his own submission, treating the lawfully obtained public records as legitimate competitive intelligence available within the open procurement framework, consistent with the legal permissibility of the FOIA request.
option3: Engineer B discloses to the state agency that he obtained and reviewed Engineer A's qualifications through a FOIA request before submitting his own, allowing the agency to assess whether the informational asymmetry warrants any remedial action in the procurement process, and thereby preserving transparency while acknowledging the potential competitive distortion.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.284271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer B use the substantive content of Engineer A's qualifications — obtained through the FOIA request — to calibrate or strengthen his own submission, or should he refrain from exploiting that content for any competitive purpose in the same procurement?
focus: Having lawfully obtained Engineer A's qualifications through the FOIA request, Engineer B faces a second and distinct ethical decision: whether to use the substantive content of Engineer A's submission — including project descriptions, personnel credentials, methodologies, and competitive differentiators — to tailor, improve, or strategically position his own qualifications submission for the same procurement. The Board's clearance of the FOIA request as ethical applies narrowly to the act of filing; the downstream use of the information obtained raises independent ethical concerns about improper competitive advantage and potential deception under the NSPE Code.
option1: Engineer B reviews Engineer A's qualifications only to understand the general competitive landscape and refrains from using any substantive content — project descriptions, personnel credentials, methodologies, or competitive differentiators — to tailor, improve, or strategically reposition his own qualifications submission for the same procurement.
option2: Engineer B treats Engineer A's FOIA-disclosed qualifications as lawfully available competitive intelligence and uses insights from that submission to strengthen his own qualifications, on the grounds that public disclosure under FOIA renders the information freely usable and that competitive awareness is a legitimate professional purpose.
option3: Engineer B refrains from using Engineer A's qualifications to alter his written submission but uses the disclosed information to prepare for the interview stage — anticipating comparative questions and identifying competitive differentiators — on the grounds that the written submission is already finalized and the interview is a distinct evaluative phase.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283551
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A proactively request that the state agency treat sensitive portions of his qualifications submission as confidential or proprietary before the submission window closes, or should he submit without seeking such protections and accept the FOIA disclosure risk as an inherent feature of public procurement?
focus: Engineer A submitted qualifications to a public agency in response to an RFQ without taking affirmative steps to seek confidential or proprietary treatment for sensitive submission content — such as project methodologies, staffing structures, or competitive differentiators — that could be subject to FOIA disclosure. The question is whether Engineer A bore an obligation to proactively seek confidentiality protections for his submission, and whether failure to do so diminishes his standing to object to Engineer B's FOIA request or shifts a portion of the ethical responsibility for the resulting competitive information asymmetry to Engineer A himself.
option1: Engineer A proactively requests that the state agency designate sensitive portions of his qualifications — including proprietary methodologies, staffing structures, and competitive differentiators — as confidential or proprietary prior to submission, invoking any available FOIA exemption for trade secrets or proprietary business information to reduce the risk of mid-process competitor disclosure.
option2: Engineer A submits his qualifications without seeking any confidentiality designation, treating public procurement submissions as inherently public records and relying on the procurement system's fairness norms — rather than individual protective action — to prevent competitors from exploiting FOIA access during the active selection process.
option3: Engineer A omits proprietary methodologies, sensitive staffing details, and competitively differentiating content from his qualifications submission entirely, including only information he is prepared to have publicly disclosed, and reserves sensitive content for the interview stage where it is not subject to FOIA disclosure as a submitted document.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer B file the FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's submitted qualifications before submitting his own firm's qualifications, or should he submit his own qualifications first and only then exercise his FOIA rights?
focus: Engineer B's FOIA Timing and Competitive Conduct Obligation: Whether Engineer B should have submitted his own qualifications before filing the FOIA request, or whether filing first was ethically permissible within the legally open procurement framework.
option1: Engineer B submits his firm's own qualifications to the state agency first, then exercises his FOIA rights to obtain Engineer A's submission, ensuring that his own submission was independently conceived and that no pre-submission informational asymmetry was created.
option2: Engineer B exercises his legally available FOIA rights before submitting his own qualifications, treating the public records framework as an open competitive resource available to all participants and relying on the state's disclosure decision as the relevant ethical boundary.
option3: Engineer B refrains entirely from filing any FOIA request targeting competitor qualifications while the procurement selection process remains active, deferring any public records inquiry until after the agency has made its selection decision.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer A proactively request that the state agency treat his submitted qualifications as confidential or proprietary before the submission deadline, or is it sufficient to rely on the procurement system's general framework without seeking specific confidentiality protections?
focus: Engineer A's Affirmative Self-Protection Obligation: Whether Engineer A was obligated to take proactive steps to seek confidential treatment of his submitted qualifications before the FOIA request was filed, and whether failure to do so shifts ethical responsibility toward Engineer A and away from Engineer B.
option1: Engineer A proactively designates sensitive portions of his qualifications submission — including methodologies, staffing structures, and strategic frameworks — as proprietary or confidential before or at the time of submission, invoking any available FOIA exemption to reduce the risk of mid-process competitor disclosure.
option2: Engineer A submits his qualifications without requesting confidential treatment, relying on the procurement system's general framework and the implicit assumption that competing firms will not exploit FOIA mechanisms to access submissions before the deadline has closed for all parties.
option3: Engineer A submits a version of his qualifications that omits or generalizes the most competitively sensitive content — such as proprietary methodologies or staffing strategies — so that even if the submission is disclosed under FOIA, the information available to competitors is limited in its strategic value.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should the state agency disclose Engineer A's submitted qualifications in response to Engineer B's FOIA request during the active procurement process, or should it withhold the documents under a procurement-integrity rationale and advocate for regulatory reform to close the disclosure window?
focus: State Agency Procurement Integrity and Regulatory Reform Obligation: Whether the state agency bears an independent ethical and procedural responsibility for disclosing a competitor's qualifications during an active procurement, and whether procurement regulations should be revised to exempt submitted qualifications from FOIA disclosure until after the selection process concludes.
option1: The state agency declines to release Engineer A's qualifications during the active procurement period, invoking a procurement-integrity rationale or seeking legal guidance on whether an implied exemption applies, and simultaneously advocates for legislative or regulatory reform to create an explicit FOIA exemption protecting submitted qualifications until after the selection process concludes.
option2: The state agency complies with the FOIA request as legally required but notifies Engineer A of the pending disclosure before releasing the documents, providing Engineer A an opportunity to seek legal protection or request confidential treatment of proprietary content, thereby partially mitigating the competitive harm while fulfilling the statutory obligation.
option3: The state agency releases Engineer A's qualifications in full compliance with the applicable FOIA statute, treating the open records obligation as controlling and deferring any policy concerns about competitive equity to the legislative process, without taking independent action to notify Engineer A or delay disclosure.
role label: State Agency
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283860
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: Should Engineer B file the FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own firm's qualifications, or should he submit his own qualifications first and then file the FOIA request?
focus: Engineer B: FOIA Request Timing Relative to Own Submission in Active Procurement
option1: Submit the firm's own qualifications to the state agency first, then file the FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications, eliminating the pre-submission informational asymmetry and satisfying the Board's appearance-of-impropriety standard.
option2: File the FOIA request before submitting the firm's own qualifications, treating FOIA access as a legally open public right that imposes no sequencing obligation on the requesting engineer, and relying on the state's legal duty to disclose as the operative ethical boundary.
option3: Decline to file any FOIA request targeting competitor qualifications until after the selection process is complete, treating the procurement period as a domain where competitive equity overrides general public disclosure rights regardless of the legal availability of FOIA.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

DP8
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP8
decision question: After receiving Engineer A's qualifications through the FOIA request, should Engineer B refrain from using that content to calibrate or strengthen his own submission, or may he incorporate insights from the disclosed qualifications into his competitive strategy?
focus: Engineer B: Use of Competitor's Qualifications Content After FOIA Disclosure
option1: Decline to use any insights, structural elements, or strategic content from Engineer A's disclosed qualifications when finalizing or presenting Engineer B's own submission, treating the FOIA-obtained documents as off-limits for competitive calibration throughout the entire procurement process including interviews.
option2: Treat Engineer A's lawfully obtained qualifications as legitimately available competitive intelligence within the open procurement framework, incorporating relevant insights to strengthen Engineer B's submission on the grounds that FOIA access is a public right that carries no downstream use restriction.
option3: Voluntarily disclose to the state agency that Engineer B obtained and reviewed Engineer A's qualifications through a FOIA request before submitting his own, allowing the agency to determine whether the informational asymmetry warrants remedial action such as requiring Engineer B to resubmit or recuse, thereby subordinating personal competitive advantage to the integrity of the procurement process.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.284025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

DP9
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP9
decision question: Should the state agency revise procurement regulations to exempt submitted qualifications from FOIA disclosure until after the selection process is complete, or should it continue to treat submitted qualifications as immediately disclosable public records under existing FOIA statute?
focus: State Agency and Engineer A: Systemic Procurement Integrity — Whether Submitted Qualifications Should Be Shielded from FOIA During Active Procurement
option1: Revise procurement regulations to include an exemption shielding submitted qualifications from FOIA disclosure until after the selection process is complete, aligning FOIA law with the fairness norms embedded in qualification-based selection frameworks and eliminating the structural asymmetry that mid-process disclosure creates.
option2: Continue treating submitted qualifications as immediately disclosable public records under existing FOIA statute, on the grounds that government transparency obligations are categorical and that competitive equity concerns are the responsibility of individual engineers and procurement participants to manage through self-protective measures.
option3: Without awaiting statutory reform, adopt an administrative protocol requiring the agency to notify submitting engineers of pending FOIA requests targeting their qualifications and to impose a brief hold period allowing submitting engineers to seek legal protection or confidentiality designation before disclosure, balancing transparency obligations with procurement fairness.
role label: State Agency
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.284104
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A BER 93-3 Incumbent Design Engineer
type: IncumbentConsultingEngineerUnderContract
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Franchise facility design', 'contract_status': 'Active then expired'}
caseinvolvement: Retained by franchiser for multi-year engineering design services for a chain of stores; contract terminated with notice of non-renewal; subject to replacement by Engineer B during the transition period
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:41:16.315327+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:41:16.315327+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Franchiser Client BER 93-3'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 93-3 Replacement Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services for a chain of stores throughout the United States
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services for a chain of stores throughout the United States
textreferences: Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expired
textreferences: the franchiser decided to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provided a notice of its intent not to renew its contract with Engineer A's firm
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.688864
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Submission Self-Protection
type: ConfidentialSubmissionSelf-ProtectioninPublicProcurementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidential Submission Self-Protection in Public Procurement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to recognize that qualifications submitted to a public agency under public procurement procedures are subject to FOIA disclosure, and to calibrate the proprietary content of his submission accordingly to protect his firm's confidential interests.
casecontext: Engineer A submitted qualifications to the state agency, which the state then provided to Engineer B in response to a FOIA request, exposing Engineer A's proprietary qualification content to a direct competitor
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's submission of qualifications to the state agency, which were subsequently disclosed to Engineer B via FOIA — indicating the need for this self-protection capability
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
textreferences: Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.696815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Confidential Submission Self-Protection Capability Instance
type: ConfidentialSubmissionSelf-ProtectioninPublicProcurementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidential Submission Self-Protection in Public Procurement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A in the present case was required to possess the capability to recognize that qualifications submitted to a public agency under public procurement procedures are subject to FOIA disclosure, and to exercise appropriate judgment about what confidential or proprietary information to include in such submissions.
casecontext: Present case — Engineer A submitted qualifications to a state agency in response to a public RFQ; those qualifications were subsequently obtained by Engineer B through a FOIA request.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The Board cautioned that engineers in Engineer A's position should avoid including confidential or proprietary information in public agency submissions, implying Engineer A may not have fully exercised this capability.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (Present Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the Board would caution engineers that in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations.
textreferences: the Board would caution engineers that in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.704604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Incumbent Engineer
type: IncumbentConsultingEngineerUnderContract
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'procurement_context': 'Active public engineering services contract subject to renewal competition'}
caseinvolvement: Incumbent engineer in the present case whose qualifications submission to a public agency was subject to review by competing Engineer B under public procurement and FOIA laws; analogous to Engineer A in BER 93-3 as the party whose representations were scrutinized
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:41:16.315327+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:41:16.315327+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Public Agency Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'competitor_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Present Case Public Procurement Competitor'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract
sourcetext: the public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
textreferences: misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest
textreferences: the public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.689690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A Present Case Public Procurement Qualifications Confidentiality Self-Protection
type: PublicProcurementQualificationsConfidentialitySelf-ProtectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted qualifications to a public agency under public procurement procedures. The Board cautioned that engineers in this situation should avoid including confidential or proprietary information in such submissions because they are subject to FOIA disclosure.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (present case)
obligationclass: Public Procurement Qualifications Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from including confidential or proprietary information in his qualifications submission to the public agency, recognizing that such submissions are subject to public disclosure under applicable FOIA laws and regulations.
sourcetext: the Board would caution engineers that in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting qualifications to the public agency
textreferences: the Board would caution engineers that in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.702089
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A Public Procurement Qualifications Confidentiality Self-Protection BER 10-8
type: PublicProcurementConfidentialInformationSelf-ExclusionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board cautioned that engineers should avoid including confidential or proprietary information in public procurement submissions because such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Procurement Confidential Information Self-Exclusion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to refrain from including confidential or proprietary information in his qualifications submission to the public agency, recognizing that such submissions are subject to public disclosure under applicable FOIA laws and regulations, and that the engineer — not the public agency — bears responsibility for ensuring submissions do not contain information the engineer would not wish publicly disclosed.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Case 10-8; applicable state FOIA statutes; public procurement regulatory framework
sourcetext: the Board would caution engineers that in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting qualifications to the public agency
textreferences: the Board would caution engineers that in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.703128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A Public Procurement Qualifications Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation
type: PublicProcurementQualificationsConfidentialitySelf-ProtectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency in response to a public RFQ under state public procurement procedures, which subjected the submission to FOIA disclosure to competitors such as Engineer B.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:45:06.238072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:45:06.238072+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Procurement Qualifications Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that submitting qualifications to a public agency under public procurement procedures subjects those materials to potential FOIA disclosure, and therefore to refrain from including genuinely confidential or proprietary information in the submission, or to accept that any such information would be publicly disclosable.
sourcetext: In response to a public request for qualifications (RFQ), Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting qualifications to the state agency
textreferences: In response to a public request for qualifications (RFQ), Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.693082
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A Public Procurement Submission FOIA Exposure Self-Protection Constraint Instance
type: PublicProcurementConfidentialInformationSelf-ExclusionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted qualifications to a state agency under public procurement procedures, and those qualifications were subsequently obtained by competitor Engineer B through a FOIA request. Engineer A bore responsibility for ensuring that the submission did not contain information the firm would not wish publicly disclosed, as public procurement submissions are inherently subject to FOIA disclosure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Procurement Confidential Information Self-Exclusion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to recognize that submitting qualifications to a state agency under public procurement procedures subjects those materials to disclosure under the state FOIA statute, and accordingly was required to refrain from including confidential or proprietary information in the submission that Engineer A would not wish to be disclosed to competitors or the public.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: State FOIA Statute; NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 10-8; Public procurement law
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting qualifications to the state agency in response to the RFQ
textreferences: Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.695177
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A Public RFQ Submitting Engineer
type: PublicRFQSubmittingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'submission_type': 'Qualifications for public project RFQ', 'procurement_context': 'State public procurement procedures'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency in response to a public RFQ under state public procurement procedures. His submission is subsequently obtained by competitor Engineer B via a FOIA request.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:39:40.730980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:39:40.730980+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'State Agency'}
relationships: {'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'Engineer B FOIA-Requesting Competing Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Public RFQ Submitting Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures
textreferences: Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.686298
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A Qualifications Submitted to Public RFQ
type: PublicInformationAvailable
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of Engineer A's qualifications through FOIA disclosure and beyond
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: General Public
affectedparties: State Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:40:07.781238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:40:07.781238+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures
stateclass: Public Information Available
subject: Engineer A's firm qualifications submitted in response to state RFQ
terminatedby: Conclusion of the procurement process
textreferences: Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B
triggeringevent: Engineer A's submission of qualifications to the state agency under public procurement procedures
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.686145
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A Submits RFQ Qualifications
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A Submits RFQ Qualifications → Engineer A's Qualifications Exposed to Competitor
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A's Qualifications Exposed to Competitor
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A's contract expiration with franchiser meets franchiser's formal retention of Engineer B as design engineer
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706387
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A's multi-year service to franchiser before franchiser's termination notice to Engineer A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer A's qualifications submission to state agency before Engineer B's FOIA request
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint Instance
type: AppearanceofImproprietyAvoidanceinPublicProcurementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's FOIA request, submitted before Engineer B's own qualifications were filed, created an appearance of impropriety in the public procurement process by suggesting Engineer B sought to review and potentially tailor its submission based on advance knowledge of a competitor's qualifications, even if Engineer B's actual intent was merely competitive awareness.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to avoid not only actual unfair competitive advantage but also the appearance of impropriety in the public procurement process — the pre-submission FOIA request created a reasonable appearance that Engineer B sought to gain an unfair informational advantage over Engineer A, which is ethically impermissible regardless of Engineer B's subjective intent.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 82-2, 15-7, 16-3, 10-8; Public procurement ethics principles
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer B decided to participate in the RFQ process through submission of Engineer B's own qualifications
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.694886
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Asymmetric Competitive Advantage Post-FOIA
type: CompetitorQualificationVisibilityAdvantageState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From receipt of Engineer A's qualifications through Engineer B's own submission and procurement conclusion
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: State Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:40:07.781238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:40:07.781238+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The state provides the information to Engineer B
stateclass: Competitor Qualification Visibility Advantage State
subject: Engineer B's informational advantage over Engineer A in the same procurement competition, derived from reviewing Engineer A's qualifications before finalizing Engineer B's own submission
terminatedby: Procurement selection decision rendered
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project
triggeringevent: State's provision of Engineer A's qualifications to Engineer B under FOIA
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.687904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B BER 93-3 Altruistic Motive Faithful Agent Duty Non-Override
type: AltruisticMotiveFaithfulAgentDutyNon-OverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: In BER Case 93-3, Engineer B was not motivated by personal advantage but by altruistic or collegial concern; the Board nonetheless found that this motivation did not justify the breach of faithful agent duty because the benefits of disclosure did not outweigh the detriments to the client.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B (BER Case 93-3)
constraintclass: Altruistic Motive Faithful Agent Duty Non-Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from treating his altruistic or collegial motivation — the desire to inform Engineer A of the new engagement — as a sufficient justification for breaching his faithful agent duty to the franchiser client, because the balance of benefits and detriments must be assessed from the client's perspective and the benefits of disclosure did not outweigh the detriments to the client.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 93-3; NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent and trustee provisions
sourcetext: Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B decided to disclose his relationship with the franchiser to Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client
textreferences: Engineer B's disclosure of his relationship with client constituted a neglect of the interests of his client
textreferences: the benefits to be derived by Engineer B's disclosure, for all parties involved, did not outweigh detriments that may be suffered by the client
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.703483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B BER 93-3 Client Confidentiality Instruction Faithful Agent Compliance
type: ClientConfidentialityInstructionFaithfulAgentComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by a major franchiser to replace incumbent Engineer A before Engineer A's contract expired. The franchiser explicitly instructed Engineer B to keep the engagement confidential from Engineer A. Engineer B nonetheless notified Engineer A of his relationship with the franchiser and the preliminary results of his design review.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (BER 93-3)
obligationclass: Client Confidentiality Instruction Faithful Agent Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated, as faithful agent and trustee of the franchiser client, to comply with the client's explicit instruction not to disclose his new engagement to incumbent Engineer A, and to refrain from notifying Engineer A of his relationship with the client or the preliminary results of his design review.
sourcetext: franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to their relationship to Engineer A. Nevertheless, Engineer B reviewed the design information the following week and following his review, notified Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser and the preliminary results of his review.
temporalscope: From the time of retention by the franchiser until Engineer A's contract expired and the confidentiality instruction was no longer operative
textreferences: franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to their relationship to Engineer A. Nevertheless, Engineer B reviewed the design information the following week and following his review, notified Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser and the preliminary results of his review.
textreferences: the Board determined that Engineer B had an obligation as 'faithful agent and trustee' to not to tell Engineer A of his relationship with the client.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.701121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B BER 93-3 Faithful Agent Client Benefit Primacy Capability Instance
type: FaithfulAgentClientBenefitPrimacyOverPersonalAdvantageRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent Client Benefit Primacy Over Personal Advantage Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B in BER 93-3 was required to possess the capability to recognize that his duty as faithful agent and trustee to the franchiser client required him to carry out the engagement in the manner most beneficial to the client — including refraining from disclosing his relationship with the client to Engineer A even when motivated by benevolent collegial impulse rather than personal advantage.
casecontext: BER Case No. 93-3 — Engineer B retained by franchiser to replace Engineer A; instructed to keep engagement confidential; disclosed relationship to Engineer A the following week after reviewing design information.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer B disclosed his relationship with the franchiser client to Engineer A despite explicit client instruction to maintain confidentiality, constituting a neglect of client interests that the Board found inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B (BER 93-3)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the general duty of loyalty and fair dealing denotes that a person has the duty of carrying out a transaction, in which he and another person are interested, in such manner as will be most for the benefit of the latter, and not in such a way that he himself might be tempted, for the sake of his personal advantage, to neglect the interests of the other.
textreferences: Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client.
textreferences: The Board determined that Engineer B's disclosure of his relationship with client constituted a neglect of the interests of his client and that on balance the benefits to be derived by Engineer B's disclosure, for all parties involved, did not outweigh detriments that may be suffered by the client.
textreferences: the general duty of loyalty and fair dealing denotes that a person has the duty of carrying out a transaction, in which he and another person are interested, in such manner as will be most for the benefit of the latter, and not in such a way that he himself might be tempted, for the sake of his personal advantage, to neglect the interests of the other.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.703958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B BER 93-3 Faithful Agent Client Interest Primacy Over Altruistic Disclosure
type: FaithfulAgentClientInterestPrimacyOverAltruisticDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's disclosure to Engineer A was not motivated by personal advantage but by collegial or altruistic considerations. The Board nonetheless found the disclosure ethically impermissible because it neglected the client's interests.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (BER 93-3)
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Client Interest Primacy Over Altruistic Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to prioritize the franchiser client's interests over his altruistic or collegial impulse to inform Engineer A of the new engagement, recognizing that the absence of personal advantage motivation did not render the unauthorized disclosure ethically permissible.
sourcetext: Here, Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B decided to notify Engineer A of his relationship with the franchiser and the preliminary review results
textreferences: Engineer B's disclosure of his relationship with client constituted a neglect of the interests of his client and that on balance the benefits to be derived by Engineer B's disclosure, for all parties involved, did not outweigh detriments that may be suffered by the client.
textreferences: Here, Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.701339
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B BER 93-3 Faithful Agent Client Non-Disclosure Instruction Compliance
type: FaithfulAgentClientInstructionNon-DisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: In BER Case 93-3, the franchiser explicitly instructed Engineer B not to disclose his new engagement to Engineer A; Engineer B nonetheless disclosed the relationship, which the Board found inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics as a breach of faithful agent duty.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B (BER Case 93-3)
constraintclass: Faithful Agent Client Instruction Non-Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained by his duty as faithful agent and trustee to the franchiser client to comply with the client's explicit instruction not to disclose the new engagement relationship to Engineer A, prohibiting disclosure even when Engineer B's motivation was altruistic or collegial rather than self-serving.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 93-3; NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent and trustee provisions
sourcetext: franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to their relationship to Engineer A
temporalscope: From the time of the client's non-disclosure instruction through the conclusion of the transition period
textreferences: Engineer B had an obligation as 'faithful agent and trustee' to not to tell Engineer A of his relationship with the client
textreferences: Engineer B's disclosure of his relationship with client constituted a neglect of the interests of his client
textreferences: franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to their relationship to Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.703319
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B BER 93-3 Good Intent Non-Justification Recognition Capability Instance
type: BenevolentMotiveNon-JustificationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B in BER 93-3 was required to possess the capability to recognize that his benevolent, non-self-interested motivation for disclosing his relationship with the franchiser client to Engineer A did not render that disclosure ethically permissible under his faithful agent obligations.
casecontext: BER Case No. 93-3 — Engineer B disclosed his relationship with the franchiser client to Engineer A despite explicit instructions to maintain confidentiality, apparently motivated by collegial concern rather than personal advantage.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to exercise this capability: Engineer B disclosed his relationship with the client despite explicit confidentiality instructions, apparently believing that his benevolent motivation (informing Engineer A of the new engagement) justified the disclosure. The Board found this reasoning insufficient.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B (BER 93-3)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Here, Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client.
textreferences: Here, Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client.
textreferences: The Board determined that Engineer B's disclosure of his relationship with client constituted a neglect of the interests of his client and that on balance the benefits to be derived by Engineer B's disclosure, for all parties involved, did not outweigh detriments that may be suffered by the client.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705422
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B BER 93-3 Replacement Design Engineer
type: Confidentiality-DirectedReplacementDesignEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Franchise facility design review', 'confidentiality_instruction': 'Explicitly directed by client not to disclose relationship to Engineer A'}
caseinvolvement: Retained by franchiser to replace Engineer A; explicitly instructed to keep the engagement confidential from Engineer A; reviewed pending design concerns; then disclosed the relationship to Engineer A contrary to client instructions; later retained as permanent design engineer
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:41:16.315327+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:41:16.315327+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Franchiser Client BER 93-3'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 93-3 Incumbent Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Confidentiality-Directed Replacement Design Engineer
sourcetext: franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to their relationship to Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B reviewed the design information the following week and following his review, notified Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser
textreferences: Engineer B's disclosure of his relationship with client constituted a neglect of the interests of his client
textreferences: franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to their relationship to Engineer A
textreferences: the franchiser retained Engineer B as its design engineer
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.689087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint Instance
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's pre-submission FOIA request created an asymmetric competitive situation in which Engineer B had reviewed Engineer A's qualifications before submitting its own, while Engineer A had no corresponding access to Engineer B's qualifications, undermining the equal competitive opportunity that public procurement processes are designed to ensure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to ensure that his participation in the public procurement process preserved equal competitive opportunity for all competing firms, including Engineer A — the pre-submission FOIA request undermined this fairness constraint by creating an informational asymmetry in which Engineer B had access to Engineer A's qualifications while Engineer A had no corresponding access to Engineer B's qualifications.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6; Public procurement law; Free and open competition regulatory framework
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer B's participation in the public RFQ procurement process
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.695591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: By obtaining Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own, Engineer B created an information asymmetry that potentially disadvantaged Engineer A and undermined the equal competitive footing that qualification-based selection processes are designed to ensure.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:45:06.238072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:45:06.238072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to ensure that his participation in the public procurement process provided all competing firms — including Engineer A — a fair opportunity to compete on equal informational footing, and to refrain from actions that structurally disadvantage competitors through asymmetric access to their own submitted materials.
sourcetext: Prior to the interview process, Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
temporalscope: Throughout the public RFQ process from initial submission through interview
textreferences: Prior to the interview process, Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.693266
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Competitive Procurement Honorable Conduct Constraint Instance
type: ProcurementCompetitionHonorableConductConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's pre-submission FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications, while legally permissible under state FOIA law, raised ethical concerns about whether Engineer B was competing honorably and fairly in the public procurement process, as the timing created an appearance of using an improper or questionable method to gain competitive advantage.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to conduct all competitive activities in the public RFQ process honorably, responsibly, and fairly — prohibiting the use of FOIA-based intelligence gathering that, by virtue of its pre-submission timing, constituted an improper or questionable method of obtaining competitive advantage beyond demonstrated merit and qualifications.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6, III.7; BER Case 10-8
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer B's participation in the public RFQ procurement process
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.694486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Competitor Qualification FOIA Acquisition
type: CompetitorQualificationVisibilityAdvantageState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's public records request through the Board's ethical evaluation of the conduct
affectedparties: Competing engineering firms
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:41:57.865272+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:41:57.865272+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
stateclass: Competitor Qualification Visibility Advantage State
subject: Engineer B's acquisition and review of competitor qualifications submitted to the public agency via public records request, prior to or after submitting Engineer B's own qualifications
terminatedby: Conclusion of procurement process and Board's ethical determination
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board
textreferences: the Board is not in a position to second guess or otherwise determine the appropriateness of those rules and regulations
triggeringevent: Engineer B's submission of a public records request to obtain competitor qualification statements from the public agency
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.690818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Competitor Qualifications Content Non-Exploitation
type: CompetitorQualificationsContentNon-ExploitationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitor Qualifications Content Non-Exploitation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B required the capability to recognize the ethical boundaries on using Engineer A's qualifications content once lawfully obtained through FOIA — specifically, to refrain from exploiting Engineer A's proprietary qualification strategies or content to gain competitive advantage in the same procurement.
casecontext: After obtaining Engineer A's qualifications through FOIA, Engineer B submitted his own qualifications to the same agency for the same project, creating the risk that Engineer A's proprietary content was exploited in preparing Engineer B's submission
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's receipt of Engineer A's qualifications and subsequent submission of his own qualifications — raising the question of whether the content was exploited in preparing his own submission
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.697466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA-Acquired Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use BER 10-8
type: FOIA-AcquiredCompetitorIntelligenceEthicalUseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B obtained Engineer A's qualifications via FOIA during an active public procurement; the Board evaluated whether this use was consistent with ethical obligations governing competitive intelligence in public procurement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: FOIA-Acquired Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to use Engineer A's qualifications submission obtained through FOIA only for legitimate competitive awareness purposes and not to tailor or misrepresent his own qualifications in a manner that creates a misleading impression or undermines the integrity of the qualification-based selection process.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 10-8; NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6
sourcetext: a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest
temporalscope: Following acquisition of Engineer A's qualifications via FOIA through conclusion of the procurement process
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.702791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA-Acquired Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint Instance
type: FOIA-AcquiredCompetitorIntelligenceEthicalUseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B obtained Engineer A's submitted qualifications via FOIA before submitting his own firm's qualifications, creating a risk that the acquired intelligence could be used to improperly tailor Engineer B's submission to gain competitive advantage over Engineer A in the same RFQ process.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: FOIA-Acquired Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from using Engineer A's qualifications submission — obtained through FOIA — to tailor, misrepresent, or strategically adjust Engineer B's own qualifications submission in a manner that would create a misleading impression of superiority or gain an unfair competitive advantage over Engineer A in the same public procurement process.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6, III.7; BER Case 10-8; Public procurement integrity standards
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer B received Engineer A's qualifications through FOIA until the conclusion of the procurement process
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.693643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA-Based Acquisition of Competitor Qualifications
type: FOIA-BasedCompetitorIntelligenceAcquisitionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's FOIA request through Engineer B's own qualifications submission and procurement conclusion
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: State Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:40:07.781238+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:40:07.781238+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state
stateclass: FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Acquisition State
subject: Engineer B's use of FOIA to obtain Engineer A's submitted qualifications prior to Engineer B's own submission
terminatedby: Conclusion of the procurement selection process
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project
triggeringevent: Engineer B submitting a FOIA request to the state to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before the interview process and before Engineer B's own submission
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.687686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA-Requesting Competing Engineer
type: FOIA-RequestingCompetingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'foia_timing': 'Prior to interview process, before submitting own qualifications', 'procurement_context': 'State public procurement procedures'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, submits a state FOIA request prior to the interview process to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission, and thereafter submits his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency for the same public project.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:39:40.730980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:39:40.730980+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'State Agency'}
relationships: {'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'Engineer A Public RFQ Submitting Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: FOIA-Requesting Competing Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state
textreferences: Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.686443
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA Competitive Ethics Assessment
type: FOIARequestCompetitiveEthicsAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: FOIA Request Competitive Ethics Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B required the capability to assess whether submitting a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own constituted an attempt to gain improper competitive advantage, and to recognize this as ethically impermissible even if legally available.
casecontext: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before Engineer B's own firm had submitted its qualifications to the same state agency for the same RFQ
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.97
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's submission of a FOIA request prior to submitting his own qualifications — demonstrating absence or failure of this capability in practice
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.696139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA Content Non-Exploitation Obligation
type: FOIA-BasedCompetitorIntelligenceEthicalUseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B obtained Engineer A's qualifications submission through a lawful FOIA request and subsequently submitted his own qualifications to the same state agency for the same public project, creating the risk that the competitor intelligence was used to gain an unfair advantage.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:45:06.238072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:45:06.238072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to use Engineer A's qualifications submission obtained through FOIA only for legitimate competitive awareness purposes and not to reverse-engineer, copy, or exploit Engineer A's proprietary project descriptions, personnel credentials, or methodologies to tailor his own qualifications submission for the same procurement.
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer A's qualifications through FOIA and continuing through submission of Engineer B's own qualifications
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.692592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA Pre-Submission Timing Appearance of Impropriety BER 10-8
type: FOIAPre-SubmissionCompetitorIntelligenceAppearanceofImproprietyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission before Engineer B's own firm had submitted its qualifications, raising concerns about the timing and appearance of impropriety in the public procurement process.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: FOIA Pre-Submission Competitor Intelligence Appearance of Impropriety Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to submit any FOIA request for competitor qualifications only after — not before — his own firm had submitted its qualifications to the procuring agency, because pre-submission FOIA requests create an appearance of impropriety by suggesting the requesting firm sought to tailor its submission based on advance knowledge of a competitor's qualifications.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 10-8; NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6, III.7
sourcetext: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board
temporalscope: Prior to submission of Engineer B's own qualifications to the public agency
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.702569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA Pre-Submission Timing Constraint Instance
type: FOIAPre-SubmissionCompetitorIntelligenceAppearanceofImproprietyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request and obtained Engineer A's qualifications before Engineer B's own firm submitted its qualifications to the state agency for the same public project RFQ, creating an asymmetric informational advantage and an appearance of impropriety in the public procurement process.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: FOIA Pre-Submission Competitor Intelligence Appearance of Impropriety Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from submitting a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications prior to Engineer B's own firm having submitted its qualifications to the state agency for the same RFQ, because doing so created an appearance of impropriety by suggesting Engineer B sought to tailor its own submission based on advance knowledge of a competitor's qualifications.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6, III.7; BER Case 10-8; Public procurement ethics principles
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer B's firm decided to respond to the RFQ until Engineer B's own qualifications were submitted to the state agency
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.693483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA Pre-Submission Timing Violation Obligation
type: FOIACompetitorIntelligencePost-SubmissionTimingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission prior to the interview process and prior to submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency for the same public project.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:45:06.238072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:45:06.238072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: FOIA Competitor Intelligence Post-Submission Timing Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from submitting a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications until after Engineer B's own firm had submitted its qualifications to the state agency for the same RFQ, so as not to use competitor intelligence to inform or improve his own submission.
sourcetext: Prior to the interview process, Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer B's firm decided to respond to the same RFQ until Engineer B's own qualifications were submitted
textreferences: Prior to the interview process, Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.692393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA Timing Ethics Compliance
type: FOIARequestCompetitiveTimingEthicsComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: FOIA Request Competitive Timing Ethics Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B required the capability to recognize that a FOIA request for a competitor's qualifications must be submitted only after his own firm has submitted its qualifications, and to comply with this timing requirement to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
casecontext: Engineer B submitted the FOIA request prior to the interview process and before submitting his own firm's qualifications, reversing the ethically required sequence
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.98
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's pre-submission FOIA request — demonstrating failure of this timing compliance capability, as the FOIA was submitted before Engineer B's own qualifications were filed
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Prior to the interview process, Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
textreferences: Prior to the interview process, Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.696369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Files FOIA Request
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Files FOIA Request → Competitive Information Asymmetry Created
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705871
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Files FOIA Request → Engineer B Submits Own Qualifications
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Free and Open Competition Regulatory Deference BER 10-8
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionRegulatoryDeferenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications during an active public procurement process; the Board evaluated whether this conduct was consistent with applicable laws and regulations governing free and open competition.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Free and Open Competition Regulatory Deference Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to act within the legal framework governing free and open competition at local, state, and federal levels; the Board found that Engineer B appeared to have acted consistently with applicable laws and regulations and declined to second-guess those rules, establishing that regulatory compliance sets the floor for permissible competitive conduct.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case 10-8; applicable state FOIA and public procurement statutes
sourcetext: Engineers and engineering companies compete within the legal framework that exists at the local, state, and federal levels.
temporalscope: Throughout the public procurement process
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations, and the Board is not in a position to second guess or otherwise determine the appropriateness of those rules and regulations
textreferences: Engineers and engineering companies compete within the legal framework that exists at the local, state, and federal levels.
textreferences: free and open competition is a basic rule that generally exists under local, state, and federal laws and regulations
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.702419
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Obligation
type: GoodIntentNon-JustificationforProceduralImproprietyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's FOIA request was lawful, but its timing — before submitting his own qualifications — created an appearance of impropriety that undermines the integrity of the competitive procurement process regardless of Engineer B's motivation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:45:06.238072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:45:06.238072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Good Intent Non-Justification for Procedural Impropriety Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to recognize that any legitimate competitive curiosity or strategic awareness motivation for submitting the FOIA request does not cure the appearance of impropriety created by the timing of the request — submitted before his own qualifications — and that the structural harm to procurement fairness is independent of his subjective intent.
sourcetext: Prior to the interview process, Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
temporalscope: At the time of deciding to submit the FOIA request and prior to submitting his own qualifications
textreferences: Prior to the interview process, Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.692766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Good Intent Non-Justification Recognition
type: GoodIntentNon-JustificationforProceduralImproprietyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Good Intent Non-Justification for Procedural Impropriety Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B required the capability to recognize that any legitimate competitive curiosity or strategic awareness motivation for submitting the pre-submission FOIA request did not render the conduct ethically permissible, and that good intentions must be channeled through proper procurement processes.
casecontext: Engineer B's FOIA request, while potentially motivated by legitimate competitive awareness, was submitted at a timing that created an appearance of impropriety regardless of intent
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's reliance on the legal availability of the FOIA mechanism without recognizing that good intent does not cure the appearance of impropriety created by pre-submission timing
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.697010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Honorable Procurement Conduct Obligation
type: HonorableProfessionalConductinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B used a lawful FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own, which, while technically legal, raises serious questions about honorable conduct in a competitive public procurement context.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:45:06.238072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:45:06.238072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to conduct himself honorably and fairly in the public procurement process, which required not only compliance with the letter of FOIA law but also adherence to the spirit of fair competition — including refraining from using the FOIA mechanism in a manner that creates an unfair informational advantage over a competitor in the same procurement.
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of the public RFQ process
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.692912
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Honorable Procurement Self-Regulation
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B required the capability to self-regulate his competitive conduct to meet the standard of honorable, responsible, and fair participation in the public procurement process, including refraining from exploiting the FOIA mechanism to gain non-merit competitive advantage.
casecontext: Engineer B's conduct in obtaining Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own fell short of the honorable procurement conduct standard required by professional ethics codes
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's decision to submit a pre-submission FOIA request — demonstrating a gap in this self-regulatory capability
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.696628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition
type: ImproperCompetitiveAdvantageRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B required the capability to recognize that using a FOIA request to access Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own created an improper competitive advantage, and that exploiting this opportunity was ethically impermissible even though legally available.
casecontext: Engineer B obtained Engineer A's qualifications through FOIA before submitting his own, creating an information asymmetry that gave Engineer B a non-merit competitive advantage in the same procurement
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's submission of a pre-submission FOIA request and subsequent use of Engineer A's qualifications information — demonstrating failure to recognize or act on this capability
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.697231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Improper Competitive Method Prohibition Constraint Instance
type: ImproperCompetitiveMethodProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's use of a pre-submission FOIA request to obtain competitor qualifications, while legally permissible under state FOIA law, raised ethical concerns about whether this constituted an improper or questionable competitive method under NSPE Code Section III.6, which prohibits engineers from attempting to obtain employment through improper or questionable methods.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Improper Competitive Method Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from attempting to obtain the public procurement engagement through improper or questionable methods — the pre-submission FOIA request, by creating an informational advantage over Engineer A before Engineer B's own submission was filed, constituted a questionable competitive method that violates professional ethics regardless of whether Engineer B's subjective intent was malicious.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:22.584278+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; BER Case 10-8; Professional procurement ethics standards
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
temporalscope: From the time Engineer B decided to participate in the RFQ process through submission of Engineer B's own qualifications
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.695940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Public Procurement
type: AppearanceofImproprietyAvoidanceinPublicProcurementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board expressed concern about the timing of Engineer B's FOIA request, noting that pre-submission requests create an appearance of impropriety even if the engineer's actual conduct was consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B (Present Case)
constraintclass: Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to avoid not only actual impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety in the public procurement process — specifically, the appearance that his pre-submission FOIA request was designed to allow him to tailor his own qualifications submission based on advance knowledge of Engineer A's submission.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE BER Case 10-8
sourcetext: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board
temporalscope: Prior to and during submission of qualifications to the public agency
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board
textreferences: the public procurement process is intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.703802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case Competitor Qualifications Content Non-Exploitation
type: CompetitorQualificationsContentNon-ExploitationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B obtained Engineer A's qualifications submission through a FOIA request and subsequently submitted his own qualifications for the same procurement, raising the question of whether the competitor intelligence was used to gain an unfair advantage.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (present case)
obligationclass: Competitor Qualifications Content Non-Exploitation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from using the substantive content of Engineer A's qualifications submission — obtained through a lawful FOIA request — to tailor, improve, or strategically position Engineer B's own qualifications submission for the same procurement.
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
temporalscope: From the time Engineer B obtained Engineer A's qualifications through the submission of Engineer B's own qualifications
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.701948
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case Competitor Qualifications Content Non-Exploitation Capability Instance
type: CompetitorQualificationsContentNon-ExploitationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitor Qualifications Content Non-Exploitation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B in the present case was required to possess the capability to recognize the ethical boundaries on using Engineer A's qualifications submission obtained through FOIA — specifically, to refrain from exploiting the competitor's proprietary qualification content to gain competitive advantage in the same procurement.
casecontext: Present case — Engineer B obtained Engineer A's qualifications through FOIA and reviewed them prior to the interview process in the same public procurement competition.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The Board's analysis of Engineer B's conduct in reviewing Engineer A's qualifications and the ethical constraints on using that information in the same procurement competition.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B (Present Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board, Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board, Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.704755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case Engineering Profession Free Competition Legal Framework Recognition
type: EngineeringProfessionFreeCompetitionLegalFrameworkRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Profession Free Competition Legal Framework Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B in the present case was required to possess the capability to recognize that his competitive conduct — including submitting a FOIA request for Engineer A's qualifications — occurs within a legal framework of free and open competition, and that this framework governs the baseline permissibility of competitive actions while ethics obligations operate as additional constraints within that framework.
casecontext: Present case — Engineer B submitted FOIA request for Engineer A's qualifications prior to the interview process in a public procurement competition.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's FOIA request was found to be generally consistent with applicable laws and regulations, indicating awareness of the legal competitive framework, though the timing raised ethical concerns.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer B (Present Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineers and engineering companies compete within the legal framework that exists at the local, state, and federal levels.
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations, and the Board is not in a position to second guess or otherwise determine the appropriateness of those rules and regulations.
textreferences: Engineers and engineering companies compete within the legal framework that exists at the local, state, and federal levels.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.704131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case FOIA Pre-Submission Competitor Intelligence Abstention
type: FOIAPre-SubmissionCompetitorIntelligenceAbstentionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before Engineer B's own firm had submitted its qualifications to the same agency, creating a potential informational advantage and an appearance of impropriety.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (present case)
obligationclass: FOIA Pre-Submission Competitor Intelligence Abstention Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from submitting a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission prior to the close of Engineer B's own submission window, so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety and to preserve the integrity of the competitive procurement process.
sourcetext: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board
temporalscope: Prior to Engineer B's own qualifications submission to the public agency
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.701655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case FOIA Timing Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Capability Instance
type: FOIARequestCompetitiveTimingEthicsComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: FOIA Request Competitive Timing Ethics Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B in the present case was required to possess the capability to recognize that submitting a FOIA request for a competitor's qualifications prior to submitting his own firm's qualifications creates an appearance of impropriety, and to structure the timing of any such request to avoid that appearance.
casecontext: Present case — Engineer B submitted FOIA request prior to the interview process to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: The Board noted that 'the timing of Engineer B's request...is of concern to the Board,' indicating Engineer B failed to fully exercise this capability by submitting the FOIA request prior to the interview process without ensuring his own submission had been made first.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B (Present Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board, Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board, Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.704902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability Instance
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B in the present case was required to possess the capability to conduct himself honorably and fairly in the public procurement process — including ensuring that his use of the FOIA mechanism was consistent with the spirit as well as the letter of professional ethics codes governing procurement and collegial relations.
casecontext: Present case — Engineer B's overall competitive conduct in the public procurement process, including the FOIA request and subsequent review of Engineer A's qualifications.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The Board's overall assessment that Engineer B's conduct, while largely consistent with applicable laws and regulations, raised concerns about the timing of the FOIA request and the appearance of impropriety it created.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B (Present Case)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations, and the Board is not in a position to second guess or otherwise determine the appropriateness of those rules and regulations.
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations, and the Board is not in a position to second guess or otherwise determine the appropriateness of those rules and regulations.
textreferences: the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case Procurement Honorable Conduct Constraint Instance
type: ProcurementCompetitionHonorableConductConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications during an active public procurement; the Board evaluated whether this conduct met the standard of honorable, responsible, and fair competitive conduct required by the NSPE Code.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B (Present Case)
constraintclass: Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to conduct all competitive activities in the public procurement process honorably, responsibly, and fairly — including ensuring that the timing and use of any FOIA request did not create an appearance of impropriety or undermine the integrity of the qualification-based selection process.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6, III.7; NSPE BER Case 10-8
sourcetext: the Board must assume that the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer B's participation in the public procurement process
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board
textreferences: the Board must assume that the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.703647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case Public Procurement Competitor
type: FOIA-RequestingCompetingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'procurement_context': 'Public qualifications-based selection process', 'timing_concern': 'Timing of request noted as a concern by the Board'}
caseinvolvement: Competing engineer in the present case who submitted qualifications to a public agency under public procurement procedures and whose timing of the FOIA/qualifications review request raised concern; found to have acted consistently with applicable laws and regulations
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:41:16.315327+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:41:16.315327+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Present Case Incumbent Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_to', 'target': 'Public Procurement Authority'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: FOIA-Requesting Competing Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.689540
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case Public Procurement FOIA Timing Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance
type: PublicProcurementFOIATimingAppearanceofImproprietyAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications prior to the interview process and before Engineer B's own submission was finalized, raising timing concerns for the Board.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (present case)
obligationclass: Public Procurement FOIA Timing Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to structure his FOIA request so that its timing could not create an appearance of impropriety — specifically, by ensuring the request was not submitted during the window in which his own qualifications submission was still being prepared or could be influenced by the competitor intelligence obtained.
sourcetext: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board
temporalscope: During the period between the RFQ issuance and Engineer B's own qualifications submission
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.701799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case Public Procurement Integrity Public Interest Articulation Capability Instance
type: PublicProcurementIntegrityPublicInterestArticulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Procurement Integrity Public Interest Articulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B in the present case was required to possess the capability to understand and internalize the public interest rationale underlying public procurement rules — including that the procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services and that the laws and regulations pertaining to that system were put in place to achieve that result.
casecontext: Present case — Engineer B's participation in a public procurement process governed by state FOIA and procurement laws designed to advance the public interest.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The Board's articulation of the public interest rationale for the procurement system as the normative framework within which Engineer B's conduct must be evaluated.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B (Present Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the Board must assume that the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services and that the laws and regulations pertaining to that system were put into place to achieve that result.
textreferences: the Board must assume that the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services and that the laws and regulations pertaining to that system were put into place to achieve that result.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705265
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case Public Procurement Misrepresentation Check Transparency Recognition
type: PublicProcurementMisrepresentationCheckTransparencyRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board noted that the public procurement process's openness, including FOIA availability, provides protection against misleading or deceptive representations by competing consultants, grounding a duty of accuracy in procurement submissions.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.75
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B (present case)
obligationclass: Public Procurement Misrepresentation Check Transparency Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to recognize that the openness of the public procurement process — including FOIA availability of submitted qualifications — serves as a check against misleading representations, and to ensure that his own qualifications submission contained no misleading or deceptive representations.
sourcetext: in view of the fact that the public procurement process is intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants, a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting qualifications to the public agency
textreferences: in view of the fact that the public procurement process is intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants, a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.702255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case Public Procurement Open Process Misrepresentation Protection Recognition
type: PublicProcurementOpenProcessMisrepresentationProtectionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Procurement Open Process Misrepresentation Protection Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B in the present case was required to possess the capability to recognize that the openness of the public procurement process — including FOIA availability of submitted qualifications — serves a public interest function of enabling review of representations to prevent misleading or deceptive submissions, and to apply this understanding when evaluating the permissibility of his FOIA request.
casecontext: Present case — Engineer B obtained and reviewed Engineer A's qualifications submission through FOIA in a public procurement process.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The Board's analysis recognized that Engineer B's review of Engineer A's qualifications, while raising timing concerns, was consistent with the public interest rationale of open procurement as a check on misrepresentations.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B (Present Case)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: in view of the fact that the public procurement process is intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants, a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest.
textreferences: in view of the fact that the public procurement process is intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants, a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.704282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Present Case Public Procurement Regulatory Deference
type: PublicProcurementRegulatoryDeferenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission in a public procurement process. The Board found that Engineer B appeared to have acted consistently with applicable laws and regulations, and declined to second-guess the policy choices embedded in those rules.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:50:57.600042+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B (present case)
obligationclass: Public Procurement Regulatory Deference Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to act in conformance with applicable FOIA and public procurement laws and regulations, and the Board recognized that Engineer B appeared to have done so — operating within the legal framework rather than circumventing it — even though the timing of the FOIA request raised concerns.
sourcetext: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations, and the Board is not in a position to second guess or otherwise determine the appropriateness of those rules and regulations.
temporalscope: During the public procurement process in which both Engineer A and Engineer B submitted qualifications
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations, and the Board is not in a position to second guess or otherwise determine the appropriateness of those rules and regulations.
textreferences: the Board must assume that the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services and that the laws and regulations pertaining to that system were put into place to achieve that result.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.701500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Public Procurement Integrity Articulation
type: PublicProcurementIntegrityPublicInterestArticulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Procurement Integrity Public Interest Articulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B required the capability to understand and internalize the public interest rationale underlying strict public procurement rules — including that free and open procurement processes protect the public's interest in obtaining high-quality engineering services at fair cost — and to apply this understanding to his own competitive conduct.
casecontext: The public procurement system using state RFQ procedures was designed to advance the public interest; Engineer B's conduct undermined this system by creating an information asymmetry inconsistent with fair competition
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's failure to recognize that his pre-submission FOIA request undermined the public interest in fair and open procurement competition
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: In response to a public request for qualifications (RFQ), Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
textreferences: In response to a public request for qualifications (RFQ), Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.697616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Public Procurement Misrepresentation Check Transparency Recognition BER 10-8
type: PublicProcurementMisrepresentationCheckTransparencyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board noted that the openness of the public procurement process, including FOIA availability of submissions, provides public protection against misleading representations by competing consultants.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Public Procurement Misrepresentation Check Transparency Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained to recognize that the openness of the public procurement process — including FOIA availability of submitted qualifications — serves a legitimate public interest function in detecting misrepresentations, and that this transparency function is a legitimate feature of the procurement system rather than an improper intrusion.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:52:46.501309+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Case 10-8; applicable FOIA statutes; public procurement regulatory framework
sourcetext: in view of the fact that the public procurement process is intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants, a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest
temporalscope: Throughout participation in the public procurement process
textreferences: in view of the fact that the public procurement process is intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants, a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.702970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B Submits Own Qualifications
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B's FOIA request before Engineer B's own qualifications submission
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706159
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B's FOIA request before interview process conclusion
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B's design review before Engineer B's notification to Engineer A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706324
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer B's notification to Engineer A before Engineer A's contract expiration with franchiser
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard - Competitive Advantage Limits
type: EngineerSolicitationandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Solicitation and Competitive Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:40:01.240628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:40:01.240628+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
usedby: Engineer B; ethics reviewers
usedincontext: Provides the ethical framework for evaluating whether Engineer B's FOIA-based intelligence gathering crosses the line from permissible competitive conduct into an ethically impermissible attempt to gain unfair advantage over a competitor in an active procurement process
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.687434
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Engineering Procurement Free Competition Legal Framework
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionLegalFrameworkActiveState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — established when restrictive NSPE code provisions were removed following government regulatory challenge; persists as background legal context for all engineering procurement
affectedparties: All engineering firms competing for public and private contracts
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: NSPE
affectedparties: Public agencies
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:41:57.865272+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:41:57.865272+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: free and open competition is a basic rule that generally exists under local, state, and federal laws and regulations
stateclass: Free and Open Competition Legal Framework Active State
subject: The legal and regulatory environment governing engineering firm competition at local, state, and federal levels
terminatedby: Not terminated — persists as ongoing regulatory framework
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: free and open competition is a basic rule that generally exists under local, state, and federal laws and regulations
textreferences: the NSPE Code of Ethics contained provisions (e.g., prohibiting advertising, prohibiting competitive bidding) that were deemed to conflict with the notion of free and open competition by government regulators and those provisions were eventually removed by NSPE
triggeringevent: Government regulatory determination that NSPE code provisions prohibiting advertising and competitive bidding conflicted with free and open competition law, leading to removal of those provisions
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.690112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint Invoked in Public Procurement Review
type: FOIA-BasedCompetitorIntelligenceEthicalUseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Present Case Incumbent Engineer
appliedto: Engineer A's qualifications submission
appliedto: Engineer B Present Case Public Procurement Competitor
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Public Procurement Transparency as Public Interest Protection Mechanism
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's use of a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission is evaluated against the constraint that lawfully obtained competitor information must be used for legitimate purposes — here, the Board characterizes the review as serving the public interest in verifying accuracy of representations rather than as misappropriation of proprietary information
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A FOIA-obtained competitor qualifications submission may be reviewed to verify the accuracy of representations made in a public procurement, which serves a legitimate public interest function distinct from misappropriating proprietary competitive methodology
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
sourcetext: a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest.
tensionresolution: The Board finds the use of FOIA-obtained information for accuracy verification is consistent with the public interest rationale of open procurement, while the timing of the request remains a separate concern
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.700032
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

FOIA Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Invoked By Engineer B
type: FOIA-BasedCompetitorIntelligenceEthicalUseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's own subsequent qualifications submission
appliedto: Engineer B's use of Engineer A's FOIA-obtained qualifications submission
balancingwith: FOIA Procurement Timing Integrity Obligation
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B obtained Engineer A's qualifications submission through a lawful FOIA request and subsequently submitted his own qualifications for the same project, raising the question of whether the obtained information was used only for legitimate competitive awareness or was exploited to gain an unfair advantage in crafting his own submission
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:43:51.304591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:43:51.304591+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Even though the FOIA request was lawful, the ethical constraint requires that the obtained information be used only for general competitive awareness; using it to shape or improve Engineer B's own submission would cross into impermissible exploitation
invokedby: Engineer B FOIA-Requesting Competing Engineer
principleclass: FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer B...submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state. The state provides the information to Engineer B. Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
tensionresolution: Lawfulness of the FOIA request does not resolve the ethical question of how the obtained information may be used; the constraint operates independently of legal permissibility
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.691448
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

FOIA Procurement Timing Integrity Invoked By Engineer B
type: FOIAProcurementTimingIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's FOIA request for Engineer A's qualifications
appliedto: Engineer B's subsequent submission of his own qualifications
balancingwith: FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission prior to submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same RFQ, creating the precise timing impropriety the principle prohibits — using competitor intelligence to potentially inform his own submission
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:43:51.304591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:43:51.304591+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethical violation arises not from the FOIA request itself, which is lawful, but from its timing: Engineer B requested and received Engineer A's submission before submitting his own, creating an information asymmetry that undermines procurement fairness
invokedby: Engineer B FOIA-Requesting Competing Engineer
principleclass: FOIA Procurement Timing Integrity Obligation
sourcetext: Prior to the interview process, Engineer B...submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state...Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
tensionresolution: The timing sequence — FOIA request before own submission — is the operative ethical fact; the principle requires own submission first to eliminate the appearance of intelligence-driven competitive advantage
textreferences: Prior to the interview process, Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.691185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

FOIA Procurement Timing Integrity Obligation Invoked for Engineer B Present Case
type: FOIAProcurementTimingIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Present Case Public Procurement Competitor
appliedto: Engineer B's FOIA request for Engineer A's qualifications
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board expresses concern about the timing of Engineer B's FOIA request relative to the procurement process, suggesting that submitting a FOIA request before the interview process to obtain a competitor's qualifications raises timing-based appearance of impropriety concerns even if the request was otherwise lawful
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The timing of a FOIA request in a public procurement context is ethically significant — a request made before the interview process to obtain a competitor's submission creates concerns about competitive intelligence use that a post-submission request would not
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: FOIA Procurement Timing Integrity Obligation
sourcetext: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board, Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations, and the Board is not in a position to second guess or otherwise determine the appropriateness of those rules and regulations.
tensionresolution: The Board notes the timing concern but ultimately finds Engineer B acted consistently with applicable laws and regulations, declining to second-guess those rules while flagging the timing issue as a caution
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which is of concern to the Board, Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.699838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated By Engineer B FOIA Conduct
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's competitive position
appliedto: Public RFQ competitive process
balancingwith: FOIA Procurement Timing Integrity Obligation
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's use of a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own creates an information asymmetry that potentially undermines the fairness of the competitive procurement process, even though the FOIA request itself was lawful
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:43:51.304591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:43:51.304591+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Fair professional competition requires that all competitors operate from equivalent informational starting points; Engineer B's pre-submission FOIA request potentially compromised that equivalence
invokedby: Engineer B FOIA-Requesting Competing Engineer
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
tensionresolution: The fairness principle is not satisfied merely by the lawfulness of the FOIA request; it requires assessment of whether the competitive process as a whole remains fair to all participants
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: In response to a public request for qualifications (RFQ), Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.691700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked as Analogical Bridge to Present Case
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Present Case Public Procurement Competitor
appliedto: Public Agency Client
appliedto: Public procurement system integrity
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board invokes BER 93-3's faithful agent analysis as a relevant precedent for the present case, establishing that the role of the engineer as the employer or client's faithful agent and trustee is a foundational principle that contextualizes how engineers must serve client and public interests in competitive procurement settings
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent concept extends beyond individual client relationships to encompass the engineer's role in serving the public interest through proper conduct in public procurement systems designed to advance that interest
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Case No. 93-3 makes an important point which is relevant to the case at hand—the role of the engineer in serving the legitimate needs of the client and the role of the engineer as the employer or client's 'faithful agent and trustee.'
tensionresolution: The Board uses the faithful agent framework to establish that engineers must serve the legitimate needs of clients — including the public as client — within the constraints of applicable procurement laws and regulations
textreferences: Case No. 93-3 makes an important point which is relevant to the case at hand—the role of the engineer in serving the legitimate needs of the client and the role of the engineer as the employer or client's 'faithful agent and trustee.'
textreferences: the Board must assume that the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.699153
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Franchiser Client BER 93-3
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Commercial franchiser', 'geographic_scope': 'National (United States)'}
caseinvolvement: Major franchiser who retained Engineer A for multi-year design services, then terminated the relationship and retained Engineer B as replacement, explicitly directing Engineer B to maintain confidentiality; the party whose interests were at stake in the faithful agent analysis
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:41:16.315327+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:41:16.315327+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 93-3 Incumbent Design Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 93-3 Replacement Design Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: Engineer A was retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services for a chain of stores throughout the United States
textreferences: Engineer A was retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services for a chain of stores throughout the United States
textreferences: franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to their relationship to Engineer A
textreferences: the franchiser retained Engineer B as its design engineer
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.689332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Free and Open Competition Boundary Condition Invoked in Engineering Practice Context
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionasEngineeringEthicsBoundaryCondition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's FOIA request for Engineer A's qualifications submission
appliedto: Public procurement competitive context
balancingwith: FOIA Procurement Timing Integrity Obligation
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board contextualizes the FOIA-based competitor intelligence dispute within the broader framework that engineering is both a business and a profession, that free and open competition is a basic legal rule, and that formerly anti-competitive ethics provisions were removed — establishing that competition itself is an ethically recognized value that constrains how the Board evaluates Engineer B's conduct
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board uses the free-and-open-competition framework to establish that Engineer B's FOIA request, while of concern regarding timing, operated within a legal framework the Board cannot second-guess, and that competitive review of public submissions is not inherently impermissible
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
sourcetext: The practice of engineering is a business as well as a profession. Engineers and engineering companies compete within the legal framework that exists at the local, state, and federal levels.
tensionresolution: The Board finds that Engineer B acted consistently with applicable laws and regulations, while cautioning about timing — suggesting that free competition operates within procedural integrity constraints
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations, and the Board is not in a position to second guess or otherwise determine the appropriateness of those rules and regulations.
textreferences: The practice of engineering is a business as well as a profession.
textreferences: it is also clear that free and open competition is a basic rule that generally exists under local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.698500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety Invoked Against Engineer B
type: GoodIntentDoesNotCureProceduralImpropriety
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's pre-submission FOIA request
appliedto: Public procurement process integrity
balancingwith: FOIA Procurement Timing Integrity Obligation
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's FOIA request may have been motivated by legitimate competitive curiosity or strategic awareness, but the timing of the request — before submitting his own qualifications — creates a procedural impropriety that cannot be cured by pointing to the lawfulness of the FOIA mechanism or the legitimacy of competitive intent
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:43:51.304591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:43:51.304591+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The ethical analysis must focus on the procedural effect of Engineer B's actions on procurement fairness, not on whether his motivations were benign; the appearance of impropriety created by the timing is ethically significant regardless of intent
invokedby: Engineer B FOIA-Requesting Competing Engineer
principleclass: Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety
sourcetext: Prior to the interview process, Engineer B...submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state...Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
tensionresolution: Procedural propriety in public procurement is an objective standard; subjective good intent does not satisfy it
textreferences: Prior to the interview process, Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.692047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety Invoked in BER 93-3 Analogy
type: GoodIntentDoesNotCureProceduralImpropriety
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B BER 93-3 Replacement Design Engineer
appliedto: Franchiser Client BER 93-3
balancingwith: Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation
balancingwith: Client Interest Primacy Over Engineer Personal Advantage in Faithful Agent Role
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board's analysis of BER 93-3 reinforces that Engineer B's disclosure to Engineer A — though not motivated by personal advantage — still constituted an ethical violation because the procedural obligation of faithful agency requires adherence to client instructions regardless of the engineer's subjective intent; the good intent did not cure the impropriety of the unauthorized disclosure
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Procedural obligations in professional relationships — such as the faithful agent duty to follow client confidentiality instructions — must be maintained regardless of the engineer's subjective motivation; benign intent is noted but does not alter the ethical evaluation
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety
sourcetext: In deciding that Engineer B's actions were not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, the Board determined that Engineer B had an obligation as 'faithful agent and trustee' to not to tell Engineer A of his relationship with the client.
tensionresolution: The Board applied an objective client-interest test rather than a subjective motivation test, finding the violation established by the nature of the act and its effect on client interests
textreferences: Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client.
textreferences: In deciding that Engineer B's actions were not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, the Board determined that Engineer B had an obligation as 'faithful agent and trustee' to not to tell Engineer A of his relationship with the client.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.700629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

II.2.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

II.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

II.5.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Interview Process Ongoing During Disclosure
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

NSPE BER Board BER 93-3 to Present Case Faithful Agent Principle Cross-Context Application
type: BERPrecedentFaithfulAgentPrincipleCross-ContextApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Precedent Faithful Agent Principle Cross-Context Application Capability
capabilitystatement: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review demonstrated the capability to recognize that BER Case No. 93-3 — involving a replacement design engineer's confidentiality obligation to a private client — articulates a faithful agent and trustee principle that is relevant to the present public procurement case, and to extract and apply that principle while acknowledging the factual differences between the two cases.
casecontext: Board's discussion section — analogical transfer of faithful agent principle from BER 93-3 (private client replacement engineer) to present case (public procurement FOIA competitor review).
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The Board explicitly noted that 'while the facts in BER Case No. 93-3 are somewhat different than the facts in the present case, Case No. 93-3 makes an important point which is relevant to the case at hand' and proceeded to apply the faithful agent principle to the public procurement context.
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:53:12.545686+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: While the facts in BER Case No. 93-3 are somewhat different than the facts in the present case, Case No. 93-3 makes an important point which is relevant to the case at hand—the role of the engineer in serving the legitimate needs of the client and the role of the engineer as the employer or client's 'faithful agent and trustee.'
textreferences: While the facts in BER Case No. 93-3 are somewhat different than the facts in the present case, Case No. 93-3 makes an important point which is relevant to the case at hand—the role of the engineer in serving the legitimate needs of the client and the role of the engineer as the employer or client's 'faithful agent and trustee.'
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.704438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:40:45.106187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:40:45.106187+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: the NSPE Code of Ethics contained provisions (e.g., prohibiting advertising, prohibiting competitive bidding) that were deemed to conflict with the notion of free and open competition by government regulators and those provisions were eventually removed by NSPE
textreferences: In deciding that Engineer B's actions were not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, the Board determined that Engineer B had an obligation as 'faithful agent and trustee'
textreferences: the NSPE Code of Ethics contained provisions (e.g., prohibiting advertising, prohibiting competitive bidding) that were deemed to conflict with the notion of free and open competition by government regulators and those provisions were eventually removed by NSPE
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer B's conduct
usedincontext: Referenced as the primary normative authority governing engineer conduct in competitive procurement situations, including the faithful agent and trustee obligation and the removal of prior anti-competitive provisions
version: Current (post-removal of advertising/competitive bidding prohibitions)
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.688099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Implicated By State Agency Disclosure
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Qualification-based selection integrity
appliedto: State public RFQ process
balancingwith: FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The state agency's disclosure of Engineer A's qualifications submission to Engineer B under FOIA, while legally required, raises questions about whether the public procurement system adequately protects the integrity of the competitive qualification-based selection process when FOIA mechanisms can be used to obtain competitor submissions before the requesting party has submitted its own
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:43:51.304591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:43:51.304591+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle of procurement integrity applies not only to individual engineer conduct but to the systemic design of procurement processes; the case reveals a potential gap in procurement integrity when FOIA and procurement timelines interact in ways that enable pre-submission competitor intelligence gathering
invokedby: Engineer B FOIA-Requesting Competing Engineer
invokedby: State Agency Public Procurement Authority
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: The state provides the information to Engineer B. Thereafter, Engineer B submits his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
tensionresolution: Procurement integrity requires that all participants — including competing engineers — act in ways that preserve the competitive fairness of the process, even when individual acts (like FOIA requests) are legally permissible
textreferences: Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.692213
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Public Agency Client
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Public agency', 'procurement_authority': 'Administers qualifications-based selection'}
caseinvolvement: The public entity administering the procurement process; the referenced public procurement system designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:41:16.315327+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:41:16.315327+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Present Case Incumbent Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Present Case Public Procurement Competitor'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
textreferences: the laws and regulations pertaining to that system were put into place to achieve that result
textreferences: the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.689927
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Public Procurement Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
type: PublicProcurementConfidentialitySelf-ProtectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's proprietary information included in the submission
appliedto: Engineer A's qualifications submission to the state agency
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A submitted his firm's qualifications to a public agency under public procurement procedures, thereby subjecting that submission to potential FOIA disclosure; the principle places responsibility on Engineer A to have exercised informed judgment about what proprietary information to include in a submission known to be subject to public records laws
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:43:51.304591+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:43:51.304591+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: In the public procurement context, engineers must treat their submissions as potentially public documents; the ethical obligation to protect confidential information requires proactive exclusion of genuinely proprietary content before submission, not reliance on post-submission confidentiality expectations
invokedby: Engineer A Public RFQ Submitting Engineer
principleclass: Public Procurement Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation
sourcetext: In response to a public request for qualifications (RFQ), Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
tensionresolution: The principle does not eliminate Engineer B's ethical obligations regarding use of the obtained information, but it establishes that Engineer A bears independent responsibility for the confidentiality risks of his own submission choices
textreferences: In response to a public request for qualifications (RFQ), Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.691885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Public Procurement Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation Invoked as Caution to Engineers
type: PublicProcurementConfidentialitySelf-ProtectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Present Case Incumbent Engineer
appliedto: Engineers submitting qualifications to public agencies generally
balancingwith: FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board cautions engineers that they should avoid including confidential or proprietary information in public procurement submissions because such information may be subject to mandatory public disclosure under applicable FOIA laws — placing the responsibility for protecting sensitive information on the submitting engineer rather than on the procurement system
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineers bear personal responsibility for protecting their own confidential information in public procurement contexts by exercising informed judgment about what to include in submissions subject to public disclosure laws
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Public Procurement Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation
sourcetext: the Board would caution engineers that in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations.
tensionresolution: The Board resolves the tension between competitive sensitivity and procurement transparency by placing the burden of confidentiality protection on the submitting engineer rather than restricting FOIA access
textreferences: the Board would caution engineers that in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.700233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Public Procurement Fairness Standard - RFQ Informational Equity
type: PublicProcurementFairnessStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.86
createdby: Professional engineering community / NSPE
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms for Equitable Treatment of Bidders in Public Engineering Procurement
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:40:01.240628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:40:01.240628+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Procurement Fairness Standard
sourcetext: In response to a public request for qualifications (RFQ), Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
textreferences: Engineer B submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: In response to a public request for qualifications (RFQ), Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
usedby: State agency; Engineer A; Engineer B; ethics reviewers
usedincontext: Addresses whether the asymmetric access to competitor qualification information — obtained via FOIA by Engineer B but not available to Engineer A — undermines the equitable informational basis required for fair public procurement competition
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.687253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Public Procurement Regulatory Framework (Free and Open Competition)
type: PublicProcurementFairnessStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Local, state, and federal legislative and regulatory bodies
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Local, State, and Federal Public Procurement Laws and Regulations
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:40:45.106187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:40:45.106187+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Procurement Fairness Standard
sourcetext: free and open competition is a basic rule that generally exists under local, state, and federal laws and regulations
textreferences: Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: free and open competition is a basic rule that generally exists under local, state, and federal laws and regulations
textreferences: the Board must assume that the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services and that the laws and regulations pertaining to that system were put into place to achieve that result
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in assessing Engineer B's conduct within the procurement system
usedincontext: Referenced as the governing legal and regulatory framework within which engineering firms compete, establishing that free and open competition is a basic rule and that public procurement systems are designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.688645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Public Procurement System Public Interest Alignment
type: CompetitiveProcurementPublicInterestAlignmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the public procurement process for engineering services in the present case
affectedparties: Competing engineering firms
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Public agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:41:57.865272+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:41:57.865272+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the Board must assume that the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
stateclass: Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment State
subject: The public procurement system within which Engineer B submitted qualifications and obtained competitor qualifications via public records request
terminatedby: Contract award concluding the procurement process
textreferences: a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest
textreferences: the Board must assume that the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
textreferences: the public procurement process is intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants
triggeringevent: Public agency's establishment of a procurement process for engineering services subject to public records law
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.690662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Public Procurement Transparency as Public Interest Protection Mechanism Invoked in FOIA Review Justification
type: PublicProcurementTransparencyasPublicInterestProtectionMechanism
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Present Case Incumbent Engineer
appliedto: Engineer B Present Case Public Procurement Competitor
appliedto: Public Agency Client
appliedto: State Agency Public Procurement Authority
balancingwith: FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Public Procurement Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board characterizes the openness of the public procurement process — including the availability of submitted qualifications through FOIA — as serving the public interest by enabling verification that competing firms have not made misleading or deceptive representations in their qualification submissions, thereby protecting the integrity of the qualification-based selection system
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Procurement transparency is not merely a procedural requirement but a substantive public interest protection mechanism that enables accuracy verification of professional representations — a function that benefits the public even when it disadvantages individual submitting firms
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Public Procurement Transparency as Public Interest Protection Mechanism
sourcetext: the public procurement process is intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants, a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest.
tensionresolution: The Board resolves the tension between individual firm confidentiality interests and public transparency by affirming the public interest rationale for open procurement while cautioning engineers to protect themselves by limiting what they include in submissions
textreferences: the Board must assume that the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
textreferences: the public procurement process is intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants, a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.700438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked as Rationale for Public Procurement System Design
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Public Agency Client
appliedto: Public procurement system
appliedto: State Agency Public Procurement Authority
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board grounds its analysis of the public procurement system in the premise that the system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services — establishing that public welfare is the ultimate rationale for procurement rules and regulations, which in turn constrains how engineers must conduct themselves within that system
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:49:21.568290+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services through fair and open procurement is a public welfare obligation that engineers must respect by complying with procurement rules, even when those rules permit conduct that individual engineers find disadvantageous
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: the Board must assume that the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services and that the laws and regulations pertaining to that system were put into place to achieve that result.
tensionresolution: The Board defers to the public procurement system's design as advancing public welfare, declining to second-guess applicable laws and regulations while noting timing concerns about Engineer B's conduct
textreferences: the Board must assume that the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services and that the laws and regulations pertaining to that system were put into place to achieve that result.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.700809
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law - State RFQ Procedures
type: Qualification-BasedSelectionProcurementLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: State legislature / procurement authority
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Qualification-Based Selection and RFQ Procurement Procedures
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:40:01.240628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:40:01.240628+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
sourcetext: In response to a public request for qualifications (RFQ), Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
textreferences: In response to a public request for qualifications (RFQ), Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
usedby: State agency; Engineer A; Engineer B
usedincontext: Establishes the public RFQ process through which both Engineer A and Engineer B are submitting qualifications to the state agency for the public project, defining the competitive procurement framework within which the ethical issue arises
version: Applicable state version
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.686898
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282404
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282159
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer B to make the FOIA request in connection with the state’s procurement of engineering services?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.278962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Even if Engineer B's FOIA request was legally permissible, does the act of reviewing and incorporating insights from a competitor's qualifications submission before submitting his own constitute use of an improper competitive advantage that violates the spirit of fair procurement, regardless of the legality of the acquisition?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does the state agency bear any ethical or procedural responsibility for disclosing a competitor's qualifications submission during an active procurement process, and should procurement regulations be revised to protect submitted qualifications from FOIA disclosure until after the selection process is complete?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: What affirmative steps, if any, is Engineer A obligated to take to protect the confidentiality of qualifications submitted to public procurement processes, and does failure to take such steps diminish Engineer A's standing to object to Engineer B's FOIA request?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: If Engineer B did in fact use the content of Engineer A's qualifications to tailor or strengthen his own submission, does that use constitute a deceptive act under the NSPE Code, even if the information was lawfully obtained through FOIA?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279261
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Public Procurement Transparency as a Public Interest Protection Mechanism — which justifies FOIA access to government records — conflict with the principle of Fairness in Professional Competition, which demands that competitors not gain informational advantages unavailable to all parties during an active procurement?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279317
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle that Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety — applied analogically from BER 93-3 — conflict with the principle of Free and Open Competition as a Boundary Condition in engineering practice, given that the Board ultimately found Engineer B's FOIA request ethical precisely because it occurred within a legally open competitive framework?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the FOIA Procurement Timing Integrity principle — which holds that Engineer B should have submitted his own qualifications before making the FOIA request — conflict with the principle of Public Procurement Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation, which places the burden on Engineer A to safeguard sensitive submission content, thereby implying that the timing of Engineer B's request is Engineer A's risk to manage rather than Engineer B's obligation to defer?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Faithful Agent Obligation — invoked as an analogical bridge from BER 93-3 to constrain engineers from exploiting informational advantages against client or competitor interests — conflict with the principle of FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use, which the Board implicitly endorses as permissible within public procurement, raising the question of whether the faithful agent duty extends to competitive relationships or only to client relationships?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B violate a categorical duty of fair dealing toward Engineer A by using a legal mechanism—the FOIA request—to obtain a competitive advantage that Engineer A had no opportunity to anticipate or consent to, regardless of whether the act was technically lawful?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the long-term harm to public trust in engineering procurement processes—caused by normalizing pre-submission FOIA intelligence gathering—outweigh the short-term benefit of transparency and open records access that Engineer B's FOIA request ostensibly served?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer B demonstrate the professional integrity and honorable character expected of a licensed engineer by strategically timing a FOIA request to gain informational advantage over a competitor before submitting their own qualifications, even if no explicit rule prohibited this sequence?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the Board's analogical invocation of the faithful agent principle from BER Case 93-3 impose a transferable duty on Engineer B in the present case—specifically, a duty to subordinate personal competitive advantage to the integrity of the procurement process—even though Engineer B's relationship is to the public procurement system rather than to a private client?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer B had submitted his firm's own qualifications to the state agency before filing the FOIA request—as the Board recommends—would the competitive information asymmetry have been eliminated, or would Engineer B still have gained an unfair advantage by using Engineer A's disclosed qualifications to refine or supplement his submission during the interview process?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279789
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had proactively requested that the state agency treat his submitted qualifications as confidential or proprietary prior to Engineer B's FOIA request—would the state have been obligated to withhold the documents, and would this have changed the ethical calculus for both Engineer B and the state agency?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279843
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the state agency had declined to release Engineer A's qualifications under a procurement-integrity exception to the FOIA statute, would Engineer B's act of filing the request itself still constitute an ethical violation, or does the ethical weight of the conduct depend entirely on whether the information was actually obtained and used?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: Had the BER Case 93-3 precedent not existed, would the Board have reached the same conclusion that Engineer B's pre-submission FOIA timing created an appearance of impropriety, or does the ethical reasoning in this case depend critically on the analogical transfer of the faithful agent principle from that prior case?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.279954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283226
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283257
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282687
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.283471
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282891
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T14:14:14.282955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

State Agency Public Procurement Authority
type: StakeholderRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'State government agency', 'authority': 'Public procurement and FOIA disclosure', 'procurement_method': 'Qualifications-based selection (QBS)'}
caseinvolvement: The state agency issues the public RFQ, receives qualifications submissions from competing engineering firms, discloses Engineer A's submission to Engineer B pursuant to the FOIA request, and conducts the interview and selection process.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:39:40.730980+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:39:40.730980+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Engineer A Public RFQ Submitting Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Engineer B FOIA-Requesting Competing Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Stakeholder Role
sourcetext: a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B
textreferences: a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.686584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

State Agency Public Procurement Authority Procurement Integrity
type: ProcurementProcessIntegrityPreservationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Capability
capabilitystatement: The state agency required the capability to recognize when FOIA disclosures of competitor qualifications during an active procurement process create fairness and integrity concerns, and to structure procurement procedures to protect against competitive information asymmetries.
casecontext: The state agency provided Engineer A's qualifications to Engineer B via FOIA while the procurement was still active and before Engineer B had submitted his own qualifications
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: The state agency's disclosure of Engineer A's qualifications to Engineer B in response to a FOIA request during an active procurement — raising questions about whether the agency's procedures adequately protected procurement integrity
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:46:56.980044+00:00
importance: intermediate
possessedby: State Agency Public Procurement Authority
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.698289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

State FOIA Statute
type: FreedomofInformationActLegalFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: State legislature
discoveredincase: 141
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Freedom of Information Act
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T13:40:01.240628+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 141
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T13:40:01.240628+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Freedom of Information Act Legal Framework
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: The state provides the information to Engineer B.
usedby: Engineer B
usedincontext: Legal mechanism invoked by Engineer B to obtain Engineer A's submitted qualifications from the state agency prior to submitting his own firm's qualifications for the same RFQ
version: Applicable state version
wasattributedto: Case 141 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.686761
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

State Provides FOIA Documents
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.705672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

State Provides FOIA Documents → Interview Process Ongoing During Disclosure
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

franchiser's discussions with Engineer B during Engineer A's active contract period
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

franchiser's instruction to Engineer B not to disclose their relationship before Engineer B's design review
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

franchiser's retention of Engineer B for preliminary review before Engineer A's contract expiration
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction

state's provision of Engineer A's qualifications to Engineer B before Engineer B's own qualifications submission
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T13:59:20.706126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 141 Extraction