ProEthica Case 14 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.912328
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Advisory Engagement Self-Interest Conflict Disclosure Engineer A City B
type: AdvisoryEngagementSelf-InterestConflictDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A provided an advisory recommendation to a non-engineer City Administrator recommending Progressive-Design-Build, a delivery method under which Engineer A's firm is qualified to provide services, without disclosing this commercial interest. Engineer A also attached firm experience summaries and references for Progressive-Design-Build projects.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Advisory Engagement Self-Interest Conflict Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to City B's City Administrator that Engineer A's firm was qualified to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk — and therefore had a commercial interest in the outcome of the recommendation — before or contemporaneously with delivering the advisory recommendation.
sourcetext: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
temporalscope: Prior to or contemporaneously with delivering the advisory memo to City B Administrator
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.927128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Appending Firm Experience and References
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

BER Case 95-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 95-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:24.395256+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:24.395256+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 95-5 addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports.
textreferences: BER Case 95-5 addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports.
textreferences: The engineer in question rendered an opinion that, based upon test pile, the project's installed piles did not meet the design safety factor. However, the engineer failed to include in the report...
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8)
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: Cited as precedent for integrity and completeness in preparing engineering reports, and for the ethical obligation to avoid incomplete and self-serving information; analogized to Engineer A's partial comparative evaluation
version: 1995
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.916351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

BER Case 99-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 99-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:24.395256+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:24.395256+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 99-8 was relatively analogous. Engineer A bid and won a design contract to provide a complete set of plans and specifications. However, Engineer A submitted plans that were lacking much of the design detail in both drawings and specifications.
textreferences: BER Case 99-8 was relatively analogous. Engineer A bid and won a design contract to provide a complete set of plans and specifications. However, Engineer A submitted plans that were lacking much of the design detail in both drawings and specifications.
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8)
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: Cited as relatively analogous precedent involving submission of incomplete design plans and specifications without disclosure of incompleteness, analogized to Engineer A's partial and self-serving recommendation
version: 1999
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.916595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Case 14 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.931200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

CausalLink_Appending Firm Experience and
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

CausalLink_Decision to Respond with Forma
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294570
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

CausalLink_Failure to Correct or Disclose
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

CausalLink_Informal Solicitation of Priva
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294538
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

CausalLink_Omission of Two Delivery Metho
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

CausalLink_Self-Serving Delivery Method R
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

City Administrator Non-Engineer Advisory Vulnerability
type: Non-EngineerPublicInfrastructureClient
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Engineer Public Infrastructure Client
capabilitystatement: City B's City Administrator, as a non-engineer public official, lacked the technical capability to independently evaluate the completeness or objectivity of Engineer A's advisory memo, making the City Administrator particularly vulnerable to the self-serving omissions and selective analysis provided by Engineer A.
casecontext: City B's City Administrator solicited advisory input from Engineer A on project delivery methods for a wastewater system improvements project, relying on Engineer A's professional integrity to provide complete and objective analysis
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: Solicitation of engineering advisory services from Engineer A without apparent awareness that the solicitation might result in a self-serving partial analysis, and without independent means to verify the completeness of the delivery method analysis received
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: City B Administrator
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A.
textreferences: City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A.
textreferences: It is not clear whether City Administrator knowingly solicited a donation of services.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.929812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

City Administrator Public Official Engineering Services Solicitor
type: Non-EngineerPublicInfrastructureClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'None (administrative official)', 'awareness': 'Unclear whether knowingly solicited a donation of services'}
caseinvolvement: Solicited engineering advisory services from Engineer A regarding project delivery methodologies, potentially without awareness that the solicitation would trigger professional ethics obligations regarding completeness, objectivity, and prohibition against inducements.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:34.885705+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:34.885705+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_services_from', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Non-Engineer Public Infrastructure Client
sourcetext: City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A
textreferences: City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A
textreferences: It is not clear whether City Administrator knowingly solicited a donation of services
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.917174
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

City Administrator's request for recommendation before Engineer A's preparation of summary memo
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

City B Administrator Non-Engineer Client Informed Decision Making
type: InformedDecision-MakingProcessFacilitationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Informed Decision-Making Process Facilitation Capability
capabilitystatement: City B's City Administrator, as a non-engineer public official, lacked the domain-specific technical capability to independently verify whether Engineer A's advisory memo presented a complete and unbiased comparative analysis of all available project delivery methods, making the administrator dependent on Engineer A's professional integrity for informed decision-making.
casecontext: Non-engineer public official soliciting engineering advisory services on project delivery method selection for a publicly funded wastewater infrastructure project.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: City B's City Administrator solicited an engineering advisory recommendation without awareness that the solicitation might yield a selective, self-serving analysis, and without the technical background to independently assess the completeness of the delivery method options presented.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: City B City Administrator
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer.
textreferences: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer.
textreferences: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.924699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

City B Administrator Non-Engineer Public Infrastructure Client
type: Non-EngineerPublicInfrastructureClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Not a licensed professional engineer', 'authority': 'City Administrator with decision-making authority over project delivery method selection', 'vulnerability': "Non-technical official relying on engineer's completeness and objectivity"}
caseinvolvement: City B's City Administrator solicited a recommendation from Engineer A on project delivery methods for an upcoming wastewater system improvements project funded by a specific funding source with four approved delivery methods. The Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer and relied on Engineer A's advisory expertise.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:02.771865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:02.771865+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Project Delivery Method Advisor'}
relationships: {'type': 'representative_of', 'target': 'City B'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Non-Engineer Public Infrastructure Client
sourcetext: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project
textreferences: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer
textreferences: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.914544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

City B Municipal Infrastructure Client
type: MunicipalInfrastructureClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'jurisdiction': 'Large metropolitan area', 'project': 'Wastewater system improvements', 'funding_constraints': 'Specific funding source with four approved delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build', 'regulatory_constraint': 'If CM-at-Risk selected, funding agency requires CM-at-Risk firm and Engineer of Record to be distinct entities'}
caseinvolvement: City B is the public owner of the upcoming wastewater system improvements project, subject to funding agency requirements specifying four approved project delivery methods, and bearing ultimate authority over delivery method selection and stewardship of public resources.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:02.771865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:02.771865+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'advised_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Project Delivery Method Advisor'}
relationships: {'type': 'represented_by', 'target': 'City B Administrator Non-Engineer Public Infrastructure Client'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Municipal Infrastructure Client
sourcetext: City B is a large metropolitan area and all forms of contracting are available
textreferences: City B is a large metropolitan area and all forms of contracting are available
textreferences: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source
textreferences: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.914845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Client Decision Vulnerability Created
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Engineer A City B Wastewater
type: CompleteComparativeAdvisoryAnalysisObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was asked by City B's non-engineer City Administrator for a recommendation on project delivery methods for a wastewater system improvements project. Four delivery methods were approved under the proposed funding source. Engineer A omitted Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build from the advisory memo.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to present all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods — Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build — completely and objectively in the advisory memo to City B's City Administrator, rather than selectively presenting only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build.
sourcetext: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the advisory memo to City B Administrator
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.921135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Engineer A Four Methodologies
type: CompleteComparativeAdvisoryAnalysisObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A provided a partial delivery method analysis to City Administrator covering only Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build, omitting Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, which were also approved by the funding agency.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:39:57.184896+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:39:57.184896+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated, upon undertaking to provide an advisory recommendation on project delivery methods to City B's non-engineer City Administrator, to present all four funding-agency-approved delivery methodologies completely and objectively — including methodologies Engineer A's firm was not positioned to deliver — rather than limiting the analysis to the two methodologies from which Engineer A's firm could commercially benefit.
sourcetext: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the advisory memo in response to City Administrator's solicitation
textreferences: Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons by compiling properly referenced resources from others
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.926914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Completeness Non-Selectivity Advisory Opinions Violated By Engineer A
type: CompletenessandNon-SelectivityinProfessionalAdvisoryOpinions
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Advisory memo on project delivery methods for wastewater system improvements project
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A provided City B Administrator with an advisory memo that omitted Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the comparative analysis, presenting only the two methods under which Engineer A's firm could serve as lead contractor, thereby depriving the non-engineer client of the information necessary to make an informed project delivery method selection
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The completeness obligation is particularly strong when the client is a non-engineer who cannot independently identify the omission; City B Administrator lacked the technical background to recognize that two approved methods had been excluded from the analysis
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
sourcetext: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation does not permit selective presentation of options that serves the agent's commercial interests at the expense of the principal's informed decision-making; completeness is required even when the client did not explicitly request a comprehensive analysis
textreferences: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer.
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.919563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Completeness and Non-Selectivity Violated by Engineer A Partial Delivery Method Analysis
type: CompletenessandNon-SelectivityinProfessionalAdvisoryOpinions
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City B wastewater system improvements project delivery method recommendation
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A provided City Administrator with a partial comparative evaluation of project delivery methodologies that omitted material options, presented no genuine analysis, and was structured to favor Engineer A's own competitive interests rather than to inform City B's decision-making
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the completeness obligation required Engineer A to present all four approved delivery methodologies with genuine comparative analysis of pros and cons, rather than a selective presentation that omitted options disfavored by Engineer A's commercial interests; the non-engineer client's inability to independently assess the completeness of the advice heightened this obligation
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
sourcetext: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services
tensionresolution: No genuine tension exists — the completeness obligation and client loyalty both point toward a complete analysis; the only competing interest is Engineer A's own commercial interest, which is not a legitimate basis for incomplete advice
textreferences: BER Case 95-5 addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
textreferences: the cited sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics provide appropriate guidance: 'objective and truthful,' 'include all relevant and pertinent information'
textreferences: the engineer failed to include in the report that the initial log indicated that several of the piles were driven to essential refusal (intentional disregard of other information); that the test equipment had failed (selective use of information)
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.924853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 102
answers question4: 103
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was unethical for Engineer A to leave out relevant and pertinent information from the analysis/ recommendation.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.291441
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that omitting relevant information was unethical, the omission of Construction Manager at Risk was particularly egregious because it was not merely an incomplete comparative analysis — it was a structurally self-serving omission. Engineer A was qualified to provide services under Construction Manager at Risk, yet omitted it from the memo entirely. The most plausible explanation consistent with the facts is that the funding agency's distinct-entity requirement would have prevented Engineer A from serving as Engineer of Record under that method, making it commercially unattractive even though Engineer A was technically qualified to perform the construction management role. By omitting this method without explanation, Engineer A concealed a binding regulatory constraint that was directly material to City B's decision-making. This transforms the omission from a mere analytical gap into a material misrepresentation: City B was not simply given an incomplete picture of available options, but was denied information that would have revealed a structural reason why one of those options was disadvantageous to Engineer A. The ethical violation is therefore compounded — it encompasses both the failure of completeness and an implicit deception about the regulatory landscape governing the funding source.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.291825
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that omitting relevant information was unethical applies with full force regardless of the informal nature of the solicitation. Engineer A's ethical obligations under the NSPE Code are not contingent on the existence of a formal contractual relationship with City B. When a licensed professional engineer responds to a request for professional advice — even informally — by preparing and transmitting a written memo that purports to analyze project delivery options, that engineer has voluntarily assumed the role of professional advisor and is bound by the same standards of objectivity, completeness, and truthfulness that govern any formal professional report. The absence of a contract does not create a reduced-duty zone in which selective or self-serving analysis is permissible. If anything, the informal context heightens the ethical obligation because City B had no contractual mechanism to demand completeness, no scope-of-work document defining what was owed, and no recourse if the advice was deficient. Engineer A's decision to respond with a formal written memo rather than declining or referring the matter to a neutral party was itself a professional act that triggered full professional accountability.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.291931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's finding of unethical conduct for omitting relevant information should be understood as establishing a proportionality principle: the more a client lacks technical sophistication, the more complete and explicit the engineer's advisory obligation becomes. City B's Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer and therefore lacked the independent capacity to identify which delivery methods had been omitted, to recognize the significance of the funding agency's distinct-entity requirement, or to evaluate whether the two methods presented were a representative sample of available options. This informational asymmetry — inherent in any relationship between a licensed professional and a non-engineer public official — is precisely the vulnerability that professional ethics rules are designed to protect against. Engineer A's selective presentation exploited this asymmetry by presenting a curated subset of options to a client who had no basis to know the analysis was incomplete. Had City B's Administrator been a licensed engineer familiar with federal funding constraints and delivery method structures, the omission might still have been unethical, but its practical harm would have been substantially reduced. The non-engineer status of the client therefore amplifies both the severity of the breach and the degree of Engineer A's culpability.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.292037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 401
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that recommending Progressive-Design-Build is ethical when the recommendation is objective, described, valid, and compared against all available methods implicitly establishes a procedural precondition: the ethical permissibility of the recommendation is entirely dependent on the integrity of the analytical process that precedes it. This means that Engineer A's recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build was not rendered unethical merely because Engineer A could financially benefit from that selection — self-interest in the outcome of an advisory recommendation does not automatically invalidate the recommendation. What renders the recommendation ethically suspect in this case is the failure to satisfy the procedural preconditions the Board identified. Had Engineer A conducted and disclosed a complete four-method comparative analysis, explicitly acknowledged the conflict of interest arising from their firm's qualifications, and still arrived at Progressive-Design-Build as the superior option on documented merit, the recommendation would have been defensible. The ethical failure is therefore located in the process, not the conclusion. This distinction is important because it avoids the perverse outcome of requiring engineers to recommend methods for which they cannot provide services simply to demonstrate objectivity.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.292143
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that recommending a method from which Engineer A could benefit is ethical, provided the recommendation is objective and complete, does not resolve the deeper question of whether Engineer A had an affirmative duty to disclose the conflict of interest at the outset of the memo — independent of whether the analysis was ultimately complete. Even in a scenario where Engineer A had provided a full four-method comparative analysis and arrived at Progressive-Design-Build on documented merit, the failure to disclose that Engineer A's firm was qualified to provide services under that specific method would have remained a separate and distinct ethical deficiency. The faithful agent obligation requires not only that the advice be sound, but that the client be positioned to evaluate the advice with full knowledge of the advisor's interests. City B's Administrator, as a non-engineer public official, could not be expected to independently know that Engineer A had a financial stake in the recommended outcome. Disclosure of this conflict was therefore not optional or merely best practice — it was a prerequisite to the ethical delivery of the recommendation.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.292308
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's finding that including marketing materials was not unethical must be understood as conditional rather than absolute. The Board's reasoning implicitly treats the ethical permissibility of appending firm experience summaries and project references as dependent on whether the underlying advisory analysis satisfies the standards of objectivity and completeness. When the advisory memo is complete, objective, and accompanied by appropriate conflict-of-interest disclosure, appending qualifications and references is a transparent and legitimate form of professional self-presentation — it informs the client of the advisor's relevant experience without distorting the advice itself. However, when the underlying analysis is selectively constructed to favor a method from which the advisor benefits, the appended marketing materials are no longer merely informational — they become instruments of a commercially motivated presentation strategy. In that context, the marketing materials do not stand alone as ethically neutral; they are integrated into a memo that is itself ethically deficient, and their presence reinforces the commercial purpose that appears to have driven the selective analysis. The Board's approval of marketing materials should therefore be read as contingent on the prior condition of analytical completeness, and not as a freestanding endorsement of appending promotional content to any advisory memo regardless of its integrity.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.292413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_107
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 303
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 107
conclusion text: The Board's approval of including marketing materials, read alongside its finding that omitting relevant information was unethical, creates an important structural principle: the ethical boundary between legitimate professional self-promotion and disguised commercial solicitation is not determined by the content of the marketing materials themselves, but by the integrity of the analytical context in which they appear. Engineer A's appending of firm experience summaries and project references to an incomplete and self-serving memo effectively converted what might otherwise have been a permissible disclosure of qualifications into a component of a commercially motivated influence strategy. The memo as a whole — selective analysis, favorable recommendation, and supporting credentials — functioned as a unified solicitation document rather than an objective advisory report with an appended qualifications statement. This commingling of advisory and promotional content, when the advisory content is itself compromised by self-interest, constitutes a form of disguised commercial solicitation that the Code's provisions on objectivity and truthfulness are designed to prohibit. The ethical analysis of the marketing materials therefore cannot be conducted in isolation from the ethical analysis of the memo's analytical completeness.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.292573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 203
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: It was ethical for Engineer A to recommend progressive design build is the best choice, as long as reasons are objective, described, valid, and compared against all available and appropriate delivery methods.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.291579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: The informal nature of City Administrator's solicitation did not diminish Engineer A's ethical obligations in any respect. Professional ethics attach to the act of rendering a professional judgment, not to the existence of a formal contract. When Engineer A chose to respond with a written memo presenting delivery method options and a recommendation, Engineer A voluntarily assumed the role of a professional advisor and thereby accepted the full weight of obligations that role carries — including objectivity, completeness, and candor. The absence of a contractual relationship may affect legal liability, but it has no bearing on ethical duty. An engineer who provides selective or misleading professional guidance to a public official is no less culpable because no retainer was signed. If anything, the informal context heightens the risk of harm, because the recipient has no contractual recourse and may be entirely unaware that the analysis they received was incomplete.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.292674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: The omission of the Construction Manager at Risk method was not merely an incomplete comparative analysis — it was a materially significant omission that concealed a regulatory constraint directly bearing on Engineer A's own disqualification. Under the funding agency's rules, the Construction Manager at Risk method requires the Construction Manager and the Engineer of Record to be distinct entities. Because Engineer A is qualified to provide services under Construction Manager at Risk, Engineer A would have been structurally barred from serving as Engineer of Record under that method. By omitting Construction Manager at Risk from the memo entirely, Engineer A simultaneously withheld a viable delivery option from City B and concealed the regulatory reason why that option was inconvenient to Engineer A's commercial interests. This compounded omission — hiding both the method and the constraint that would have excluded Engineer A from it — constitutes a materially more serious breach than a simple failure to enumerate all options. It crosses from incompleteness into a form of affirmative concealment, particularly given that City Administrator, as a non-engineer, had no independent basis to recognize the gap.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.292740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: City Administrator's status as a non-licensed professional engineer is ethically significant and amplifies the severity of Engineer A's selective presentation. The NSPE Code's objectivity and truthfulness obligations exist in part to protect clients and the public from the informational asymmetry that is inherent in the engineer-client relationship. When the recipient of professional advice lacks the technical background to independently evaluate the completeness or accuracy of that advice, the engineer's duty of candor is correspondingly heightened. City Administrator had no means to know that four delivery methods were approved under the funding source, that two had been omitted, or that the omitted methods included one under which Engineer A could not serve as Engineer of Record. This informational asymmetry placed City Administrator in a position of complete dependence on Engineer A's good faith. Exploiting that dependence — even passively, through omission rather than active misrepresentation — is inconsistent with the role of a trusted professional advisor and represents a failure of the faithful agent obligation Engineer A owed to City B.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.292869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: While the Board did not explicitly require Engineer A to decline the engagement, the logic of the Board's conclusions strongly implies that referral to a neutral third party was the most ethically defensible course of action available to Engineer A at the outset. Engineer A's conflict of interest — being qualified to provide services under one of the methods being evaluated — was not merely a disclosure problem; it was a structural impediment to providing genuinely objective advice. A conflict that cannot be fully mitigated through disclosure alone ordinarily triggers a duty to recuse. Because Engineer A's financial interest in Progressive-Design-Build was irreconcilable with the obligation to evaluate all four methods with equal rigor, the cleanest ethical resolution would have been to refer City Administrator to an independent engineering consultant with no stake in the outcome. The Board's acknowledgment of this referral pathway, even as an alternative rather than a mandate, suggests that when a conflict of interest is both material and unavoidable, referral is not merely permissible but may be affirmatively required to satisfy the faithful agent obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.292961
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Conflict of Interest Disclosure principle is real but not irresolvable in theory — though it proved irresolvable in practice given how Engineer A handled the situation. A faithful agent acting within ethical limits would have recognized that serving City B's best interests required presenting all four delivery methods with equal rigor, even if that analysis led to a recommendation of Design-Bid-Build or Construction Manager at Risk — methods under which Engineer A could not serve as Engineer of Record. The fact that such a recommendation would have been commercially adverse to Engineer A is precisely what makes the conflict of interest material and what makes full disclosure mandatory. Engineer A's failure to disclose the conflict and to present a complete analysis meant that the faithful agent obligation was subordinated to self-interest, which is the paradigmatic ethical violation the conflict of interest rules are designed to prevent. The two principles do not conflict when properly applied; they converge on the same requirement: disclose the conflict, provide the complete analysis, and let City B decide.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.293083
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: II.5.b.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The Board's finding that including marketing materials was not unethical must be understood as conditionally permissible rather than categorically permissible. The ethical acceptability of appending firm experience summaries and project references depends entirely on whether the underlying advisory analysis was itself complete, objective, and free of self-serving distortion. When marketing materials accompany a genuinely complete and objective analysis, they function as transparent disclosure of qualifications — information that is relevant and useful to the client. When, however, marketing materials accompany a selectively constructed recommendation that has already been shaped by the engineer's commercial interest, the marketing materials become an instrument of the deception rather than a neutral supplement to it. In Engineer A's case, the appended experience summaries and references reinforced a recommendation that was itself the product of a compromised analysis, thereby compounding the ethical violation. The Board's approval of marketing materials in the abstract should not be read to immunize the specific use of those materials in this case, where they served to amplify a self-serving and incomplete recommendation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.293183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The apparent alignment between Engineer A's self-interest and City B's public benefit — both pointing toward Progressive-Design-Build — does not resolve the ethical problem; it merely makes the problem harder to detect. The ethical violation lies not in the recommendation itself but in the process by which it was reached and presented. Even if Progressive-Design-Build is genuinely the optimal delivery method for City B's wastewater project, Engineer A's failure to conduct and present a complete comparative analysis means that City B has no basis to verify that conclusion independently. A recommendation that happens to be correct but was reached through a compromised process does not satisfy the engineer's ethical obligations, because the client's right to informed decision-making is violated regardless of whether the recommended outcome is substantively sound. The principle of objectivity requires not just a correct answer but a demonstrably unbiased process. Engineer A's selective analysis denied City B the ability to confirm that the recommendation was driven by merit rather than self-interest, which is itself a harm to City B's decision-making autonomy and to public trust in the engineering profession.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.293326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A failed to fulfill the categorical duty of objectivity and completeness. Deontological ethics holds that the rightness of an action is determined by adherence to duty, not by outcomes or circumstances. Engineer A's duty to issue professional statements in an objective and truthful manner is not contingent on the existence of a formal contract, the sophistication of the client, or the engineer's sincere belief in the superiority of the recommended method. The duty applies categorically whenever an engineer renders a professional judgment. By omitting two of the four approved delivery methods and failing to disclose the conflict of interest that motivated the omission, Engineer A acted on a maxim — 'present only the options that serve my commercial interests when advising a non-engineer client' — that could not be universalized without destroying the foundation of trust on which professional engineering advice depends. The deontological analysis therefore supports and strengthens the Board's conclusion that the omission was unethical, independent of any assessment of whether the recommended outcome was substantively correct.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.293400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's selective presentation created a meaningful risk of downstream harm to City B's public infrastructure decision-making that outweighs any efficiency benefit from narrowing the analysis. City B is a large metropolitan area undertaking a wastewater system improvement project — a public infrastructure investment with long-term consequences for ratepayers and public health. By receiving an analysis that omitted two of four approved delivery methods, City B's Administrator was deprived of the information necessary to make a fully informed procurement decision. The harm is not merely hypothetical: if Design-Bid-Build or Construction Manager at Risk would have been more cost-effective or better suited to City B's project conditions, the selective analysis foreclosed City B's ability to discover that. Additionally, the omission of the Construction Manager at Risk method concealed a regulatory constraint — the distinct-entity requirement — that would have been material to City B's evaluation of that option. The aggregate consequentialist harm includes not only the risk of a suboptimal procurement outcome but also the erosion of public trust in engineering advisors who serve public clients, a systemic harm that extends beyond City B.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.293489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, the commingling of advisory and promotional content in Engineer A's memo reveals a disposition that is incompatible with the role of a trusted engineering advisor. A virtuous professional advisor — one possessing the character traits of honesty, integrity, and practical wisdom — would recognize that appending firm experience summaries and project references to an advisory memo creates an appearance of self-promotion that undermines the memo's credibility as an objective analysis. The virtuous engineer would either provide a genuinely complete and objective analysis and separately, transparently offer qualifications if asked, or would decline the engagement entirely given the irreconcilable conflict of interest. The fact that Engineer A chose to combine a selectively constructed recommendation with promotional materials in a single document suggests a disposition oriented toward securing business rather than serving City B's interests. This is not merely a procedural violation; it reflects a character orientation that prioritizes commercial advantage over the professional virtues of candor and faithful service that define the trusted advisor role.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.293618
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q401: Explicit disclosure of Engineer A's qualification gap at the outset of the memo would have been a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical defensibility. Had Engineer A stated clearly that the firm was qualified to provide services only under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction Manager at Risk, and that this limitation influenced the scope of the analysis, City Administrator would at least have been on notice that the memo was not a complete independent evaluation. This disclosure would have partially mitigated the conflict of interest problem by enabling City B to seek supplementary analysis of the omitted methods. However, such a disclosure would not have fully satisfied Engineer A's ethical obligations, because the duty to provide a complete comparative analysis is not discharged merely by acknowledging that the analysis is incomplete. The appropriate remedy was to either provide the complete analysis — including objective evaluations of Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build — or to refer City Administrator to a neutral resource. Disclosure of the limitation, without remedying it, would have been an improvement over the actual conduct but would not have constituted full ethical compliance.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.293718
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q402: Referral to a neutral third-party resource or independent engineering consultant would have been the most ethically sound course of action available to Engineer A, and the Board's acknowledgment of this pathway carries normative weight beyond mere suggestion. When a conflict of interest is structural — meaning it cannot be eliminated through disclosure alone because the engineer's financial interest is directly tied to the outcome of the analysis being requested — the ethical obligation to recuse becomes affirmative rather than optional. Engineer A's situation was precisely this kind: any analysis Engineer A provided would be shaped, consciously or unconsciously, by the knowledge that recommending Progressive-Design-Build would create a business opportunity while recommending Design-Bid-Build or Fixed-Price-Design-Build would not. The only way to fully protect City B's interest in receiving objective advice was to refer City Administrator to an advisor without that conflict. The Board's implicit endorsement of this referral pathway suggests that when a conflict of interest cannot be fully mitigated, referral is not merely a permissible alternative but may represent the minimum standard of ethical conduct required by the faithful agent obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.293805
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.3.a.
cited provision2: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q403: Had Engineer A provided a genuinely complete comparative analysis of all four approved delivery methods and still recommended Progressive-Design-Build on documented merit, the inclusion of firm experience summaries and references would have remained ethically permissible — and the Board's conclusion on this point supports that reading. The ethical permissibility of marketing materials is not absolute; it is conditioned on the integrity of the underlying analysis. When the advisory memo is complete, objective, and transparent about the engineer's conflict of interest, appending qualifications and references functions as a legitimate and transparent disclosure of the engineer's capacity to deliver the recommended method. It allows City B to evaluate both the recommendation and the recommender on their merits. The problem in Engineer A's actual case is that the marketing materials were appended to a compromised analysis, transforming them from a transparent disclosure into a reinforcement of a self-serving and incomplete recommendation. The Board's approval of marketing materials should therefore be understood as contingent on the prior satisfaction of the completeness and objectivity obligations, not as a freestanding permission that survives the failure of those obligations.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.293932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q404: Engineer A's selective presentation of delivery methods would constitute an ethical violation regardless of the client's technical sophistication, because the duty of completeness and objectivity is not calibrated to the client's ability to detect deficiencies. However, the vulnerability of City Administrator as a non-engineer public official does amplify the practical severity of the breach in two distinct ways. First, a technically sophisticated engineering client would likely have recognized that the memo omitted two of the four funding-approved delivery methods and would have sought clarification or supplementary analysis, thereby partially self-correcting for Engineer A's omission. City Administrator had no such capacity. Second, the informational asymmetry between a licensed professional engineer and a non-engineer public official is precisely the asymmetry that the NSPE Code's objectivity and truthfulness provisions are designed to protect against. When an engineer exploits that asymmetry — even passively, through omission — the harm to the client is greater and the ethical breach is more serious in its practical consequences, even if the formal ethical violation is identical in both scenarios. The non-engineer status of City Administrator therefore functions as an aggravating factor in the ethical analysis, not as a threshold condition for the violation itself.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294104
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_3
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 303
conclusion number: 3
conclusion text: It was not unethical to include marketing materials that display Engineer A’s firm’s qualifications.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.291692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 205
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Conflict of Interest Disclosure principle was not resolved in this case — it was evaded. A faithful agent serving City B's interests would have surfaced all four delivery methods, including Construction Manager at Risk, even though that method's distinct-entity requirement would have structurally excluded Engineer A from serving as Engineer of Record. By omitting both Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and by failing to disclose the regulatory constraint that would have barred Engineer A from the Construction Manager at Risk role, Engineer A subordinated the faithful agent duty to self-interest rather than reconciling the two. The case teaches that when these two principles collide, the Conflict of Interest Disclosure principle functions as a threshold condition: an engineer cannot claim to be acting as a faithful agent while simultaneously concealing the very conflict that corrupts the advice being given. Faithful agency, in other words, presupposes disclosed and managed conflicts — it cannot coexist with undisclosed ones.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 3
cited provision1: II.5.b.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Board's finding that appending marketing materials was not inherently unethical must be understood as conditional rather than categorical, and this case reveals that the Prohibition on Disguised Commercial Solicitation and the Completeness and Non-Selectivity principle are not independent — they are sequentially dependent. Marketing materials appended to a complete, objective, and fully disclosed advisory memo occupy a different ethical category than the same materials appended to a selectively constructed memo designed to foreclose consideration of delivery methods under which Engineer A could not profit. In the latter scenario, the marketing materials do not merely accompany a flawed analysis; they consummate it, converting what was nominally an advisory memo into a disguised solicitation. The case therefore teaches that the ethical permissibility of promotional content is derivative: it inherits the ethical character of the underlying analysis. Where the analysis violates Completeness and Non-Selectivity, appended qualifications and references retroactively become instruments of commercial deception, regardless of whether they would have been permissible in isolation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 1
answers question3: 2
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: This case exposes a structural vulnerability in the principle of Public Welfare Paramount when an engineer's sincere belief in the superiority of a recommended method coincides with that method being the one from which the engineer would financially benefit. The principle of Public Welfare Paramount cannot serve as a self-validating justification for selective analysis: an engineer who genuinely believes Progressive-Design-Build is the best option for City B is not thereby relieved of the obligation to demonstrate that conclusion through a complete comparative analysis of all available methods. The alignment of self-interest and public benefit, rather than dissolving the conflict, actually intensifies the obligation of transparency, because the engineer's subjective conviction of correctness is precisely the condition under which motivated reasoning is most likely and least detectable. The case teaches that Objectivity and Completeness and Non-Selectivity function as procedural safeguards that must be honored even — and especially — when the engineer is confident the outcome would survive scrutiny. A correct conclusion reached through an incomplete process remains an ethical violation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294482
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conflict Of Interest Disclosure Advisory Engagements Violated By Engineer A
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureinAdvisoryEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Advisory recommendation on project delivery methods and accompanying firm experience materials
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A provided a project delivery method recommendation to City B without disclosing that Engineer A's firm stood to benefit commercially from the recommended method (Progressive-Design-Build), that Engineer A was not qualified to serve as Engineer of Record under Construction-Manager-at-Risk (creating a financial disincentive to recommend that method), and that the accompanying firm experience summary was effectively a marketing document embedded in an ostensibly objective advisory product
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The conflict of interest here is structural: Engineer A was simultaneously acting as an objective advisor and as a prospective competitor for the subsequent contract; this dual role required explicit disclosure so City B could assess the objectivity of the advice
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements
sourcetext: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
tensionresolution: Disclosure of the conflict does not necessarily require withdrawal from the advisory role, but it is a prerequisite for the advisory relationship to remain ethically sound; without disclosure, the client cannot make an informed judgment about the reliability of the recommendation
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
textreferences: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.919772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Engineer A City B Delivery Method Advisory
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's firm was qualified to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build and stood to benefit financially from City B selecting that delivery method. Engineer A provided an advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build without disclosing this financial interest to City B's City Administrator, constituting an undisclosed conflict of interest that tainted the objectivity of the advisory recommendation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the conflict of interest arising from Engineer A's firm's qualification and competitive interest in Progressive-Design-Build from providing an advisory recommendation to City B without first disclosing that conflict of interest to City B's City Administrator, and was prohibited from allowing that undisclosed conflict to shape the content, scope, and recommendation of the advisory memo.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:40:57.277849+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:40:57.277849+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — conflict of interest avoidance provisions; Section II.4
sourcetext: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
temporalscope: From the moment of informal solicitation receipt through advisory memo submission
textreferences: Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
textreferences: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.928626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Violated by Engineer A Self-Serving Recommendation
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureinAdvisoryEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City B wastewater system improvements project delivery method recommendation
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A provided a project delivery method recommendation to City Administrator without disclosing that the recommendation was structured to favor the delivery method under which Engineer A's firm would be eligible to compete, creating an undisclosed conflict between Engineer A's advisory role and Engineer A's commercial interest in the outcome
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The conflict of interest disclosure obligation required Engineer A to affirmatively inform City Administrator that Engineer A's firm had a commercial stake in the delivery method recommendation, so that City Administrator could seek independent verification or weigh the advice accordingly
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements
sourcetext: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services
tensionresolution: Disclosure of the conflict would have enabled City Administrator to make an informed decision about whether to rely on Engineer A's advice; the failure to disclose compounded the incompleteness violation by depriving the client of the ability to assess the objectivity of the recommendation
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
textreferences: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.925050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Construction Manager at Risk Distinct Entity Requirement
type: LegalResource
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Federal or state funding agency governing City B's wastewater project funding source
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Funding Agency Requirement: CM-at-Risk Firm and Engineer of Record Must Be Distinct Entities
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:31:58.088599+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:31:58.088599+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Legal Resource
sourcetext: if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities
textreferences: if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities
usedby: City B Administrator and Engineer A in evaluating delivery method options
usedincontext: Establishes a regulatory constraint that, if CM-at-Risk is selected, the CM-at-Risk firm and Engineer of Record must be two distinct entities — a requirement that may explain why Engineer A omitted CM-at-Risk from the recommendation memo, raising questions about whether the omission was motivated by self-interest rather than genuine inapplicability
version: Current (as applicable to City B's wastewater project funding source)
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.913327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A have presented all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods completely and objectively in the advisory memo to City B's City Administrator, rather than selectively presenting only the two methods from which Engineer A's firm could commercially benefit?
focus: Engineer A's decision to present only two of four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods in the advisory memo to City B's non-engineer City Administrator, omitting Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build entirely and failing to disclose the regulatory distinct-entity constraint that would have barred Engineer A from serving as Engineer of Record under Construction Manager at Risk.
option1: Provide advisory memo presenting only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build while omitting Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction Manager at Risk, and without disclosing the funding agency's distinct-entity constraint
option2: Present all four funding-agency-approved delivery methods completely and objectively in the advisory memo, including accurate representation of the distinct-entity regulatory constraint applicable to Construction Manager at Risk
option3: Decline to provide the advisory memo and refer City Administrator to a neutral third-party resource or independent engineering consultant with no commercial stake in the outcome
role label: Engineer A Project Delivery Method Advisor
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.297088
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A have proactively disclosed to City B's City Administrator the conflict of interest arising from Engineer A's firm's qualification and commercial interest in providing services under the recommended Progressive-Design-Build delivery method, before or contemporaneously with delivering the advisory recommendation?
focus: Engineer A's failure to disclose to City B's City Administrator that Engineer A's firm held a direct commercial interest in the outcome of the advisory recommendation — specifically, that the firm was qualified to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build, the method Engineer A recommended — before or contemporaneously with delivering the recommendation.
option1: Deliver the advisory recommendation and appended firm experience summaries without disclosing Engineer A's firm's commercial interest in the recommended Progressive-Design-Build delivery method
option2: Disclose at the outset of the advisory memo that Engineer A's firm is qualified to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build and therefore holds a commercial interest in the outcome of the recommendation, enabling City Administrator to weigh the advice accordingly
option3: Decline the advisory engagement and refer City Administrator to an independent engineering consultant with no financial stake in any of the four delivery methods
role label: Engineer A Project Delivery Method Advisor
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.297178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A have refrained from appending firm experience summaries and project references to the advisory memo, or at minimum clearly separated and disclosed the self-promotional nature of those materials, so that City Administrator was not misled about the objective character of the advisory opinion?
focus: Engineer A's decision to append firm experience summaries and project references for Progressive-Design-Build to the same document as the advisory recommendation to City B, commingling self-promotional marketing materials with ostensibly objective advisory analysis in a communication provided as a free service to a non-engineer public client.
option1: Append firm experience summaries and project references for Progressive-Design-Build to the advisory memo without disclosing the promotional nature of those materials or separating them from the objective advisory analysis
option2: Provide a complete and objective four-method comparative analysis and, only after satisfying completeness and conflict-of-interest disclosure obligations, append clearly demarcated firm qualifications with explicit disclosure of their promotional nature
option3: Omit firm experience summaries and project references from the advisory memo entirely, and separately offer qualifications only if City Administrator explicitly requests them after receiving the complete objective analysis
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.297283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A provide a complete comparative analysis of all four approved delivery methods — including Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build — rather than selectively presenting only the two methods under which Engineer A's firm could provide services?
focus: Engineer A: Completeness and Objectivity Obligation in Advisory Memo to City B
option1: Provide a selective advisory memo presenting only the two delivery methods under which Engineer A's firm can provide services, omitting Design-Bid-Build, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and the funding agency's distinct-entity constraint
option2: Provide a complete comparative analysis of all four funding-approved delivery methods, including objective evaluation of Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and disclose the funding agency's distinct-entity requirement for Construction Manager at Risk
role label: Engineer A Project Delivery Method Advisor
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.297457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer A disclose to City B's Administrator that Engineer A's firm has a direct financial interest in the recommended delivery method — and either provide a complete conflict-disclosed analysis or refer City Administrator to a neutral third-party advisor — rather than proceeding with an undisclosed self-serving recommendation?
focus: Engineer A: Conflict of Interest Disclosure and Faithful Agency Obligation to City B
option1: Proceed with providing the advisory memo without disclosing Engineer A's financial interest in the recommended delivery method or Engineer A's qualification limitations
option2: Disclose at the outset of the memo that Engineer A's firm is qualified to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build and has a financial interest in that recommendation, and provide a complete conflict-disclosed comparative analysis of all four delivery methods
option3: Decline to provide the advisory memo and refer City Administrator to a neutral independent engineering consultant with no financial stake in any of the delivery method outcomes
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.297530
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer A refrain from appending firm experience summaries and project references to an advisory memo whose underlying analysis was selectively constructed to favor the delivery method from which Engineer A would financially benefit, given that such commingling converts the memo from a professional advisory document into a disguised commercial solicitation?
focus: Engineer A Project Delivery Method Advisor: Prohibition on Disguised Commercial Solicitation Through Free Advisory Services
option1: Append firm experience summaries and project references to an advisory memo whose underlying analysis selectively omits delivery methods unfavorable to Engineer A's commercial interests
option2: Provide a complete and objective comparative analysis of all four delivery methods and, only after satisfying the completeness obligation, append firm qualifications and references in a clearly demarcated section that transparently identifies the document's dual advisory and promotional character
role label: Engineer A Project Delivery Method Advisor
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.297633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: Should Engineer A provide a complete comparative analysis of all four funding-approved delivery methods — including Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build — rather than presenting only the two methods under which Engineer A's firm could provide services?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to provide a complete and objective comparative analysis of all four approved delivery methods when responding to City B's informal solicitation
option1: Omit two delivery methods from the advisory memo and present only the methods under which Engineer A's firm can provide services
option2: Provide a complete comparative analysis of all four funding-approved delivery methods, including objective evaluation of Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build alongside the two methods Engineer A can service, and disclose the regulatory constraint that would bar Engineer A from serving as Engineer of Record under Construction Manager at Risk
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.297757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

DP8
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP8
decision question: Should Engineer A disclose the conflict of interest created by the firm's qualification to provide services under the recommended delivery method, and refrain from appending firm experience summaries and project references to what is presented as an objective advisory memo?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to disclose the conflict of interest arising from the firm's financial stake in the recommended delivery method and to refrain from exploiting the free advisory engagement as a vehicle for disguised commercial solicitation
option1: Append firm experience summaries and project references to the advisory memo without disclosing the conflict of interest created by the firm's qualification to provide services under the recommended method
option2: Disclose at the outset of the memo that the firm is qualified to provide services under the recommended delivery method and that this creates a financial interest in the outcome, and either omit promotional materials entirely or append them only after providing a complete and objective comparative analysis of all four methods
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.297931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

DP9
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP9
decision question: Given that Engineer A's financial interest in Progressive-Design-Build created a structural conflict irreconcilable through disclosure alone, should Engineer A have declined to provide the advisory memo and instead referred City Administrator to a neutral independent consultant — and having already provided the incomplete memo, should Engineer A correct or disclose the omissions rather than allow City B to rely on a deficient analysis?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to either correct the omissions in the advisory memo or refer City B's Administrator to a neutral third-party resource, given that the conflict of interest was structural and could not be fully mitigated through disclosure alone
option1: Allow City B to rely on the incomplete advisory memo without correcting the omissions or disclosing the structural conflict of interest that shaped the analysis
option2: Decline to provide the advisory memo and refer City Administrator to a neutral independent engineering consultant with no financial stake in the delivery method outcome
option3: Supplement or correct the advisory memo to include a complete comparative analysis of all four approved delivery methods and explicitly disclose the structural conflict of interest before City B relies on the analysis for procurement decisions
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.298070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Decision to Respond with Formal Memo
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.929950
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Disclosure Obligation Engineer A Conflict of Interest City B
type: DisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build — a method under which Engineer A's firm is qualified to provide services — to a non-engineer City Administrator without disclosing this conflict of interest, while simultaneously providing self-promotional firm experience materials.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to disclose to City B's City Administrator the conflict of interest arising from Engineer A's firm's qualification and commercial interest in providing services under the recommended Progressive-Design-Build delivery method, so that City B could appropriately evaluate the advisory recommendation.
sourcetext: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
temporalscope: Prior to or contemporaneously with delivering the advisory recommendation
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.922041
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Advisory Self-Interest Conflict Identification Deficit
type: AdvisorySelf-InterestConflictIdentificationandDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Advisory Self-Interest Conflict Identification and Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize and disclose that Engineer A's firm's qualification to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build created a conflict of interest that required disclosure to City B's City Administrator before or contemporaneously with delivering the advisory recommendation favoring that delivery method.
casecontext: Engineer A provided a self-serving advisory recommendation to City B without disclosing the commercial conflict of interest arising from the firm's qualification to perform services under the recommended delivery method
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Provision of an advisory memo recommending Progressive-Design-Build without disclosing that Engineer A's firm was qualified to provide services under that method and stood to benefit commercially from the recommendation
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
textreferences: Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER.
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.929308
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Advisory Self-Interest Conflict Identification and Disclosure
type: AdvisorySelf-InterestConflictIdentificationandDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Advisory Self-Interest Conflict Identification and Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the firm's qualification to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk created a conflict of interest in the advisory engagement, but failed to disclose this conflict to City B's City Administrator before or with the advisory recommendation.
casecontext: Advisory engagement in which Engineer A recommended a project delivery method under which the firm was commercially qualified to provide services, without disclosing this conflict to the client.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build — a delivery method under which the firm was qualified to provide services — without disclosing the firm's commercial interest in that recommendation to the non-engineer City Administrator.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.923560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Recognition and Recusal City B Advisory
type: ConflictofInterestRecognitionandRecusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Conflict of Interest Recognition and Recusal Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize or act on the conflict of interest created by the firm's commercial qualification to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build when providing an ostensibly objective advisory recommendation to City B's City Administrator on project delivery method selection.
casecontext: Advisory engagement where Engineer A's firm held commercial qualifications under one of the delivery methods being evaluated and recommended.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build — a method under which the firm was commercially qualified — without disclosing the conflict or taking any remedial action such as recusal from the advisory engagement or explicit conflict disclosure.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.924379
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Conflict of Interest in Delivery Method Recommendation
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A was asked for a recommendation through the delivery of the recommendation memo and accompanying firm experience summary
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: City B
affectedparties: City B public
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:10.393456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:10.393456+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer A's financial interest in Progressive-Design-Build conflicting with obligation to provide objective advisory recommendation to City B
terminatedby: Not resolved in the facts presented; would terminate upon full disclosure of conflict or recusal from recommendation role
textreferences: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build
triggeringevent: City B City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for the wastewater system improvements project
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.913894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Free Service Business Development Boundary Deficit
type: FreeServiceBusinessDevelopmentBoundaryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Free Service Business Development Boundary Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that providing a free partial advisory memo structured to favor Engineer A's firm's preferred delivery method constituted an impermissible offer of valuable consideration to secure work, and failed to identify the ethically permissible alternatives of referring City Administrator to neutral resources or providing a complete compiled analysis without self-promotional content.
casecontext: City B's City Administrator informally solicited advisory input from Engineer A on project delivery methods; Engineer A responded with a self-serving partial analysis rather than a neutral referral or complete objective analysis
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Provision of a free advisory memo to City B's City Administrator that omitted competing methodologies and included firm experience summaries for Progressive-Design-Build, rather than referring the City Administrator to neutral resources or providing a complete objective analysis
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
textreferences: Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services.
textreferences: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
textreferences: the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.928993
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Free Services as Inducement
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's provision of free partial evaluation through BER determination
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: City/public client
affectedparties: Competing engineers
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:58.898061+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:58.898061+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer A's provision of free partial engineering evaluation as implicit inducement to secure work
terminatedby: Not resolved within the text; BER found conduct unethical
textreferences: Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
textreferences: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
textreferences: the extension of free services
triggeringevent: Engineer A provided free engineering services (partial methodology evaluation and recommendation) in response to City Administrator's informal solicitation, constituting an implicit offer of valuable consideration to secure work
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.918522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Funding Agency Regulatory Constraint Knowledge
type: FundingAgencyRegulatoryConstraintKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Funding Agency Regulatory Constraint Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed knowledge of the funding agency's regulatory constraints — including the four approved delivery methods and the CM-at-Risk entity separation requirement — but failed to accurately and completely represent these constraints in the advisory memo, omitting two approved delivery methods and potentially misrepresenting the CM-at-Risk constraint.
casecontext: Advisory memo regarding project delivery methods for a wastewater project subject to specific funding agency requirements including four approved delivery methods and a CM-at-Risk entity separation condition.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's omission of Construction-Management-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build from the advisory memo despite their approval under the funding source, and failure to fully represent the CM-at-Risk entity separation requirement as a constraint rather than a disqualifying factor.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
textreferences: Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.923883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Incomplete Design Submission
type: SelectiveInformationOmissioninProfessionalReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of incomplete design documents through acknowledgment of incompleteness
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:58.898061+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:58.898061+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted plans that were lacking much of the design detail in both drawings and specifications
stateclass: Selective Information Omission in Professional Report State
subject: Engineer A's submission of incomplete plans and specifications
terminatedby: Engineer A's acknowledgment of incompleteness (post-submission)
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledge that fact, but even acknowledged that certain parts of the project were arguably unbuildable
textreferences: Engineer A did not inform anyone as to the incompleteness at the time of submission
textreferences: Engineer A submitted plans that were lacking much of the design detail in both drawings and specifications
textreferences: the incomplete submission was clearly unethical
triggeringevent: Engineer A submitted plans lacking much of the design detail in both drawings and specifications, including portions that were arguably unbuildable, without informing anyone of the incompleteness at time of submission
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.917696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Incomplete Options Presentation to City Administrator
type: IncompleteOptionsPresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's response to City Administrator's solicitation through BER review
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: City/public client
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:58.898061+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:58.898061+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
stateclass: Incomplete Options Presentation State
subject: Engineer A's partial presentation of four delivery methodologies to City Administrator
terminatedby: Not resolved within the text
textreferences: Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
textreferences: incomplete and self-serving information
triggeringevent: Engineer A presented only a partial comparative evaluation of the four methodologies without complete analysis of pros and cons, omitting information that would have enabled City Administrator to make a fully informed decision
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.918244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Informed Decision Making Facilitation City B
type: InformedDecision-MakingProcessFacilitationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Informed Decision-Making Process Facilitation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to structure and present the advisory analysis in a manner that facilitated a genuinely informed decision by City B's City Administrator, omitting two of four approved delivery methods and failing to present complete comparative information about all available options.
casecontext: Advisory memo to a non-engineer public official regarding project delivery method selection for a publicly funded wastewater infrastructure project.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The advisory memo presented only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build, depriving City B's non-engineer City Administrator of the complete information needed to make an informed choice among all four funding-agency-approved delivery methods.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer.
textreferences: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.924199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Material Omission Recognition Advisory Memo
type: MaterialOmissionRecognitioninProfessionalReportsCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Material Omission Recognition in Professional Reports Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that omitting two of four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods from the advisory memo constituted a material omission that deprived City B's City Administrator of information necessary to make an informed decision, violating professional obligations to issue statements in an objective and truthful manner.
casecontext: Advisory memo to City B City Administrator on project delivery methods for a wastewater system improvements project with four funding-agency-approved delivery options.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The advisory memo omitted Construction-Management-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build from the comparative analysis, presenting only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable options despite all four being approved under the funding source.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.924547
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A No Contractual Relationship with City B
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: At the time of the City Administrator's request and through delivery of the recommendation memo
affectedparties: City B
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:10.393456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:10.393456+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Absence of a formal contractual client relationship between Engineer A and City B at the time of the recommendation request
terminatedby: Would terminate upon execution of a formal contract between Engineer A and City B
textreferences: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B
triggeringevent: City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation despite no existing contractual relationship
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.915365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Objective Advisory Report Integrity
type: ObjectiveAdvisoryReportIntegrityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Objective Advisory Report Integrity Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to maintain the integrity and objectivity of the advisory memo by including firm experience summaries and project references for Progressive-Design-Build in the same communication as the ostensibly objective advisory recommendation, commingling self-promotional content with professional advice.
casecontext: Advisory memo to City B City Administrator that included both a project delivery method recommendation and firm self-promotional materials for the recommended delivery method.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Inclusion of a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects in the same memo as the advisory recommendation to City B's City Administrator.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.923723
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Objective Advisory Report Integrity Deficit
type: ObjectiveAdvisoryReportIntegrityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Objective Advisory Report Integrity Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to maintain the integrity and objectivity of the advisory communication by commingling firm experience summaries and project references for Progressive-Design-Build with the ostensibly objective analysis, and by structuring the advisory memo in a manner that a reasonable client would recognize as a sales pitch rather than independent professional advice.
casecontext: Engineer A's advisory memo to City B's City Administrator commingled self-promotional content with ostensibly objective technical analysis, violating the professional obligation to be objective and truthful
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Inclusion of firm experience summaries and capability statements for Progressive-Design-Build in the same communication as the advisory recommendation, without equivalent treatment of competing methodologies
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: objective and truthful
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
textreferences: objective and truthful
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.929503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Precedent-Based Report Completeness Standard Application Deficit
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to apply the professional report completeness standard established by BER Cases 95-5 and 99-8 — which prohibit intentional disregard of contrary information and selective use of data — to the advisory memo provided to City B's City Administrator, resulting in an incomplete and self-serving communication that violated the objective and truthful reporting standard.
casecontext: Engineer A's advisory memo to City B failed to meet the completeness standard established by BER precedent on integrity and completeness in preparing reports
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Provision of a partial comparative analysis that omitted three of four approved delivery methodologies and included self-promotional content, conduct directly analogous to the incomplete and selective reporting condemned in BER Cases 95-5 and 99-8
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: BER Case 95-5 addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports.
textreferences: BER Case 95-5 addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports.
textreferences: BER Case 99-8 was relatively analogous.
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8)
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.929136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Project Delivery Method Advisor
type: ProjectDeliveryMethodAdvisorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer in State C', 'specialty': 'Construction services including Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk', 'contractual_status': 'No existing contractual relationship with City B at time of recommendation', 'conflict_of_interest': 'Eligible to perform work under Progressive-Design-Build (recommended) and Construction-Manager-at-Risk (omitted); omitted CM-at-Risk without disclosure'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A was asked by City B's City Administrator to recommend project delivery methods for a wastewater system improvements project. Engineer A prepared a memo identifying only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable options, omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk (under which Engineer A is also qualified to provide services), and recommended Progressive-Design-Build while providing the firm's own experience summary and references for that method.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:02.771865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:02.771865+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'advisor_to', 'target': 'City B Administrator Non-Engineer Public Infrastructure Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'potential_provider_to', 'target': 'City B'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Project Delivery Method Advisor Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B and is a licensed professional engineer in State C
textreferences: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
textreferences: Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B and is a licensed professional engineer in State C
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.914278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Project Delivery Method Comparative Analysis
type: ProjectDeliveryMethodComparativeAnalysisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Project Delivery Method Comparative Analysis Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the technical knowledge to identify and analyze all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods but failed to exercise this capability fully, presenting only two of the four approved methods in the advisory memo to City B's City Administrator.
casecontext: Advisory memo provided to City B City Administrator regarding project delivery methods for wastewater system improvements project funded by a specific funding source with four approved delivery methods.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's preparation of a summary memo that identified only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable options, omitting Construction-Management-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build, despite all four being approved under the funding source.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.923375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Qualification Gap Exists
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Qualified for Subset of Delivery Methods
type: QualifiedtoPerform
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Persistent professional competence state at the time of the recommendation
affectedparties: City B
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:10.393456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:10.393456+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
stateclass: Qualified to Perform
subject: Engineer A's competence status — qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, but not identified as qualified under Fixed-Price-Design-Build
terminatedby: Not applicable; competence state is inertial
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
triggeringevent: Engineer A's established qualifications and service capabilities in specific delivery method domains
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.915580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Selective Information Omission Recognition Deficit
type: MaterialOmissionRecognitioninProfessionalReportsCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Material Omission Recognition in Professional Reports Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that providing only a partial comparative evaluation of project delivery methodologies — omitting Design-Bid-Build, CM-at-Risk, and Fixed-Price-Design-Build from analysis — constituted an impermissible omission of material information from a professional advisory communication, analogous to the omissions condemned in BER Cases 95-5 and 99-8.
casecontext: Engineer A provided an advisory memo on project delivery methods for City B's wastewater system improvements project that omitted three of four approved methodologies and included self-promotional firm materials
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure to include all four funding-agency-approved delivery methods in the advisory memo to City B's City Administrator, providing only analysis favorable to Progressive-Design-Build in which Engineer A's firm was qualified to provide services
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8)
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8)
textreferences: include all relevant and pertinent information
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.928837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Interested Delivery Method Recommendation
type: Self-InterestedDeliveryMethodRecommendationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From preparation of the summary memo through its delivery to City Administrator; persists until corrected
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: City B
affectedparties: City B ratepayers and public
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:10.393456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:10.393456+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
stateclass: Self-Interested Delivery Method Recommendation State
subject: Engineer A's recommendation to City B that omitted two of four approved delivery methods and recommended the method under which Engineer A stands to gain work
terminatedby: Not resolved in the facts presented; would terminate upon disclosure and correction
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build
triggeringevent: Engineer A prepared and delivered a summary memo identifying only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable options and recommending Progressive-Design-Build, while omitting Construction-Management-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.914087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
type: Self-ServingPartialAnalysisEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'conduct': 'Selective omission of unfavorable information, self-serving recommendation, extension of free services'}
caseinvolvement: Provided a partial, incomplete comparative evaluation of project delivery methodologies to City Administrator, omitting material information, presenting no complete analysis, and making a recommendation that favored Engineer A's own business interests, while also extending free services as an implicit inducement to secure work.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:34.885705+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:34.885705+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'City Administrator'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_ethics_review', 'target': 'Board of Ethical Review'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
sourcetext: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
textreferences: Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
textreferences: the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
textreferences: the extension of free services
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.916920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Methodology Recommendation
type: Self-InterestedDeliveryMethodRecommendationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From receipt of City Administrator's informal solicitation through Engineer A's provision of partial self-serving recommendation
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: City/public client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Other delivery method providers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:58.898061+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:58.898061+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
stateclass: Self-Interested Delivery Method Recommendation State
subject: Engineer A's response to City Administrator's informal solicitation for delivery methodology analysis
terminatedby: Not resolved within the text; BER found conduct unethical
textreferences: Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
textreferences: the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
textreferences: the extension of free services
triggeringevent: City Administrator informally solicited Engineer A's opinion on project delivery methodologies; Engineer A provided only a partial comparative evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation favoring the methodology under which Engineer A would benefit commercially
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.917996
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Trustee Advisory Role Faithful Execution
type: Trustee-AgentRoleDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Trustee-Agent Role Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to correctly execute the trustee advisory role when asked by City B's City Administrator for an objective recommendation on project delivery methods, instead providing a selective, self-serving analysis that favored the delivery method under which the firm was commercially qualified to provide services.
casecontext: Advisory engagement in which Engineer A was asked to provide an objective recommendation on project delivery methods for City B's wastewater system improvements project.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's selective presentation of only two of four approved delivery methods, recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build in which the firm was qualified, and inclusion of firm self-promotional materials — all of which subordinated client advisory obligations to firm commercial interests.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:20.072296+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
textreferences: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.924040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A Trustee Advisory Role Faithful Execution Deficit
type: TrusteeAdvisoryRoleFaithfulExecutionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Trustee Advisory Role Faithful Execution Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to execute the trustee advisory role faithfully by subordinating firm self-interest to City B's need for complete, objective, and unbiased professional advice on project delivery methods, instead providing a selective analysis structured to favor the delivery method under which Engineer A's firm was qualified to provide services.
casecontext: Engineer A was solicited by City B's City Administrator for advisory input on project delivery methods and failed to fulfill the trustee obligation to provide complete, objective, and unbiased professional advice
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Provision of a partial, self-serving advisory memo that omitted three of four approved delivery methodologies and included self-promotional firm materials, rather than providing the complete and objective analysis required of a faithful trustee
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:40:59.447853+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A had several options.
textreferences: Alternatively, Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons by compiling properly referenced resources from others, involving no provision of engineering services and thus not unethical.
textreferences: Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER.
textreferences: Engineer A had several options.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.929680
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A having no contractual relationship with City B before City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A winning design contract before Engineer A submitting incomplete plans
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.931105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A's provision of firm experience and references equals Engineer A's recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A's recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build meets Engineer A providing firm's experience and references
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer A's summary memo before upcoming wastewater system improvements project
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Engineer Pile Report Selective Omission
type: SelectiveInformationOmissioninProfessionalReportState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From submission of incomplete pile report through discovery of omissions
affectedparties: Contractor
affectedparties: Engineer rendering opinion
affectedparties: Project owner/client
affectedparties: Public relying on pile safety determination
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:58.898061+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:58.898061+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the engineer failed to include in the report that the initial log indicated that several of the piles were driven to essential refusal
stateclass: Selective Information Omission in Professional Report State
subject: Engineer's report on installed pile safety factor
terminatedby: Not specified in text; presumably upon BER review and case adjudication
textreferences: that following cure, the test hammer was dropped several times before the count began
textreferences: that the test equipment had failed (selective use of information)
textreferences: that the test piles were not driven to the same depth as the installed piles, that a different installation technique was used
textreferences: the engineer failed to include in the report that the initial log indicated that several of the piles were driven to essential refusal
textreferences: the predicted increase in strength after cure was confirmed
triggeringevent: Engineer submitted report concluding installed piles did not meet design safety factor while omitting material contradictory data including refusal logs, equipment failure, depth differences, installation technique differences, and cure strength confirmation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.917394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Ethical Conduct Obligation Engineer A Advisory Memo Selectivity
type: EthicalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's selective presentation of delivery methods and inclusion of self-promotional materials in an advisory memo to a non-engineer public client constitutes a failure of ethical conduct in professional advisory services.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Ethical Conduct
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct themselves ethically in providing the advisory recommendation to City B, including refraining from selectively presenting only those project delivery methods from which the firm could commercially benefit and from using an ostensibly objective advisory engagement as an undisclosed business development opportunity.
sourcetext: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
temporalscope: Throughout the advisory engagement with City B
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.922193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Ethics Violation Finding Issued
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Failure to Correct or Disclose Omissions
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Failure to Correct or Disclose Omissions (Action 6) → Ethics Violation Finding Issued (Event 6)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Engineer A City B Advisory
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City B's City Administrator solicited Engineer A's professional advisory opinion on project delivery methods. The faithful agent duty required Engineer A to serve City B's informational and decision-making interests, not to use the advisory engagement as a vehicle for business development.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for City B in providing the advisory recommendation on project delivery methods, serving City B's interests by providing complete and objective analysis of all available options — not Engineer A's firm's commercial interests — within the bounds of professional ethics.
sourcetext: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
temporalscope: Throughout the advisory engagement with City B
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.921887
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked Engineer A City B
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Advisory engagement with City B on project delivery method selection
balancingwith: Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
balancingwith: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A was asked by City B's City Administrator to provide a recommendation on project delivery methods; the faithful agent obligation required Engineer A to execute this advisory assignment diligently and in City B's interest, but the ethical limits of that obligation required that the advisory product be complete, objective, and free from self-interested distortion — conditions that Engineer A's selective memo failed to satisfy
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation is bounded by ethical duties; an engineer cannot invoke the faithful agent role to justify providing only the information that serves the engineer's commercial interests while omitting information that would serve the client's decision-making needs
invokedby: Engineer A Project Delivery Method Advisor
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation, properly understood, requires serving the client's actual interests — which include receiving complete and objective advisory information — not the engineer's commercial interests dressed up as client service
textreferences: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.920283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Free Services Non-Exploitation Engineer A City B Advisory Memo
type: FreeServicesNon-exploitationforBusinessDevelopmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City B's City Administrator informally solicited a recommendation from Engineer A on project delivery methods for a wastewater system improvements project. Engineer A provided a free advisory memo covering only two of four funding-agency-approved delivery methods, accompanied by firm experience summaries, structured to favor the methodology under which Engineer A's firm could perform the work.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:39:57.184896+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:39:57.184896+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Free Services Non-exploitation for Business Development Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from providing free advisory services to City B's City Administrator in a form structured to favor Engineer A's commercial interests — specifically, by delivering only a partial comparative evaluation of project delivery methods that omitted two funding-agency-approved methodologies and accompanied the recommendation with firm experience summaries — rather than either referring the Administrator to complete resources or providing a genuinely complete and objective analysis.
sourcetext: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the advisory memo in response to City Administrator's informal solicitation
textreferences: Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information and the extension of free services
textreferences: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.926013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Free Services Rendered to Public Client
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Free Services as Contract Inducement Engineer A City B Advisory
type: FreeServicesasContractInducementProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A had no existing contractual relationship with City B and provided the advisory memo without compensation, while simultaneously recommending the delivery method under which Engineer A's firm was positioned to provide construction services and appending firm experience summaries to the recommendation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Free Services as Contract Inducement Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from providing a free, uncompensated advisory analysis of project delivery methods to City B's City Administrator when that analysis was structured — through selective presentation and accompanying self-promotional material — to position Engineer A's firm for a subsequent Progressive-Design-Build contract award, constituting an improper use of free professional services as an implicit inducement to secure future work.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.b; NSPE Code Section III.2.b
sourcetext: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
temporalscope: At the time of the informal solicitation and preparation of the advisory memo
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.928087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Funding Agency Approved Project Delivery Methods Specification
type: ProjectDeliveryMethodFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Federal or state funding agency governing City B's wastewater project funding source
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Approved Project Delivery Methods Under Proposed Funding Source
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:31:58.088599+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:31:58.088599+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Project Delivery Method Framework
sourcetext: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build
usedby: City B Administrator in evaluating project delivery options; Engineer A in preparing recommendation memo
usedincontext: Establishes the four approved delivery methods available to City B — Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build — against which Engineer A's selective presentation of only two options must be evaluated for completeness and professional integrity
version: Current (as applicable to City B's wastewater project funding)
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.913180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Honesty In Professional Representations Violated By Engineer A Self-Promotional Memo
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Summary memo and accompanying firm experience materials provided to City B Administrator
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's memo, by presenting only two of four approved delivery methods and accompanying the recommendation with firm experience summaries and references, implicitly represented to City B Administrator that the recommendation was a complete and objective professional advisory product, when in fact it was a selectively constructed document designed to position Engineer A's firm for subsequent engagement
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations extends beyond explicit false statements to include implicit misrepresentations created by selective omission; presenting a partial analysis as a professional recommendation without disclosing its incompleteness is a form of professional dishonesty
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
tensionresolution: Honesty obligations are not balanced against commercial interests; the engineer's duty to represent the advisory product honestly is not diminished by the desire to obtain subsequent work
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.919268
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked Against Engineer A Selective Analysis
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City B wastewater system improvements project delivery method recommendation
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's partial and selective delivery method analysis — presented without disclosure of its incompleteness or of Engineer A's commercial interest in the outcome — constituted a form of dishonest professional representation, implying a completeness and objectivity that the analysis did not possess
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in professional representations extends beyond affirmative false statements to encompass misleading presentations achieved through selective omission; presenting a partial analysis as if it were a complete evaluation is a form of professional misrepresentation
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: By their very words, the cited sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics provide appropriate guidance: 'objective and truthful,' 'include all relevant and pertinent information'
tensionresolution: Honesty required Engineer A to either present a complete analysis or to explicitly characterize the analysis as partial and disclose the commercial interest motivating the selection of options presented
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
textreferences: include all relevant and pertinent information
textreferences: objective and truthful
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.925543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

II.3.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.289397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.289457
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

II.5.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.289491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Incomplete Memo Received by Client
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Incomplete Options Presentation to City B
type: IncompleteOptionsPresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From delivery of the summary memo to City Administrator; persists until City B is informed of all four approved options
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: City B
affectedparties: City B public and ratepayers
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:10.393456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:10.393456+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build
stateclass: Incomplete Options Presentation State
subject: City B's decision-making context, in which the City Administrator received a recommendation memo presenting only two of four approved delivery methods as viable, without disclosure of the omission
terminatedby: Not resolved in the facts presented; would terminate upon City B receiving complete options analysis
textreferences: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer
textreferences: Engineer A only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build
triggeringevent: Engineer A delivered a memo identifying only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable, omitting Construction-Management-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build without explanation
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.915081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Incomplete Plans Submission Engineer A BER 99-8
type: WrittenReportCompletenessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A bid and won a design contract to provide a complete set of plans and specifications but submitted plans lacking much design detail in both drawings and specifications, acknowledged certain parts were arguably unbuildable, and did not inform anyone of the incompleteness at the time of submission.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 99-8 analogue)
constraintclass: Written Report Completeness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from submitting plans and specifications that were incomplete — including unbuildable sections — without disclosing the incompleteness to the client at the time of submission, and was required to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications as contracted.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:40:57.277849+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:40:57.277849+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 99-8
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted plans that were lacking much of the design detail in both drawings and specifications
temporalscope: At time of design submission
textreferences: BER Case 99-8 was relatively analogous
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledge that fact, but even acknowledged that certain parts of the project were arguably unbuildable
textreferences: Engineer A had a clear obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged, and the incomplete submission was clearly unethical
textreferences: Engineer A submitted plans that were lacking much of the design detail in both drawings and specifications
textreferences: Furthermore, Engineer A did not inform anyone as to the incompleteness at the time of submission
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.927731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Informal Advisory Referral Alternative Engineer A City Administrator
type: InformalAdvisoryReferralAlternativeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A informally. Engineer A had multiple compliant options available, including referral to library or subscription resources, but chose to provide a partial self-serving memo instead.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.81
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:39:57.184896+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:39:57.184896+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Informal Advisory Referral Alternative Obligation
obligationstatement: When City B's City Administrator informally solicited advisory input on project delivery methods, Engineer A had the option — and arguably the obligation — to either refer the Administrator to complete authoritative resources covering all four approved methodologies, or to provide a complete and objective analysis of all four methodologies; Engineer A instead chose neither compliant path, providing instead a partial and self-serving analysis.
sourcetext: Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of City Administrator's informal solicitation, before preparing and delivering the advisory memo
textreferences: Alternatively, Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons by compiling properly referenced resources from others, involving no provision of engineering services and thus not unethical.
textreferences: Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services.
textreferences: However, by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.926195
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Informal Solicitation Formal Ethics Applicability Engineer A City B
type: CodeofEthicsUniversalApplicabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A had no existing contractual relationship with City B, which might have been interpreted as limiting the scope of ethical obligations. The Code of Ethics applies regardless of the formal or informal nature of the professional engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Code of Ethics Universal Applicability Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the full scope of the NSPE Code of Ethics in preparing and submitting the advisory memo to City B's City Administrator, notwithstanding the absence of a formal contractual relationship between Engineer A and City B at the time of the solicitation — establishing that the ethical obligations of objectivity, completeness, conflict of interest disclosure, and non-deception apply to informal professional advisory engagements as fully as to formal contractual engagements.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Preamble and Fundamental Canons; NSPE Code Section III.2.b
sourcetext: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer A accepted the informal advisory request from City B's City Administrator
textreferences: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.923061
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Informal Solicitation of Private Firm
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.929889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Informal Solicitation of Private Firm (Action 1) → Free Services Rendered to Public Client (Event 4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Fundamental Canons and Rules of Practice
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:31:58.088599+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:31:58.088599+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
usedby: Engineer A in preparing project delivery method recommendation
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligation to provide complete, unbiased professional advice to City B Administrator, disclose self-interest in the recommended delivery method, and avoid misrepresentation by omission of viable alternatives
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.913034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Objectivity and Truthfulness Provisions
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:24.395256+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:24.395256+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: By their very words, the cited sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics provide appropriate guidance: 'objective and truthful,' 'include all relevant and pertinent information,' 'not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work.'
textreferences: By their very words, the cited sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics provide appropriate guidance: 'objective and truthful,' 'include all relevant and pertinent information,' 'not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work.'
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: Cited directly as providing guidance on objectivity, truthfulness, inclusion of all relevant and pertinent information, and prohibition on offering gifts or valuable consideration to secure work
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.916059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Non-Deception Objective Advisory Engineer A City B Delivery Method Memo
type: Non-Deception
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City B's City Administrator, who is not a licensed professional engineer, relied on Engineer A's advisory memo as a complete and objective analysis of available delivery methods. Engineer A's selective presentation created a materially false impression of the available options.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Deception
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from presenting a selectively incomplete advisory memo to City B's City Administrator — omitting two of four approved delivery methods and recommending the method under which Engineer A stood to benefit financially — in a manner that created a false impression that the two presented methods were the only viable options, constituting deceptive professional conduct through selective omission.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2.b; NSPE Code Section II.3.a; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of the advisory memo to City B's City Administrator
textreferences: City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.922831
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Objective Complete Reporting Engineer A Advisory Memo City B
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's advisory memo to City B omitted two of four funding-agency-approved delivery methods and recommended the method under which Engineer A's firm could commercially benefit, without disclosing that omission or the commercial interest.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to be objective and truthful in the advisory memo provided to City B's City Administrator, including all relevant and pertinent information about all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods, rather than presenting a selective analysis that omitted two approved options.
sourcetext: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the advisory memo to City B Administrator
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.921685
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Objective and Complete Reporting Engineer A Partial Delivery Method Memo
type: ObjectiveandCompleteReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A provided City B's City Administrator with a partial comparative evaluation of project delivery methods covering only two of four funding-agency-approved methodologies, omitting Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk, and accompanied the memo with firm experience summaries.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:39:57.184896+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:39:57.184896+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to be objective and truthful in the advisory memo provided to City B's City Administrator and to include all relevant and pertinent information — including analysis of all four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies — rather than selectively presenting only two methodologies that favored Engineer A's commercial interests.
sourcetext: objective and truthful, include all relevant and pertinent information
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the advisory memo to City Administrator
textreferences: Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
textreferences: objective and truthful, include all relevant and pertinent information
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.926724
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Objectivity Principle Violated by Engineer A Self-Serving Recommendation
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City B wastewater system improvements project delivery method recommendation
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A failed to maintain objectivity in the delivery method recommendation by structuring the analysis to favor the methodology under which Engineer A's firm would be eligible to compete, allowing commercial self-interest to distort the professional advisory product
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity in advisory engagements requires that the engineer's analysis and recommendations reflect genuine professional assessment of the client's interests rather than the engineer's own commercial interests; the objectivity obligation is heightened when the client lacks independent capacity to evaluate the completeness or bias of the advice
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: By their very words, the cited sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics provide appropriate guidance: 'objective and truthful,' 'include all relevant and pertinent information'
tensionresolution: Objectivity and client loyalty are not in tension here — both require a complete, unbiased analysis; the only competing interest is Engineer A's commercial self-interest, which cannot override the objectivity obligation
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
textreferences: objective and truthful
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.925681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Objectivity Violated By Engineer A Selective Memo
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Summary memo on project delivery methods provided to City B Administrator
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A failed to maintain objectivity by preparing an advisory memo that omitted two of the four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods, presenting only the two methods under which Engineer A's firm could perform work, and recommending the method most commercially advantageous to Engineer A's firm
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity requires that advisory recommendations not be structured to favor the engineer's commercial interests; the selective presentation of only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build while omitting Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk constitutes a failure of professional objectivity
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
tensionresolution: Objectivity is not balanced away by client loyalty or faithful agent obligations; those obligations require serving the client's actual interests, which are best served by objective and complete analysis
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.918998
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Omission of Two Delivery Methods
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.929989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Omission of Two Delivery Methods (Action 3) → Incomplete Memo Received by Client (Event 3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Professional Accountability Invoked Against Engineer A Failure to Disclose Incompleteness
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City B wastewater system improvements project delivery method recommendation
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A failed to take professional accountability for the incompleteness of the delivery method analysis by not informing City Administrator of its partial character at the time of submission, mirroring the BER Case 99-8 precedent in which an engineer submitted incomplete design documents without disclosing their incompleteness
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability requires engineers to affirmatively disclose known deficiencies in their work products rather than allowing clients to rely on those products without awareness of their limitations; the obligation to disclose incompleteness is independent of and in addition to the obligation to provide complete work
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer A did not inform anyone as to the incompleteness at the time of submission. Engineer A had a clear obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged, and the incomplete submission was clearly unethical.
tensionresolution: Accountability and client loyalty both require disclosure of incompleteness; the failure to disclose compounds the original incompleteness violation by depriving the client of the ability to seek supplementary information
textreferences: Engineer A did not inform anyone as to the incompleteness at the time of submission
textreferences: Not only did Engineer A acknowledge that fact, but even acknowledged that certain parts of the project were arguably unbuildable
textreferences: the incomplete submission was clearly unethical
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.925842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Professional Accountability Invoked Engineer A Partial Analysis
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Advisory memo and accompanying firm experience materials provided to City B Administrator
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A bears professional accountability for the selective and incomplete advisory memo provided to City B, including accountability for the omission of two approved project delivery methods, the failure to disclose the commercial conflict of interest, and the embedding of self-promotional marketing materials in an ostensibly objective professional advisory product
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability requires that Engineer A acknowledge the deficiencies in the advisory product and not rationalize the omissions as reasonable simplification or appropriate scope limitation
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
tensionresolution: Professional accountability is not diminished by the absence of a formal contractual relationship or by the fact that the advisory engagement was informal; the engineer's professional obligations attach to the advisory role regardless of contractual formality
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.920610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Professional Report Integrity Standard - Completeness and Non-Omission Obligation
type: ProfessionalReportIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: NSPE and professional engineering ethics community
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Report Integrity Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:31:58.088599+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:31:58.088599+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Report Integrity Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
usedby: Engineer A in preparing project delivery method recommendation memo to City B Administrator
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to present all four funding-approved delivery methods in the recommendation memo rather than selectively presenting only two, particularly given Engineer A's financial interest in the recommended Progressive-Design-Build method
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.913490
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Prohibition on Disguised Commercial Solicitation Violated by Engineer A Free Services Extension
type: ProhibitiononDisguisedCommercialSolicitationThroughFreeServices
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City B wastewater system improvements project delivery method recommendation
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A provided free engineering advisory services to City Administrator in the form of a partial delivery method analysis structured to favor Engineer A's competitive position, constituting an improper extension of valuable consideration to secure future work in violation of the NSPE Code prohibition on offering gifts or valuable consideration to secure work
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The prohibition on improper inducements required Engineer A either to charge appropriately for substantive advisory work or to limit the response to genuinely informal referrals to publicly available resources; by providing substantive (if incomplete) engineering analysis for free as a competitive tactic, Engineer A converted the advisory engagement into an improper inducement
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Prohibition on Disguised Commercial Solicitation Through Free Services
sourcetext: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services. Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
tensionresolution: The BER identified the free services extension as a distinct and independent ethical violation from the incompleteness violation; the permissible alternatives identified by the BER (referral to resources, or complete analysis compiled from referenced sources) both avoid the improper inducement problem while still serving the client
textreferences: Both aspects of the conduct were unethical in the view of the BER
textreferences: Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services
textreferences: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
textreferences: the extension of free services
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.925367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Advisory Role
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Wastewater system improvements project delivery method recommendation to City B
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's advisory recommendation to a public agency on wastewater infrastructure project delivery methods implicates public welfare because the delivery method selected affects the quality, cost, and timeliness of public infrastructure serving City B's residents; providing a self-serving incomplete analysis risks directing public resources toward a suboptimal delivery method
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare in this context requires that advisory engineering services provided to a public agency be complete, objective, and free from self-interested distortion, because the public bears the consequences of infrastructure procurement decisions made on the basis of the engineer's advice
invokedby: Engineer A Project Delivery Method Advisor
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation requires completeness and objectivity in advisory recommendations even when this conflicts with the engineer's commercial interest in being selected for subsequent work
textreferences: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.918787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Qualification Representation Standard - Engineer A's Experience Disclosure
type: QualificationRepresentationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: NSPE and professional engineering ethics community
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Qualification Representation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:31:58.088599+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:31:58.088599+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Qualification Representation Standard
sourcetext: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
usedby: Engineer A in accompanying the delivery method recommendation with firm experience summary
usedincontext: Governs the ethical permissibility of Engineer A appending firm experience summaries and project references for Progressive-Design-Build alongside the recommendation, raising questions about whether this constitutes appropriate qualification disclosure or improper self-promotion that compromises the objectivity of the advisory recommendation
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.913644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295302
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295668
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294928
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.294961
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295114
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to provide a recommendation on project delivery methods that only included two of the possible methods, without providing the complete analysis and the reasoning behind recommending the two selected methods over others?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.289738
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Given that Engineer A had no contractual relationship with City B at the time of the request, did the informal nature of the solicitation diminish or eliminate Engineer A's ethical obligations to provide a complete and objective analysis, or do professional ethics apply with equal force regardless of whether a formal engagement exists?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.289989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Was Engineer A's omission of the Construction Manager at Risk method particularly significant given that the funding agency imposes a distinct-entity requirement for that method — a constraint that would have directly prevented Engineer A from serving as Engineer of Record under that delivery method — and did failing to disclose this regulatory nuance constitute a material misrepresentation to a non-engineer client?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.290060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Because City B's Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer, does Engineer A bear a heightened duty of candor and completeness compared to what might be owed to a technically sophisticated client, and how should the vulnerability of a non-engineer public official factor into the ethical evaluation of selective information presentation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.290172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Should Engineer A have declined to provide the advisory memo entirely and instead referred City Administrator to a neutral third-party resource or independent consultant, given that Engineer A's financial interest in one of the delivery methods created an irreconcilable conflict at the outset of the engagement?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.290268
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to recommend the method for which they could provide services?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.289814
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Faithful Agent Obligation — requiring Engineer A to serve City B's interests — come into direct conflict with the Conflict of Interest Disclosure principle when Engineer A's most faithful service to City B might have been to recommend a delivery method (such as Design-Bid-Build or Construction Manager at Risk) for which Engineer A could not provide services, thereby acting against Engineer A's own commercial interests?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.290351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: How should the tension between the Prohibition on Disguised Commercial Solicitation and the Board's finding that including marketing materials was not unethical be resolved — does the ethical permissibility of appending qualifications and references depend entirely on whether the underlying advisory analysis was itself complete and objective, such that marketing materials become impermissible only when they accompany a selectively constructed recommendation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.290435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of Public Welfare Paramount conflict with the principle of Completeness and Non-Selectivity when a genuinely superior delivery method for public infrastructure — one that Engineer A sincerely believes is best for City B — happens to be the same method from which Engineer A would financially benefit, and if so, how should an engineer navigate a situation where self-interest and public benefit appear to align?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.290502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Is there an irresolvable tension between the principle of Professional Accountability — which holds Engineer A responsible for the completeness of professional representations — and the Regulatory and Funding Constraint Completeness principle, in that Engineer A's selective omission of the Construction Manager at Risk method not only misled City B but also obscured a binding regulatory requirement of the funding agency, compounding a single act of omission into simultaneous violations of both professional and regulatory transparency obligations?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.290585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 3
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer A to include project summaries and references to encourage selection of their firm for the recommended method for project delivery?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.289904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty of objectivity and completeness when responding to City Administrator's informal solicitation, given that the duty to provide truthful professional reports applies regardless of whether a formal contractual relationship exists?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.290665
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's selective presentation of only two delivery methods produce net harm to City B's public infrastructure decision-making, and does the potential downstream harm to ratepayers and public welfare outweigh any efficiency benefit Engineer A may have believed justified narrowing the analysis?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.290743
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of honesty and integrity when they appended firm experience summaries and project references to what was ostensibly an objective advisory memo, or does this commingling of advisory and promotional content reveal a character disposition incompatible with the role of a trusted engineering advisor?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.290838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A violate a duty of faithful agency to City B by omitting the Construction Manager at Risk option — particularly given the funding agency's distinct-entity requirement that would have structurally prevented Engineer A from serving as Engineer of Record under that method — thereby concealing a material regulatory constraint that bore directly on City B's informed decision?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.290908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would Engineer A's recommendation have been ethically defensible if they had explicitly disclosed at the outset of the memo that their firm was qualified to provide services only under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction Manager at Risk, and that this qualification gap influenced the scope of the analysis presented?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.290992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had declined to provide the delivery method analysis and instead referred City Administrator to a neutral third-party resource or an independent engineering consultant with no stake in the outcome — would this have better served City B's interests and satisfied Engineer A's ethical obligations, and does the Board's suggestion of this referral pathway imply an affirmative duty to recuse when a conflict of interest cannot be fully mitigated?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.291073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Had Engineer A provided a complete comparative analysis of all four approved delivery methods — including an objective evaluation of Design-Bid-Build and Fixed-Price-Design-Build alongside the two methods they could service — and still recommended Progressive-Design-Build on documented merit, would the inclusion of firm experience summaries and references at the end of the memo have remained ethically permissible, or does the Board's approval of marketing materials depend on the prior condition of analytical completeness?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.291146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If City B had been a sophisticated engineering client rather than a non-engineer City Administrator, would Engineer A's selective presentation of delivery methods still constitute an ethical violation, or does the vulnerability of the non-engineer client amplify the severity of the breach by exploiting an informational asymmetry that a licensed professional engineer has a heightened duty to correct?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.291289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Referral Alternative Ethical Pathway Engineer A City Administrator Informal Solicitation
type: InformalAdvisoryReferralAlternativeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City Administrator informally solicited delivery method guidance from Engineer A. The BER identified that Engineer A had ethically permissible alternatives — referral to library or subscription resources, or provision of a complete neutral analysis — that would have discharged the advisory obligation without creating the self-interest conflict that the partial self-serving memo created.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Informal Advisory Referral Alternative Obligation
constraintstatement: When City B's City Administrator informally solicited advisory input on project delivery methods, Engineer A was constrained from providing a self-serving partial analysis and was instead required to either refer the City Administrator to neutral resources providing complete analyses, or provide a complete objective analysis of all four methodologies — establishing that the informal nature of the solicitation did not reduce the ethical obligations attaching to the advisory response actually provided.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:40:57.277849+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:40:57.277849+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity and truthfulness provisions; BER Cases 95-5 and 99-8
sourcetext: Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services.
temporalscope: At time of informal solicitation receipt and advisory response preparation
textreferences: Alternatively, Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons by compiling properly referenced resources from others, involving no provision of engineering services and thus not unethical.
textreferences: Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services.
textreferences: In the present case, City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A. It is not clear whether City Administrator knowingly solicited a donation of services.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.928268
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Regulatory Constraint Accurate Representation Engineer A Funding Agency Requirements City B
type: RegulatoryConstraintAccurateRepresentationinAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The funding agency imposed specific regulatory constraints on the approved delivery methods, including a requirement that the CM-at-Risk firm and Engineer of Record be two distinct entities. Engineer A's partial advisory memo failed to accurately and completely represent these regulatory constraints, depriving City B of information necessary to evaluate the feasibility and implications of each delivery method.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Regulatory Constraint Accurate Representation in Advisory Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was required to accurately and completely represent to City B's City Administrator all funding agency regulatory constraints governing the available delivery methods — including the entity separation requirement for Construction-Manager-at-Risk — and was prohibited from omitting or mischaracterizing material regulatory constraints that would affect City B's ability to implement any recommended delivery method.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:40:57.277849+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:40:57.277849+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a and III.2.b; Funding agency approved delivery method specifications
sourcetext: include all relevant and pertinent information
temporalscope: Throughout preparation and submission of advisory memo to City Administrator
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
textreferences: include all relevant and pertinent information
textreferences: objective and truthful
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.928459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Regulatory Constraint Complete Representation Engineer A City B Funding Agency
type: RegulatoryConstraintCompleteRepresentationinAdvisoryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The funding agency approved four delivery methods and imposed an entity-separation requirement on Construction Manager at Risk. Engineer A's memo omitted Construction Manager at Risk entirely and did not address the entity-separation requirement, depriving City B of complete regulatory information needed for an informed decision.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Constraint Complete Representation in Advisory Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to accurately and completely represent all funding-agency regulatory constraints in the advisory memo to City B, including the requirement that if Construction Manager at Risk is selected, the CM-at-Risk firm and the Engineer of Record must be two distinct entities — a constraint that may have affected the comparative evaluation of that option.
sourcetext: Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the advisory memo to City B Administrator
textreferences: Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.921348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Regulatory Constraint Complete Representation Engineer A Funding Agency Requirements
type: RegulatoryConstraintCompleteRepresentationinAdvisoryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's advisory memo omitted two of the four funding-agency-approved project delivery methodologies, thereby misrepresenting the regulatory landscape to City Administrator.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:39:57.184896+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:39:57.184896+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Regulatory Constraint Complete Representation in Advisory Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to accurately and completely represent to City B's City Administrator the full landscape of funding agency requirements governing project delivery method selection — including that the funding agency had approved four methodologies, not merely the two presented — so that the Administrator's decision was made with full awareness of the regulatory framework.
sourcetext: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the advisory memo
textreferences: Engineer A could have provided a complete analysis of the four methodologies, with all the pros and cons
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.927541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Regulatory Constraint Omission Engineer A CM-at-Risk Entity Separation City B
type: RegulatoryConstraintAccurateRepresentationinAdvisoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The funding agency imposed a specific entity separation requirement for CM-at-Risk that would have affected City B's evaluation of that delivery method. Engineer A omitted CM-at-Risk from the advisory memo entirely, thereby avoiding the need to disclose this regulatory constraint — and potentially avoiding disclosure of Engineer A's own qualification to serve under CM-at-Risk.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Regulatory Constraint Accurate Representation in Advisory Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from omitting from the advisory memo the funding agency's requirement that, if Construction-Manager-at-Risk is selected, the CM-at-Risk firm and the Engineer of Record must be two distinct entities — a regulatory constraint that materially affects the comparative analysis of delivery methods and that Engineer A may have had a financial interest in suppressing, given that Engineer A is qualified to provide services under CM-at-Risk.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Funding Agency Regulatory Requirements; NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a, III.2.b
sourcetext: Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of the advisory memo to City B's City Administrator
textreferences: Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.922655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Regulatory Funding Constraint Completeness Violated By Engineer A
type: RegulatoryandFundingConstraintCompletenessinAdvisoryAnalysis
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Advisory memo on project delivery methods for wastewater system improvements project with specific funding source
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's advisory memo failed to accurately represent the full regulatory landscape governing the project delivery method selection, omitting Fixed-Price-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk from the analysis and failing to disclose the funding agency's requirement that Construction-Manager-at-Risk engagements use separate Engineer of Record and CM-at-Risk entities — a constraint that would have been material to City B's evaluation of that option
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The funding agency's four-method approval framework and the entity-separation requirement for Construction-Manager-at-Risk were regulatory constraints that Engineer A was professionally obligated to accurately and completely represent; omitting two approved methods and the entity-separation constraint produced a materially incomplete regulatory picture
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Regulatory and Funding Constraint Completeness in Advisory Analysis
sourcetext: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
tensionresolution: Regulatory completeness is not a matter of professional discretion; the engineer's obligation to accurately represent the applicable regulatory framework is not diminished by the scope of the engagement or the engineer's commercial interests
textreferences: Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.920072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Regulatory Funding Source Delivery Method Constraints
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the project planning and delivery method selection process
affectedparties: City B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Funding agency
affectedparties: Prospective contractors
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:32:10.393456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:32:10.393456+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: The funding agency's constraints on approved delivery methods and the requirement that Construction Manager at Risk firm and Engineer of Record be distinct entities
terminatedby: Project delivery method selection and contract execution in compliance with funding requirements
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods
textreferences: if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities
triggeringevent: City B's selection of a specific funding source that carries regulatory constraints on permissible delivery methods
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.915869
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Regulatory and Funding Constraint Completeness Violated by Engineer A Omission of Funding Agency Requirements
type: RegulatoryandFundingConstraintCompletenessinAdvisoryAnalysis
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City B wastewater system improvements project delivery method selection
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's partial delivery method analysis failed to accurately represent the full landscape of funding agency requirements specifying four approved delivery methodologies, instead presenting a selective analysis that omitted methodologies disfavored by Engineer A's commercial interests, thereby depriving City B of a complete picture of its regulatory options
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:38:53.348853+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The regulatory completeness obligation required Engineer A to identify all four funding-agency-approved delivery methodologies and to analyze each accurately, including constraints and requirements associated with each, rather than filtering the analysis to present only those options favorable to Engineer A
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Regulatory and Funding Constraint Completeness in Advisory Analysis
sourcetext: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information (as in 95-5 and 99-8) and the extension of free services
tensionresolution: No legitimate tension — complete representation of the regulatory landscape serves both the client's interests and the public interest in lawful procurement; the only competing consideration was Engineer A's commercial interest, which cannot override the completeness obligation
textreferences: City B's City Administrator to recommend project delivery methods for a wastewater system improvements project
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
textreferences: include all relevant and pertinent information
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.925216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295738
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296157
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296290
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296410
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296742
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296960
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295863
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.295940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:01:12.296107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Scope of Practice Delivery Method Advisory Competence Boundary Engineer A
type: ScopeofPractice
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's qualification to provide services under Progressive-Design-Build and CM-at-Risk — but not under Design-Bid-Build or Fixed-Price-Design-Build — created a structural competence and conflict dynamic that constrained the objectivity of Engineer A's advisory capacity across all four delivery methods.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Scope of Practice
constraintstatement: Engineer A's scope of practice in providing the advisory recommendation was bounded by the obligation to present only those delivery method assessments within Engineer A's competence to evaluate objectively — and was further constrained by the ethical prohibition on allowing Engineer A's own qualification status under specific delivery methods to distort the scope or content of the advisory analysis provided to City B.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2.a; NSPE Code Section III.2.b
sourcetext: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of the advisory memo to City B's City Administrator
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.923230
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Selective Delivery Method Presentation Engineer A City B Advisory Memo
type: SelectiveDeliveryMethodPresentationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, having no existing contractual relationship with City B, was informally asked by the City Administrator to recommend project delivery methods for a wastewater system improvements project. Engineer A presented only two of four funding-agency-approved methods and recommended the one under which Engineer A's firm was qualified to provide construction services.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Selective Delivery Method Presentation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from presenting only Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build to City B's City Administrator while omitting Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build from the advisory memo, given that all four methods were approved by the funding agency and the omission served Engineer A's financial self-interest in securing a Progressive-Design-Build engagement.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2.a, II.3.a, III.2.b; BER Case 95-5
sourcetext: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
temporalscope: At the time of preparation and submission of the advisory memo to City B's City Administrator
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.927908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Self-Interest Conflict Disclosure Engineer A City B Delivery Method Recommendation
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidance
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build to City B while simultaneously being qualified and positioned to provide construction services under that delivery method, creating an undisclosed financial interest in the outcome of the recommendation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from providing an advisory recommendation on project delivery methods to City B without first disclosing that Engineer A's firm was qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build — the method Engineer A recommended — creating a direct financial conflict of interest that required affirmative disclosure before the advisory relationship could proceed on an ethically sound basis.
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:37:08.306220+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4; NSPE Code Section III.2.b
sourcetext: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
temporalscope: Prior to and at the time of submission of the advisory memo to City B's City Administrator
textreferences: City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
textreferences: Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.922378
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Self-Promotional Material Non-Commingling Engineer A Advisory Memo
type: Self-PromotionalMaterialNon-ComminglingwithObjectiveAdvisoryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's advisory memo to City Administrator included firm experience summaries alongside the partial delivery method recommendation, blurring the line between objective advisory analysis and commercial solicitation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:39:57.184896+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:39:57.184896+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Self-Promotional Material Non-Commingling with Objective Advisory Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from commingling firm experience summaries and capability statements with the advisory recommendation on project delivery methods provided to City B's City Administrator, so that the advisory opinion was presented as objective professional analysis rather than as a vehicle for business development.
sourcetext: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information and the extension of free services
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the advisory memo
textreferences: by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information and the extension of free services
textreferences: not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.927341
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Self-Promotional Material Non-Commingling Engineer A Advisory Memo City B
type: Self-PromotionalMaterialNon-ComminglingwithObjectiveAdvisoryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A accompanied the advisory recommendation of Progressive-Design-Build with a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects, effectively converting an ostensibly objective advisory memo into a marketing solicitation without disclosure.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:35:52.652030+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Self-Promotional Material Non-Commingling with Objective Advisory Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from including firm experience summaries and project references for Progressive-Design-Build in the same communication as the advisory recommendation to City B, or to clearly separate and disclose the self-promotional nature of those materials so that the City Administrator was not misled about the objective character of the advisory opinion.
sourcetext: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and delivering the advisory memo to City B Administrator
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.921529
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Self-Serving Delivery Method Recommendation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Self-Serving Delivery Method Recommendation (Action 4) + Appending Firm Experience and References (Action 5) → Client Decision Vulnerability Created (Event 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930680
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Transparency Obligation Violated By Engineer A Advisory Memo
type: Transparency
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Advisory memo on project delivery methods and accompanying firm experience summary
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's advisory memo lacked transparency in two respects: (1) it did not disclose that two of the four funding-agency-approved project delivery methods had been excluded from the analysis, and (2) it did not disclose that Engineer A's firm had a commercial interest in the recommended method and had embedded marketing materials in the advisory product
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 14
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 14
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T01:34:43.796931+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Transparency in professional advisory relationships requires that the client be able to assess the completeness and objectivity of the advice received; Engineer A's memo denied City B Administrator the information necessary to make that assessment
invokedby: Engineer A Self-Serving Partial Analysis Engineer
principleclass: Transparency
sourcetext: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
tensionresolution: Transparency obligations are not balanced against commercial interests; the engineer's duty to be transparent about the scope and limitations of the advisory product is not diminished by the desire to obtain subsequent work
textreferences: Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
textreferences: Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
wasattributedto: Case 14 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.920883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

Wastewater Project Funding Approval
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

cure period before test hammer drops before count began
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.931040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

incomplete plan submission before acknowledgment of incompleteness
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.931156
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction

pile driving to installed depth before cure period
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T01:47:28.930987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 14 Extraction