ProEthica Case 161 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065264
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

8 firms responding affirmatively before Firms A and B disclosing Engineer X arrangement
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Eight firms responded affirmatively. Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X
from entity text: 8 firms responding affirmatively
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Firms A and B disclosing Engineer X arrangement
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Firms A and B disclosing Engineer X arrangement
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Agency Direct Contact of Engineer X
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: procurement/selection decision-makers
foreseen unintended effects: Potentially disadvantaging Firms A and B who had disclosed Engineer X's identity in good faith
foreseen unintended effects: Raising questions about whether the agency was obligated to honor its original solicitation process
fulfills obligation text: Duty to ensure public funds are used effectively by avoiding nominal intermediary arrangements
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to act on information that better qualifications are available
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to serve the public interest by selecting the most qualified engineer
guided by principle text: Competent and efficient use of public resources
guided by principle text: Public welfare
guided by principle text: Selection of most qualified professional
guided by principle text: Serving client and public interest over procedural formalism
has agent: Engineers within the government agency
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Serve the public interest by engaging the most qualified engineer directly for the specialized work, eliminating the inefficiency and nominal value of an intermediary prime firm
requires capability text: Assessment of substantive versus nominal professional contributions
requires capability text: Evaluation of engineering qualifications
requires capability text: Procurement decision-making authority
temporal marker: Agency pivot decision stage, after reviewing qualification submissions from Firms A and B
temporal sequence: 9
within competence: true
comment: After concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, the government agency decided to bypass both firms and directly contact Engineer X to inquire whether he would be willing to take the contract as prime professional on his own firm's account.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Agency Direct Contact of Engineer X → Competitive Field Disrupted
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: After concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, the government agency contacted Engineer X directly; the combined effect of the agency's direct contact with Engineer X and his qualifications submission disrupted the competitive field
cause: Agency Direct Contact of Engineer X
counterfactual: If the agency had not directly contacted Engineer X, or if Engineer X had declined to respond, the competitive field among the original 8 responding firms would have remained intact; the disruption required both the agency's outreach and Engineer X's responsive submission
effect: Competitive Field Disrupted
necessary factors: Agency's prior identification of Engineer X as the true expert
necessary factors: Agency's volitional decision to contact Engineer X outside the original solicitation pool
necessary factors: Engineer X's willingness to respond by submitting qualifications
necessary factors: Original solicitation pool having been restricted to 15 firms (which excluded Engineer X)
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Government Agency (primary); Engineer X (contributing)
sufficient factors: Agency direct contact + Engineer X qualifications submission + original pool restriction that had excluded Engineer X
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Agency Initial Solicitation Exclusion
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: procurement/selection decision-makers
foreseen unintended effects: Potentially overlooking the most qualified specialist by limiting the solicitation pool
fulfills obligation text: Following a structured procurement process
fulfills obligation text: Seeking qualified firms for public work
guided by principle text: Competent service to the public
guided by principle text: Due diligence in professional selection
guided by principle text: Public welfare
has agent: Engineers within the government agency
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Identify qualified firms capable of providing highly specialized technical services through a structured solicitation process
requires capability text: Assessment of technical specialization needs
requires capability text: Knowledge of available engineering firms
requires capability text: Procurement process management
temporal marker: Initial stage, before any firm responses
temporal sequence: 2
violates obligation text: Obligation to serve public interest by identifying the most qualified professionals available
within competence: true
comment: The government agency decided to contact only 15 selected engineering firms for the specialized project, structurally excluding Engineer X's firm from the original solicitation list despite the highly specialized nature of the work.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Agency Initial Solicitation Exclusion → Solicitation Pool Formed
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The government agency decided to contact only 15 selected engineering firms for the specialized project, forming a pool of 15 engineering firms assembled by the agency as the universe of candidates eligible to respond
cause: Agency Initial Solicitation Exclusion
counterfactual: Without the agency's deliberate restriction, a broader or open solicitation pool would have formed, potentially including Engineer X directly from the outset and bypassing the broker arrangement entirely
effect: Solicitation Pool Formed
necessary factors: Agency authority to define solicitation scope
necessary factors: Deliberate exclusion of firms outside the 15-firm pool
necessary factors: Existence of a specialized project requiring targeted outreach
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Government Agency (Procurement Officials)
sufficient factors: Agency volitional decision to limit contact to 15 firms + exercise of procurement authority
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

BER Ethics Board Dual-Precedent Supplanting Threshold Triangulation Application
type: BERDual-PrecedentSupplantingProhibitionThresholdTriangulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Dual-Precedent Supplanting Prohibition Threshold Triangulation Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER retrieved and synthesized Cases 62-10 and 62-18 to establish the two-part threshold test for the supplanting prohibition and applied it to determine that Engineer X's acceptance of the direct engagement did not constitute improper supplanting.
casecontext: BER analysis of whether Engineer X's acceptance of direct prime contract from government agency constituted improper supplanting of Firms A or B
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: BER Discussion's citation of Cases 62-10 and 62-18 to define the 'definite steps' threshold and application of the synthesized test to find no supplanting violation
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: the mandate of Section 11 (a) does not come into play unless '... the engineer has been informed by the client that he has been selected to negotiate an agreement for a specific project,' (Case 62-10) or that it be shown that '... the client specifically intended to retain the engineer for the ... work' (Case 62-18).
textreferences: As we have stated previously, the mandate of Section 11 (a) does not come into play unless...
textreferences: the mandate of Section 11 (a) does not come into play unless '... the engineer has been informed by the client that he has been selected to negotiate an agreement for a specific project,' (Case 62-10) or that it be shown that '... the client specifically intended to retain the engineer for the ... work' (Case 62-18).
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.086144
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Broker Arrangement Exposed to Agency
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Agency_Due_Diligence_Constraint
activates constraint: Procurement_Integrity_Constraint
activates constraint: Qualifications_Based_Selection_Constraint
causes state change: Agency's evaluation framework is disrupted; Firms A and B are effectively disqualified from serious consideration as independent prime contractors; Engineer X is identified as the actual technical resource; agency faces a novel procurement decision.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Consider_Whether_Engineer_X_Should_Be_Directly_Engaged
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Determine_Whether_Broker_Arrangements_Are_Permissible
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Reassess_Firms_A_And_B_Proposals
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Phase 3. During agency evaluation of the 8 responses
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: medium
comment: As a consequence of Firms A and B disclosing their reliance on Engineer X, the agency became aware that these two firms would contribute only nominally to the project and that Engineer X would be the substantive technical expert. This revelation fundamentally changed the agency's understanding of what these two proposals actually represented.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Broker Arrangement With Engineer X
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: principals or decision-makers
foreseen unintended effects: Effectively reducing their own role to that of a broker
foreseen unintended effects: Misaligning client interests with the contractual structure
foreseen unintended effects: Potentially disadvantaging Engineer X by interposing an intermediary layer
fulfills obligation text: Recognizing the value of engaging a qualified specialist in the interest of the project (Section 6, second clause)
guided by principle text: Client welfare
guided by principle text: Honest representation of professional roles
guided by principle text: Substantive contribution as a condition of prime professional status
has agent: Engineers within Firm A and Firm B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Fulfill the technical requirements of the solicitation by leveraging Engineer X's expertise while retaining the prime contract and associated administrative role and compensation
requires capability text: Capacity to provide meaningful oversight, integration, or complementary services beyond administration
requires capability text: Substantive technical capability in the specialized area to justify prime professional status
temporal marker: Arrangement stage, concurrent with or prior to submitting affirmative responses
temporal sequence: 3
violates obligation text: Obligation not to misrepresent the nature of their intended contribution
violates obligation text: Obligation to serve the client's best interest by recommending direct engagement of Engineer X rather than interposing a nominal prime
violates obligation text: Section 6 requirement that a prime professional perform substantial services on the project before retaining specialists
within competence: false
comment: Firms A and B each independently decided to arrange with Engineer X to provide all substantive specialized technical expertise, intending to serve primarily as contract brokers or administrators while holding the prime professional role.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Broker Arrangement With Engineer X → Broker Arrangement Exposed to Agency
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Firms A and B each independently decided to arrange with Engineer X to provide all substantive specialized work, and subsequently each decided to disclose in their qualification statements to the agency that they had relied on Engineer X, as a consequence of which the agency became aware that both firms were functioning as brokers
cause: Broker Arrangement With Engineer X
counterfactual: If Firms A and B had not disclosed Engineer X's role, or had not entered the arrangement at all, the agency would not have identified the broker dynamic and Engineer X would not have been identified as the true expert at this stage
effect: Broker Arrangement Exposed to Agency
necessary factors: Engineer X possessing the requisite specialized expertise
necessary factors: Firms A and B lacking independent specialized expertise
necessary factors: Firms A and B willingness to enter a broker-type arrangement
necessary factors: Subsequent disclosure of the arrangement in qualification statements
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Firms A and B (shared, independent decisions)
sufficient factors: Broker arrangement formation + affirmative disclosure in qualification statements submitted to agency
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066000
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Case 161 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 7
event count: 6
total elements: 13
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066454
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Case 62-10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Case 62-10 and Case 62-18 rulings before Discussion section analysis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: As we have stated previously, the mandate of Section 11(a) does not come into play unless... (Case 62-10)... (Case 62-18)
from entity text: Case 62-10 and Case 62-18 rulings
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Discussion section analysis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Discussion section analysis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Case 62-18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019515
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

CausalLink_Agency Direct Contact of Engin
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

CausalLink_Agency Initial Solicitation Ex
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

CausalLink_Broker Arrangement With Engine
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

CausalLink_Disclosure of Engineer X Relia
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021545
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer X Prime Contract Acce
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer X Qualifications Subm
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

CausalLink_Firms A and B Affirmative Resp
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Competitive Field Disrupted
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Due_Process_Constraint
activates constraint: Equal_Opportunity_Constraint
activates constraint: Fair_Competition_Constraint
activates constraint: Procurement_Integrity_Constraint
causes state change: The procurement process has informally transitioned from a competitive multi-firm evaluation to what is effectively a directed engagement with Engineer X; the legitimacy of the entire selection process is now in question.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Assess_Whether_Sole_Source_Justification_Is_Required
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Formally_Justify_Deviation_From_Original_Solicitation
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Notify_Other_Respondents_Of_Changed_Competitive_Situation
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Phase 5. Following Engineer X's qualifications submission, prior to final selection
temporal sequence: 12
urgency level: high
comment: The combined effect of the agency's direct contact with Engineer X and his qualifications submission resulted in the original competitive field being functionally disrupted: an originally excluded party is now a primary candidate, while the firms that enabled his identification (A and B) are effectively sidelined. The original 8-firm competitive structure has been informally replaced by a different selection context.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065937
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was not ethical for Firm A or Firm B to offer its services as the prime professional under the stated circumstances.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.020736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-11a
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that it was unethical for Firms A and B to offer their services as prime professionals, the ethical defect in their conduct was not merely one of incompetence but of affirmative misrepresentation. By submitting qualification responses that implied substantive prime capability while knowing their actual contribution would be nominal, Firms A and B did not simply fail a competence threshold — they made technically true but artfully misleading statements to a government agency in a competitive procurement context. The statements were technically accurate in that Engineer X had agreed to serve as subconsultant, but they were structured to create the false impression that the responding firm itself possessed the requisite specialized expertise. This conduct implicates honesty obligations independent of competence obligations: even if the nominal services Firms A and B proposed to furnish had been somewhat more substantial, the deliberate framing of their qualifications to obscure their actual limited role would remain an independent ethical violation. The Board's conclusion therefore rests on two distinct but reinforcing grounds — substantive contribution failure and procurement misrepresentation — and the analysis should not be read to suggest that disclosure of the broker-only arrangement would have cured the ethical defect entirely.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.020899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-6
cited provision2: NSPE-BER-Case-62-10
cited provision3: NSPE-BER-Case-62-18
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's condemnation of Firms A and B as nominal prime contractors implicitly raises, but does not resolve, the question of where the permissible boundary lies between a legitimate prime-subconsultant structure and an ethically impermissible broker-only interposition. The case facts establish a clear outer limit: where the prime firm's proposed contribution is nominal in nature and the entire substantive technical work falls to a single specialist subconsultant, the prime role is ethically impermissible regardless of administrative or coordination services offered. However, the Board's reasoning suggests a calibrated threshold rather than a categorical prohibition on specialist reliance. A firm that genuinely contributes project management, regulatory navigation, client interface, quality assurance, or local knowledge proportionate to the scope of the engagement occupies a fundamentally different ethical position from one that contributes nothing of substance. The ethical analysis should therefore distinguish between firms that engage specialists to fill discrete competence gaps within an otherwise substantive prime contribution — which is permissible and common in engineering practice — and firms that use specialist arrangements as a mechanism to capture prime professional status and associated fees in a domain where they have no independent capability whatsoever. The latter constitutes not merely a competence failure but a structural misuse of the prime-subconsultant relationship that distorts competitive procurement, increases public cost, and reduces accountability to the client.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021162
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-11a
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
cited provision3: NSPE-BER-Case-62-10
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that it would be ethical for Engineer X to accept the contract as prime professional is sound, but the analysis should be extended to address the ethical significance of Engineer X's ambiguous response to the agency's direct solicitation. Engineer X submitted his qualifications without definitively stating whether he would be willing to undertake the work as prime professional, and — critically — without disclosing that he had already entered informal arrangements with both Firms A and B to serve as their subconsultant. While the Board correctly concludes that no definite steps had been taken by the agency toward selecting Firms A or B, and that the anti-supplanting prohibition is therefore not triggered, the omission of disclosure regarding his prior informal commitments to two competing firms raises an independent honesty concern. An engineer responding to a government solicitation occupies a position of trust in the procurement process, and the submission of qualifications without acknowledging a material conflict — namely, that the submitting engineer had simultaneously committed informally to serve as the technical backbone for two of the other responding firms — is at minimum a transparency deficit. The Board's conclusion that acceptance is ethical should therefore be understood as contingent on Engineer X resolving or disclosing those prior arrangements before executing any prime contract, rather than as a blanket endorsement of the ambiguous response as submitted.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
cited provision2: NSPE-BER-Case-62-18
cited provision3: NSPE-Board-Directors-Directive-January-1971
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's implicit approval of the agency's decision to contact Engineer X directly — bypassing the original solicitation list — reflects a sound application of procurement integrity principles, but it raises a systemic concern the Board did not address: whether this corrective action creates a perverse incentive structure that could discourage honest disclosure in future procurements. If firms that transparently disclose their reliance on specialist subconsultants risk being bypassed in favor of those specialists, rational actors in future procurements may be incentivized to obscure such reliance rather than disclose it. The ethical justification for the agency's action in this case rests specifically on the finding that Firms A and B's proposed contributions were nominal — not merely that they relied on a specialist. A properly calibrated rule would hold that agency bypass is justified only when the prime firm's contribution falls below the substantive threshold, not whenever specialist reliance is disclosed. Agencies and reviewing bodies should therefore be careful to distinguish between the corrective action warranted in this case — where broker-only interposition was the problem — and a broader principle that specialist-reliant prime structures are always subject to disintermediation. Failure to draw this distinction would chill legitimate prime-subconsultant arrangements and undermine the transparency the Code of Ethics is designed to promote.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018972
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: NSPE-Board-Directors-Directive-January-1971
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's analysis, read in conjunction with the January 1971 Board of Directors directive on individual Code applicability, implies that the engineers within Firms A and B — not merely the firms as organizational entities — bore personal ethical responsibility for the misrepresentations made in the qualification submissions. This individual accountability dimension is significant because it forecloses the rationalization that organizational competitive pressures or firm-level business decisions insulate individual engineers from ethical responsibility for procurement conduct. Each engineer who reviewed, approved, or signed the qualification submissions of Firms A and B was individually obligated to assess whether the firm's proposed prime role met the substantive contribution threshold and whether the submission accurately represented the firm's actual capabilities. The same individual applicability principle extends to engineers within the government agency who designed and administered the solicitation process: their decision to contact Engineer X directly, while ethically sound on the merits, was itself an exercise of individual professional judgment subject to Code scrutiny. The Board's framework therefore operates at both the organizational and individual level simultaneously, and the ethical analysis of this case cannot be fully resolved by reference to firm-level conduct alone.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019369
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-11a
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer X did bear an independent ethical obligation to disclose his prior informal arrangements with both Firms A and B when submitting qualifications in response to the agency's direct solicitation. The omission of that disclosure — combined with his ambiguous response that neither confirmed nor denied willingness to serve as prime — raises a genuine honesty concern under the Code's requirements for candor and non-misleading professional representations. Even if Engineer X had not yet made a definitive commitment to either firm, the existence of parallel informal arrangements with two competing firms was a material fact directly relevant to the agency's procurement judgment. A fully candid response would have acknowledged those arrangements and allowed the agency to assess whether proceeding with Engineer X as prime would create fairness complications. The ambiguity in his response, while not rising to a formal ethical violation given that no definite selection steps had been taken by either firm, nonetheless reflects a deficit in the transparency the Code expects of engineers in professional dealings. The Honesty Principle Invoked in Engineer X Qualification Submission is therefore not fully satisfied by mere technical compliance with the supplanting prohibition.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-6
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
cited provision3: NSPE-BER-Case-62-10
cited provision4: NSPE-BER-Case-62-18
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: The ethical analysis would change materially if Firms A and B had been fully transparent with the agency from the outset. Had they explicitly stated in their qualification submissions that Engineer X would perform all substantive specialized technical work and that their own contribution would be nominal in nature, the honesty and misrepresentation violations identified by the Board would be substantially mitigated or eliminated. The Broker-Only Role Transparency Obligation of Firms A and B would have been satisfied, and the Solicitation Deception Avoidance Obligation Violated by Firms A and B would not have been triggered. However, transparency alone would not render their prime proposals ethically permissible. The Substantive Contribution Threshold Failure by Firms A and B is an independent ethical defect that survives full disclosure: a firm that openly acknowledges it will contribute nothing of substance to a highly specialized technical engagement is not thereby entitled to serve as prime professional. The Code's competence prerequisites for accepting engagements are not waived by honest disclosure of incompetence. Transparent broker interposition remains broker interposition. The agency would still have been justified — and arguably obligated — to question whether such a nominal prime structure served the public interest, though the firms' conduct would have been far more honorable.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-6
cited provision2: NSPE-BER-Case-62-10
cited provision3: NSPE-BER-Case-62-18
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: There is a meaningful and ethically defensible threshold at which a prime firm's reliance on a specialist subconsultant remains permissible, but that threshold requires the prime to make a genuine and non-trivial contribution to the overall engagement. Legitimate contributions may include project management, client interface, quality assurance, local regulatory navigation, permitting coordination, or integration of the specialist's technical work into broader deliverables. The ethical defect in the conduct of Firms A and B was not that they planned to use Engineer X as a subconsultant — that structure is widely accepted and often beneficial — but that the remaining services they would themselves provide were explicitly nominal in nature, meaning they offered no real value addition. In highly specialized technical procurements where the specialized work constitutes the entirety of the engagement, the threshold must be calibrated accordingly: a prime firm that cannot independently perform or meaningfully supervise the core technical work, and whose ancillary contributions are de minimis relative to the total scope, fails the substantive contribution test. The Substantive Contribution Contextual Calibration Applied to Geographic and Local Factors principle acknowledges that context matters, but contextual calibration cannot rescue a prime proposal where the prime's contribution approaches zero. The Code does not prohibit prime-subconsultant structures; it prohibits nominal prime interposition that serves primarily to capture fees without delivering commensurate professional value.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.016066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-11a
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: Engineer X bears a degree of moral responsibility for the competitive disruption caused by his simultaneous informal arrangements with two competing firms, though the Code as currently structured does not impose a formal prohibition on such parallel arrangements. The disruption was not merely incidental: by making himself available to both Firm A and Firm B as their exclusive technical resource, Engineer X effectively enabled both firms to submit affirmative responses to the agency's solicitation that they could not have made independently, thereby distorting the competitive field. The Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated by Nominal Prime Responses principle is implicated not only by the firms' conduct but also by the specialist's willingness to serve as the technical foundation for competing proposals simultaneously. A stronger reading of the Code's honesty and fairness obligations would support a norm — even if not yet codified — requiring specialist engineers who are approached by multiple competing primes to either limit such arrangements to one firm per procurement or to proactively disclose the parallel nature of their commitments to all parties. However, the countervailing consideration identified in Q204 is also valid: Engineer X did not solicit these arrangements, and imposing a unilateral burden on sought-after specialists to police competitive fairness may exceed what the Code was designed to require of individual engineers acting in good faith.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.016152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
cited provision2: NSPE-BER-Case-62-10
cited provision3: NSPE-BER-Case-62-18
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The tension between Free and Open Competition in specialized procurement and the relational obligations potentially arising from Engineer X's informal prior arrangements with Firms A and B resolves in favor of the agency's independent procurement judgment, but the resolution is not without ethical nuance. The informal arrangements between Engineer X and the two firms had not ripened into binding commitments, and no definite selection steps had been taken by either firm or the agency on their behalf. The Definite Steps Threshold Applied to Firms A and B Non-Commitment Status principle confirms that the supplanting prohibition is not triggered in the absence of such steps. Consequently, the agency's direct contact with Engineer X did not violate any enforceable relational obligation owed to Firms A and B. However, the informal arrangements do create a soft relational obligation on Engineer X's part — not to the firms as competitors, but to the integrity of the procurement process — to disclose those arrangements when responding to the agency's direct solicitation. The agency's procurement judgment is independent and ethically sound; Engineer X's response to that judgment should have been correspondingly transparent.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.016230
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-6
cited provision2: NSPE-BER-Case-62-10
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The tension between the Competence Prerequisite for Engagement Acceptance and the Specialist Engagement Obligation Contextual Application principle is real but resolvable by reference to the substantive contribution threshold. The Code does not prohibit prime firms from engaging specialists to fill competence gaps — that practice is legitimate, common, and often in the public interest. The ethical line is crossed when the prime firm's own contribution becomes so nominal that the prime role is reduced to mere brokerage: the firm adds no professional value, assumes no meaningful technical responsibility, and serves primarily as a fee-capturing intermediary between the client and the true expert. In this case, Firms A and B crossed that line because the services they would themselves furnish were explicitly nominal in nature and the work to be performed was entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise, requiring no contribution from any other firm. A legitimate prime-subconsultant structure requires the prime to exercise genuine professional judgment, oversight, or coordination — not merely to identify and retain the specialist. The distinction is therefore not about the presence of a subconsultant but about whether the prime's residual contribution clears the substantive threshold that justifies the prime designation and the associated professional and financial responsibility.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.016302
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-11a
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The concern that the agency's corrective action — bypassing the original list and directly soliciting Engineer X — might set a chilling precedent discouraging honest disclosure of specialist reliance is a legitimate systemic worry, but it does not undermine the ethical soundness of the agency's decision in this case. The precedent risk identified in Q203 would only materialize if the agency's bypass were triggered by honest disclosure of specialist reliance per se, rather than by the nominal nature of the prime's own contribution. In this case, the agency's action was justified not because Firms A and B disclosed their reliance on Engineer X, but because that reliance was total and the firms' own contribution would be nominal. A firm that honestly discloses that it will rely on a specialist for a defined scope while itself contributing genuine project management, regulatory coordination, or technical oversight should not fear being bypassed on that basis. The Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering principle is therefore not in fundamental conflict with the Broker-Only Role Transparency Obligation: transparency is required, and it may trigger agency scrutiny, but that scrutiny is appropriately calibrated to the substantive contribution question rather than to the mere fact of specialist engagement.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.016391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-11a
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Firms A and B violated a categorical duty of honest representation. The Code's prohibition on artfully misleading statements and misrepresentation of pertinent facts is not contingent on whether the agency was ultimately harmed or whether the deception was discovered. The firms' qualification submissions implied substantive prime capability while both firms knew their actual contribution would be nominal — a knowing misrepresentation of a material fact in a professional procurement context. Under a Kantian framework, this conduct fails the universalizability test: if all firms in competitive procurements were permitted to represent nominal capability as substantive prime competence whenever they had arranged for a specialist subconsultant, the entire qualification-based selection system would be undermined. The deontological violation is therefore complete at the moment of submission, regardless of outcome. The Firms A and B Artfully Misleading Procurement Statement Prohibition and the Firms A and B Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation in Qualification Submission constraints confirm that the Code reaches this conduct directly.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.016484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-6
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the broker-only prime structure proposed by Firms A and B would have produced net harm to the public interest across multiple dimensions. First, it would have interposed a nominally contributing intermediary between the government agency and the most qualified expert, increasing project cost without commensurate value. Second, it would have diluted accountability: the prime firm, lacking substantive technical competence, would have been poorly positioned to exercise meaningful oversight of Engineer X's work or to bear genuine professional responsibility for the technical deliverables. Third, it distorted the competitive procurement process by allowing firms without relevant expertise to compete on equal footing with genuinely qualified respondents, undermining the qualification-based selection system's purpose. Fourth, it created a precedent risk that other firms would adopt similar broker structures in future procurements, progressively eroding the integrity of the solicitation process. The Firm A Nominal Prime Interposition Public Procurement Harm Recognition and Firm B Nominal Prime Interposition Public Procurement Harm Recognition capabilities confirm that these harms were foreseeable. The consequentialist analysis therefore strongly supports the Board's conclusion that the conduct of Firms A and B was unethical.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.016560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-11a
cited provision3: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-6
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q303 and Q304: From a virtue ethics perspective, Firms A and B failed to demonstrate the professional integrity, honesty, competence, and professional humility expected of engineering firms. A virtuous engineering firm, upon recognizing that it lacks the specialized expertise required for a procurement, would either decline to respond or would recommend that the agency engage the specialist directly — precisely the conduct the Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Obligation envisions. Instead, Firms A and B attempted to leverage their knowledge of Engineer X's expertise to capture a prime role they could not substantively fill, reflecting a failure of the virtues of honesty and professional humility. Regarding Engineer X (Q304), his conduct reflects a more modest virtue deficit. He did not misrepresent his capabilities, and his willingness to respond to the agency's direct solicitation was ethically permissible. However, his ambiguous response — submitting qualifications without disclosing his prior informal arrangements or definitively addressing his willingness to serve as prime — falls short of the candor and transparency that the virtue of professional integrity demands. A fully virtuous engineer in his position would have disclosed the prior arrangements and provided a clear, honest response to the agency's direct inquiry, enabling the agency to make a fully informed procurement decision.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.016646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-6
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q401: Even if Firms A and B had transparently disclosed their total reliance on Engineer X from the outset, their prime proposals would have remained ethically impermissible due to the independent substantive contribution threshold failure. Transparency is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical compliance in prime professional engagements. The Code's competence prerequisites require that a firm accepting a prime engagement be capable of making a genuine professional contribution to the work — not merely of identifying and retaining the expert who will actually perform it. Since the work to be performed was entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and required no services from any other firm, no amount of honest disclosure could transform Firms A and B's nominal contributions into substantive ones. The Substantive Contribution Threshold Applied to Hypothetical Compliant Path for Firms A and B principle confirms this analysis. Disclosure would have eliminated the honesty violation but would not have cured the competence and substantive contribution defects that independently rendered the proposals ethically impermissible.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.016745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-11a
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If the agency had remained bound by its original solicitation list and declined to contact Engineer X directly, Engineer X would have faced a significant independent ethical obligation upon learning that two competing firms were each representing him as their exclusive technical resource. That situation — in which his name and expertise were being used simultaneously by competing firms to secure a contract, without his having made any exclusive commitment to either — would have created a material misrepresentation risk in the procurement process that Engineer X could not ethically ignore. Under the Code's honesty and fairness obligations, Engineer X would have been obligated to either proactively notify the agency of the dual-representation situation or to withdraw from one or both informal arrangements and clarify his status. Allowing both firms to proceed with representations of his exclusive availability would have been a form of passive participation in the misrepresentation, even if Engineer X had not himself made any false statement. The Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance obligation captures this duty, and the Fairness in Professional Competition principle would have required him to take corrective action to prevent the procurement from proceeding on a false factual basis.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.016820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
cited provision2: NSPE-BER-Case-62-10
cited provision3: NSPE-BER-Case-62-18
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If Engineer X had declined the agency's direct solicitation out of loyalty to his prior informal arrangements with Firms A and B, that decision would not have served the public interest and would not have changed the ethical status of those firms' conduct. The public interest is best served by having the most qualified expert perform highly specialized technical work under a direct, accountable contractual relationship with the government agency — not by routing that work through nominally contributing intermediaries. Engineer X's hypothetical loyalty to informal, non-binding arrangements would have preserved a procurement structure that the Board found ethically impermissible, at the cost of the agency's ability to engage the best-qualified professional directly. Furthermore, the ethical impermissibility of Firms A and B's nominal prime proposals is an independent finding grounded in their own conduct — their misrepresentation of substantive capability and their failure to meet the competence threshold — and does not depend on Engineer X's choices. Whether Engineer X accepted or declined the direct solicitation, Firms A and B's original responses remained ethically defective. The Specialist Non-Supplanting Direct Engagement Permissibility Applied to Engineer X principle confirms that Engineer X was free to accept the direct engagement; the analysis does not require him to do so as a matter of obligation, but his acceptance serves the public interest in a way that his hypothetical refusal would not.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.016895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
cited provision2: Public Procurement Fairness Standard - Out-of-List Contact
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q404: The ethical justification for the agency's decision to bypass the original solicitation list and contact Engineer X directly does not depend exclusively on the finding that no responding firm could make a substantial independent contribution. Even if one or more of the other six affirmative respondents had been technically capable of performing the specialized work independently, the agency's direct contact with Engineer X would still have been ethically defensible on independent grounds: Engineer X was the recognized expert in the field, his firm was not on the original list through no fault of his own, and the agency had a legitimate interest in ensuring that the most qualified professional was considered for the engagement. However, the strength of the ethical justification would be diminished if genuinely capable independent respondents existed, because the agency's bypass of the original list would then appear less like a necessary correction of a procurement distortion and more like a discretionary preference for a particular expert. The Agency Independent Procurement Judgment Applied to Direct Contact with Engineer X principle supports the agency's action in either scenario, but the moral urgency of that action is highest — and the ethical case most compelling — precisely because the responding firms' proposals were nominally structured and no independent capable respondent was available to serve the public interest without the broker interposition.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.016964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_3
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
conclusion number: 3
conclusion text: It would be ethical for Engineer X or his firm to accept the contract under the stated circumstances.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.020814
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 103
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-6
cited provision2: NSPE-BER-Case-62-10
cited provision3: NSPE-BER-Case-62-18
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The central principle tension in this case — between the Competence Prerequisite for Engagement Acceptance and the Specialist Engagement Obligation Contextual Application — was resolved by the Board in favor of a substantive contribution threshold rather than a categorical prohibition on prime-subconsultant structures. The Board did not hold that a firm must independently possess all specialized expertise to serve as prime professional; rather, it held that a firm must make a genuine, non-nominal contribution to the work. This resolution teaches that the Code tolerates competence gaps filled by subconsultants only when the prime firm's own contribution is substantive and not merely administrative or pretextual. Where, as here, the other services are 'nominal in nature' and the entire technical substance of the work resides in the subconsultant, the prime-subconsultant structure collapses into a broker-only interposition that the Code cannot sanction. The threshold is therefore qualitative and contextual, not categorical: the prime firm must add real value, not merely lend its name to a procurement response.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-11a
cited provision2: NSPE-BER-Case-62-10
cited provision3: NSPE-BER-Case-62-18
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between Free and Open Competition in specialized procurement and the Independent Arrangement Relational Obligation created by Engineer X's prior informal commitments to Firms A and B was resolved decisively in favor of procurement integrity and the public interest. The Board found that because neither Firm A nor Firm B had taken definite steps toward selection — the agency had not chosen either firm — the anti-supplanting prohibition was not triggered. This resolution reveals a critical principle prioritization: informal pre-procurement arrangements between a specialist and competing prime firms do not ripen into relational obligations strong enough to constrain either the agency's independent procurement judgment or the specialist's freedom to accept a direct engagement. The Code's anti-supplanting rule is designed to protect engineers who have been affirmatively selected, not to insulate broker-only arrangements from correction by a procurement authority acting in the public interest. Consequently, the agency's corrective action — bypassing the original list to contact Engineer X directly — was not merely procedurally permissible but was affirmatively consistent with the Code's underlying commitment to honest, competence-based procurement.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 301
answers question3: 303
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-6
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The interaction between the Honesty in Professional Representations principle and the Broker-Only Role Transparency Obligation reveals that the ethical defect in Firms A and B's conduct was not merely technical misrepresentation but a deeper failure of professional integrity that the Code treats as compounded rather than mitigated by partial disclosure. Firms A and B did disclose that they intended to use Engineer X — they were not entirely silent about their reliance on him. Yet the Board's implicit condemnation rests on the finding that their representations were 'artfully misleading': technically accurate in identifying Engineer X as a subconsultant, but structurally deceptive in implying that they themselves would make a substantive prime contribution when in fact their other services would be nominal. This teaches that the Code's honesty obligations are not satisfied by literal accuracy alone; they require that the overall impression conveyed to a procurement authority be truthful and not calculated to obscure the actual distribution of competence and contribution. The Broker-Only Role Transparency Obligation therefore demands affirmative clarity about the nature and extent of the prime firm's own contribution, not merely disclosure of the specialist's identity. Partial transparency that preserves a misleading impression of prime capability is itself a form of deception the Code prohibits.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Conclusion_304
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: NSPE-Board-Directors-Directive-January-1971
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
conclusion number: 304
conclusion text: The Ethics Code Individual-Person Applicability principle, when applied simultaneously to the engineers within Firms A and B, to the government agency's engineers, and to Engineer X himself, reveals that this case is not merely an organizational compliance matter but a web of individual ethical responsibilities that the Code holds each person to account for independently. The Board's reliance on the January 1971 NSPE Board of Directors directive — clarifying that the Code applies to individual engineers acting within organizational contexts — means that the engineers who authored and submitted Firms A and B's misleading qualification responses bear personal ethical responsibility for those misrepresentations, not merely institutional liability. Similarly, the agency's engineers who designed and executed the corrective direct solicitation of Engineer X were individually bound by the Code's fairness and integrity standards. And Engineer X himself, as an individual engineer, bore a personal obligation of candor when submitting his qualifications in response to the agency's direct contact. This multi-actor individual applicability framework teaches that the Code functions as a distributed accountability system: organizational structures do not dilute individual ethical responsibility, and each engineer in the procurement chain must independently assess and discharge their own Code obligations regardless of the institutional role they occupy.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Firms A and B offer their services as prime professional in the specialized procurement, or decline the prime role and recommend direct engagement of Engineer X?
focus: Firms A and B face the threshold question of whether they may ethically offer their services as prime professional in a highly specialized procurement where all substantive technical work falls within Engineer X's expertise and their own proposed contribution would be nominal in nature. This decision point addresses the substantive contribution threshold, the competence prerequisite for accepting a prime engagement, and the honesty obligations governing qualification submissions to a government agency.
option1: Decline to submit as prime professional, affirmatively disclose to the agency that the specialized work falls entirely within Engineer X's expertise, and recommend that the agency engage Engineer X directly as the best-qualified professional for the services required.
option2: Submit a qualification response as prime professional while explicitly disclosing to the agency that Engineer X will perform all substantive specialized technical work and that the firm's own contribution will be limited to administrative coordination and project management, allowing the agency to assess whether this structure serves its needs.
option3: Submit a qualification response as prime professional, representing the firm's contribution as encompassing project management, client interface, quality assurance, and local regulatory coordination — relying on the contextual calibration principle that such contributions may satisfy the substantiality threshold — while identifying Engineer X as the specialist subconsultant for the core technical work.
role label: Firms A and B
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017705
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer X accept the agency's direct prime solicitation and fully disclose his prior informal subconsultant arrangements with Firms A and B, or respond without disclosing those arrangements while reserving his decision on acceptance?
focus: Engineer X, having been arranged as subconsultant by both competing Firms A and B, is directly solicited by the government agency to submit qualifications for prime engagement. He must decide whether to accept the direct prime engagement and, critically, whether to disclose his prior informal subconsultant arrangements with both firms when submitting his qualifications. This decision point addresses the anti-supplanting threshold, the permissibility of agency-initiated direct engagement, and the independent honesty obligation to disclose material prior arrangements.
option1: Submit qualifications for direct prime engagement, affirmatively disclose to the agency the existence of prior informal subconsultant arrangements with both Firms A and B, confirm willingness to serve as prime professional, and resolve any conflicts arising from those prior arrangements before executing any contract.
option2: Submit qualifications in response to the agency's direct solicitation without disclosing the prior informal subconsultant arrangements with Firms A and B, on the basis that no definite selection steps have been taken by either firm and the arrangements were informal and non-binding, leaving the agency to conduct its own procurement assessment.
option3: Decline the agency's direct solicitation out of loyalty to the prior informal arrangements with Firms A and B, notifying the agency that he has existing commitments to other firms in the procurement and is not available for direct prime engagement, thereby preserving the relational integrity of those arrangements even absent a formal contractual obligation.
role label: Engineer X
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should the government agency contact Engineer X directly for prime engagement, bypassing the original solicitation list, or proceed with selection from among the firms that responded to the original expression-of-interest solicitation?
focus: The government agency's engineers, upon reviewing qualification submissions and determining that the responding firms would not make a substantial contribution to the specialized work, must decide whether to contact Engineer X directly — bypassing the original solicitation list — or to proceed with selection from among the original respondents. This decision point addresses the agency's independent procurement judgment, the non-bindingness of expression-of-interest responses, and the procurement integrity constraints governing out-of-list direct solicitation.
option1: Bypass the original solicitation list, document the determination that responding firms would not make a substantial contribution, and directly solicit Engineer X to submit qualifications for prime engagement — ensuring the action is transparent and grounded in the substantive contribution finding rather than favoritism.
option2: Treat the original expression-of-interest responses as binding the agency's selection pool, select the most qualified respondent from among the eight firms that replied, and negotiate a prime contract with that firm — accepting that Engineer X will participate as subconsultant through whichever prime firm is selected.
option3: Decline to select from the original respondents or to contact Engineer X outside the formal process, instead reissuing the solicitation with an expanded list that explicitly includes Engineer X's firm — ensuring competitive fairness and procurement list integrity while still enabling the agency to obtain the most qualified professional.
role label: Government Agency Engineers
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer X disclose his prior informal sub-consultant arrangements with both Firms A and B when submitting qualifications in response to the agency's direct solicitation, or submit qualifications without affirmative disclosure on the grounds that no definite selection steps have been taken?
focus: Engineer X Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime: Disclosure of Prior Informal Sub-Consultant Arrangements and Supplanting Threshold Verification Upon Direct Agency Solicitation
option1: Submit qualifications with an explicit disclosure of the existing informal sub-consultant arrangements with both Firms A and B, enabling the agency to make a fully informed procurement decision before any prime contract is executed.
option2: Submit qualifications in response to the agency's direct solicitation without affirmatively disclosing the prior informal arrangements, on the grounds that no definite selection steps have been taken by either firm and the anti-supplanting prohibition has not been triggered.
option3: Before responding to the agency's direct solicitation, formally withdraw from the informal sub-consultant arrangements with both Firms A and B, then submit qualifications as a clean prime candidate without any conflicting prior commitments to disclose.
role label: Engineer X Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Firms A and B disclose to the agency that their own contribution would be nominal and refer the agency directly to Engineer X, or submit affirmative qualification responses as prime professionals while disclosing Engineer X as a planned sub-consultant?
focus: Firms A and B Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty: Whether Firms A and B Should Disclose Their Nominal Contribution and Refer the Agency to Engineer X Directly Rather Than Submitting as Prime Professionals
option1: Decline to submit as prime professional and instead affirmatively inform the agency that Engineer X is the qualified specialist for this work, satisfying the Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty without misrepresenting the firm's own substantive capability.
option2: Submit an affirmative qualification response as prime professional while explicitly disclosing that Engineer X will perform all specialized technical work and that the firm's own contribution will be limited to project management, coordination, and administrative oversight — relying on contextual calibration of the substantive contribution threshold to justify the prime role.
option3: Submit an affirmative qualification response as prime professional that identifies Engineer X as a planned sub-consultant without explicitly characterizing the firm's own contribution as nominal, relying on the recognized legitimacy of prime-subconsultant structures to justify the submission.
role label: Engineer X Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018737
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer X accept the agency's direct prime contract offer on the basis that no definite selection steps were taken toward Firms A or B, or decline the direct engagement out of relational obligation to his prior informal sub-consultant arrangements with those competing firms?
focus: Engineer X Supplanting Prohibition Definite-Steps Threshold Verification: Whether Engineer X May Ethically Accept the Agency's Direct Prime Contract Offer Given His Prior Informal Sub-Consultant Arrangements with Competing Firms
option1: Accept the agency's direct prime contract offer after affirmatively disclosing the prior informal sub-consultant arrangements with Firms A and B, satisfying both the anti-supplanting threshold verification and the Code's candor requirements before executing the contract.
option2: Decline the agency's direct solicitation out of relational obligation to the prior informal sub-consultant arrangements with Firms A and B, deferring to those firms as the appropriate prime candidates even though no definite selection steps have been taken.
option3: Accept the agency's direct prime contract offer on the basis that the anti-supplanting prohibition is not triggered absent definite selection steps, without affirmatively disclosing the prior informal arrangements to the agency, treating those arrangements as superseded by the agency's independent procurement judgment.
role label: Engineer X Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: Should Engineer X accept the agency's direct solicitation and disclose his prior informal sub-consultant arrangements with Firms A and B, accept without disclosing those arrangements, or decline the direct engagement to honor his informal prior commitments?
focus: Engineer X, having made informal sub-consultant arrangements with both Firm A and Firm B simultaneously, must decide how to respond to the government agency's direct solicitation: whether to submit qualifications while disclosing his prior parallel informal arrangements, submit without disclosure, or decline the direct engagement out of loyalty to those prior arrangements.
option1: Accept the agency's direct solicitation and proactively disclose in the qualifications submission that informal sub-consultant arrangements had already been made with both Firm A and Firm B, allowing the agency to make a fully informed procurement decision before any prime contract is executed.
option2: Accept the agency's direct solicitation and submit qualifications on the merits, treating the prior informal arrangements as non-binding and therefore not requiring affirmative disclosure, on the grounds that no definite selection steps had been taken and the arrangements imposed no formal commitment.
option3: Decline the agency's direct solicitation out of relational loyalty to the prior informal arrangements with Firms A and B, allowing the procurement to proceed through the original solicitation list rather than displacing the firms that had relied on Engineer X's availability in formulating their responses.
role label: Engineer X Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018887
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Disclosure of Engineer X Reliance
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: principals or decision-makers
foreseen unintended effects: Alerting the agency to Engineer X as a directly available resource
foreseen unintended effects: Inadvertently revealing to the agency that their own substantive contribution would be minimal
foreseen unintended effects: Potentially undermining their own position by highlighting their dependence on a third party
fulfills obligation text: Obligation not to misrepresent qualifications by concealing the source of specialized expertise
fulfills obligation text: Obligation of transparency and honesty with the client regarding the proposed team structure
guided by principle text: Accurate representation of proposed service delivery
guided by principle text: Honesty
guided by principle text: Transparency with clients
has agent: Engineers within Firm A and Firm B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Demonstrate to the agency that the required specialized expertise would be covered through Engineer X, thereby strengthening their qualification submissions and increasing likelihood of contract award
requires capability text: Accurate assessment and communication of team capabilities
requires capability text: Understanding of professional disclosure obligations in qualification submissions
temporal marker: Disclosure stage, within the affirmative response submissions to the agency
temporal sequence: 5
within competence: true
comment: Firms A and B each decided to disclose in their qualification statements to the agency that they had arranged for Engineer X to provide the specialized technical expertise, rather than concealing this dependency.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Disclosure of Engineer X Reliance → Engineer X Identified as True Expert
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: As a direct result of both Firms A and B citing Engineer X as their primary technical expert, the agency identified Engineer X as the entity possessing the genuine specialized expertise required for the project, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work
cause: Disclosure of Engineer X Reliance
counterfactual: If only one firm had cited Engineer X, or if neither had disclosed the arrangement, the agency would likely not have identified Engineer X as the singular true expert at this stage; the convergence of two independent citations was the critical signal
effect: Engineer X Identified as True Expert
necessary factors: Agency's capacity to cross-reference and analyze qualification submissions
necessary factors: Both Firms A and B independently citing Engineer X in their qualification statements
necessary factors: Engineer X's actual possession of the specialized expertise sought
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Firms A and B (shared responsibility for disclosure); Government Agency (responsibility for analytical conclusion)
sufficient factors: Dual independent citation of Engineer X by competing firms + agency analytical review of qualification statements
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066032
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Eight Affirmative Responses Received
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Fair_Evaluation_Constraint
activates constraint: Qualifications_Based_Selection_Constraint
causes state change: Competitive field narrows to 8 firms; agency enters evaluation mode; Firms A and B's responses, containing the Engineer X disclosure, are now in the agency's hands for review.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Assess_Actual_Competency_Of_Respondents
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Evaluate_All_Eight_Responses
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Phase 2. Following solicitation issuance, response deadline
temporal sequence: 6
urgency level: low
comment: Of the 15 solicited firms, 8 submitted affirmative responses expressing interest in the project. This outcome reduced the competitive field and concentrated the agency's evaluation focus on a smaller subset, including Firms A and B.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065793
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Agency-Initiated Direct Solicitation Non-Supplanting Recognition
type: SupplantingRulePreciseScopeDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Supplanting Rule Precise Scope Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer X required the capability to correctly recognize that responding to the government agency's direct solicitation — initiated by the agency after determining Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution — did not constitute improper supplanting of those firms
casecontext: Engineer X was initially arranged as sub-consultant by Firms A and B but was then directly solicited by the agency; the supplanting rule did not apply because no active contract with Firms A or B existed
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Partial: Engineer X responded to the agency's direct solicitation by submitting qualifications, implicitly recognizing the permissibility of responding, though without definitively committing to the prime role
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer X
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract and asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account.
textreferences: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract and asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.077591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Ambiguous Prime Role Acceptance
type: ExpertAmbiguousPrimeRoleAcceptanceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer X's qualification submission through case resolution
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: Government agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: We find no grounds in the code which would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis if so desired by the client and the firm
stateclass: Expert Ambiguous Prime Role Acceptance State
subject: Engineer X's submission of qualifications in response to direct agency solicitation without definitive commitment to prime role
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case
textreferences: Engineer X should consider carefully whether his accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B
textreferences: We find no grounds in the code which would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis if so desired by the client and the firm
triggeringevent: Engineer X submitted qualifications in response to agency's direct solicitation without definitively committing to undertake work as prime
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.071497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Ambiguous Prime Role Response
type: ExpertAmbiguousPrimeRoleAcceptanceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer X's submission of qualifications through resolution of the procurement
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Government Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:33:15.517940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:33:15.517940+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional.
stateclass: Expert Ambiguous Prime Role Acceptance State
subject: Engineer X's response to the government agency's direct solicitation
terminatedby: Not resolved in the case text
textreferences: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional.
triggeringevent: Engineer X submitting qualifications in response to direct agency solicitation without stating definitively whether he would undertake the work as prime professional
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.068224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Competence Scope Confirmation for Direct Prime Engagement
type: ScopeofPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The work to be performed was entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and did not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X, confirming that accepting the prime role would not violate scope of practice constraints.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer X
constraintclass: Scope of Practice Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer X's acceptance of the prime role was constrained to work entirely within his field of expertise; the case establishes this constraint was satisfied because the work to be performed was entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and did not require services from other firms.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Competence and scope of practice provisions
sourcetext: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
temporalscope: Throughout any engagement as prime professional
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.079829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Fully Qualified for Specialized Work
type: QualifiedtoPerform
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the procurement process
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Government Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:33:15.517940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:33:15.517940+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
stateclass: Qualified to Perform
subject: Engineer X's competence relative to the specialized technical work
terminatedby: Not terminated — persistent competence state
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
triggeringevent: Government agency's recognition that the work is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.068361
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Identified as True Expert
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Agency_Competency_Verification_Obligation
activates constraint: Best_Value_Selection_Constraint
activates constraint: Procurement_Integrity_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer X transitions from an unknown outside party to the central figure in the agency's procurement deliberations; the agency's decision space expands beyond the original 8 respondents.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Consider_Direct_Engagement_Of_Engineer_X
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Evaluate_Procurement_Options_Beyond_Original_Pool
emergency status: medium
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Phase 3. Concurrent with broker arrangement exposure, during agency evaluation
temporal sequence: 8
urgency level: medium
comment: As a direct result of both Firms A and B citing Engineer X as their primary technical expert, the agency recognized that Engineer X, not either of the responding firms, was the substantive technical resource for the project. This recognition created a new factual reality: the most relevant expertise existed outside the formal solicitation pool.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065864
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Personal Conscience Review of Prior Arrangements Before Independent Acceptance
type: SpecialistPriorArrangementPersonalConscienceReviewBeforeIndependentAcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer X had made prior informal arrangements to serve as sub-consultant to both Firms A and B; the BER noted that even though the supplanting prohibition was not formally triggered, Engineer X should carefully consider whether independent acceptance would violate those prior arrangements.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer X
constraintclass: Specialist Prior Arrangement Personal Conscience Review Before Independent Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer X was constrained to carefully consider, before accepting the direct prime contract from the government agency, whether such acceptance would violate any arrangement he may have had with Firms A or B — even though the formal supplanting prohibition was not triggered, the personal conscience review of prior informal arrangements remained an ethical obligation.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics (general ethical conduct provisions); BER advisory note
sourcetext: We might note, however, that Engineer X should consider carefully whether his accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B.
temporalscope: Before accepting the direct prime contract from the government agency
textreferences: We might note, however, that Engineer X should consider carefully whether his accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.084521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Prime Contract Acceptance Decision
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: principal of his own engineering firm
foreseen unintended effects: Accepting could disadvantage Firms A and B who disclosed his identity in reliance on a consulting arrangement
foreseen unintended effects: Declining could deprive the client of the most qualified professional and force continued reliance on a nominal intermediary structure
fulfills obligation text: Accepting work entirely within his field of expertise (consistent with Section 6)
fulfills obligation text: Responding to a legitimate client request for direct engagement
fulfills obligation text: Serving the client's and public's interest by providing the most qualified professional for the work
guided by principle text: Avoiding harm to parties who acted in reliance on his participation
guided by principle text: Competence
guided by principle text: Fidelity to professional commitments
guided by principle text: Honesty
guided by principle text: Public welfare
has agent: Engineer X
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Determine whether to accept the prime contract in a manner that serves the client's interest while honoring any legitimate obligations to Firms A and B
raises obligation text: Potential violation of arrangements made with Firms A and B if those arrangements created binding commitments, the discussion flags this as a matter Engineer X must carefully consider
requires capability text: Full specialized technical expertise, the work is entirely within his field and requires no services from other firms
requires capability text: Legal and ethical judgment to evaluate the terms and implications of his arrangements with Firms A and B
requires capability text: Prime professional project management and client communication capabilities
temporal marker: Prospective decision point, following qualifications submission and pending agency award decision
temporal sequence: 13
within competence: true
comment: Engineer X must ultimately decide whether to accept the contract directly from the agency as prime professional, requiring him to weigh his legitimate right and the client's interest in direct engagement against any contractual or ethical obligations arising from his prior arrangements with Firms A and B.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065719
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Prior Sub-Arrangement Disclosure Upon Direct Agency Solicitation
type: SpecialistPriorSub-ArrangementCompeting-FirmDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer X had made prior informal arrangements with both Firms A and B to serve as their sub-consultant. When the agency directly solicited him for prime engagement, he submitted qualifications without definitively committing to the prime role, but the prior arrangements required disclosure to preserve procurement integrity.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer X
constraintclass: Specialist Prior Sub-Arrangement Competing-Firm Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer X was constrained to disclose to the government agency, when submitting his qualifications for direct prime engagement, the existence of his prior informal arrangements with Firms A and B to serve as their sub-consultant, so the agency could make a fully informed procurement decision.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Non-deception provisions; honest representation obligations; procurement integrity standards
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X...
temporalscope: At the time of submitting qualifications in response to the government agency's direct solicitation
textreferences: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional.
textreferences: The government agency... asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X...
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.079101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Qualifications Submission Without Commitment
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: principal of his own engineering firm
foreseen unintended effects: Creating ambiguity about his availability that could complicate the agency's procurement timeline
foreseen unintended effects: Implicitly encouraging the agency's pursuit of direct engagement without fully resolving the ethical questions around his arrangements with Firms A and B
fulfills obligation text: Appropriately deferring definitive commitment pending evaluation of obligations to Firms A and B
fulfills obligation text: Not misrepresenting his qualifications or capabilities
fulfills obligation text: Responding honestly to a legitimate client inquiry
guided by principle text: Avoiding actions that could harm parties who acted in reliance on his participation
guided by principle text: Honesty
guided by principle text: Prudence in evaluating existing professional obligations
has agent: Engineer X
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Signal his firm's capability and interest to the agency while preserving time and space to evaluate his obligations to Firms A and B before committing to a potentially conflicting role as prime professional
requires capability text: Capacity to serve as prime professional without requiring services from other firms
requires capability text: Full technical expertise in the specialized subject matter, the work is entirely within his field
requires capability text: Judgment to evaluate professional obligations before committing to a potentially conflicting role
temporal marker: Engineer X's response decision stage, after receiving direct contact from the agency
temporal sequence: 10
within competence: true
comment: Engineer X decided to respond to the agency's direct inquiry by submitting his firm's qualifications while deliberately withholding a definitive commitment to serve as prime professional, leaving his ultimate acceptance of the contract role unresolved.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Qualifications Submission Without Commitment → Engineer X Prime Contract Acceptance Decision
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer X decided to respond to the agency's direct inquiry by submitting his firm's qualifications without making a definitive commitment, creating the predicate condition for Engineer X's ultimate decision of whether to accept the contract directly from the agency as prime contractor
cause: Engineer X Qualifications Submission Without Commitment
counterfactual: If Engineer X had declined to submit qualifications, or had submitted with an explicit refusal to serve as prime contractor, the prime contract acceptance decision point would not have arisen; the submission without commitment is the necessary bridge between agency outreach and the final decision
effect: Engineer X Prime Contract Acceptance Decision
necessary factors: Absence of a definitive commitment in the submission, preserving the decision point
necessary factors: Agency's prior direct contact creating the opportunity
necessary factors: Agency's receptiveness to Engineer X as a prime contractor candidate
necessary factors: Engineer X's decision to submit qualifications rather than decline
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer X
sufficient factors: Qualifications submission received by agency + agency's identified need for Engineer X's expertise + absence of competing qualified prime candidates
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Specialist Direct Engagement Non-Supplanting Permissibility Recognition
type: SpecialistDirectEngagementAgency-InitiatedNon-SupplantingPermissibilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Specialist Direct Engagement Agency-Initiated Non-Supplanting Permissibility Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer X correctly recognized (or was entitled to recognize) that responding to the government agency's direct solicitation did not constitute improper supplanting of Firms A or B, because no active contract or formal selection of those firms had occurred and the agency itself was exercising its procurement authority.
casecontext: Engineer X responding to government agency's direct solicitation after having been arranged as sub-consultant by Firms A and B
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: BER Discussion's finding that Engineer X could accept the direct contract without violating the supplanting prohibition, given that neither Firm A nor Firm B had any commitment or expectation of being awarded the contract
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer X
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: We find no grounds in the code which would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis if so desired by the client and the firm.
textreferences: Under this reading we find that neither Firm A nor Firm B had any commitment or expectation of being awarded the contract at the time the agency contacted Engineer X.
textreferences: We find no grounds in the code which would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis if so desired by the client and the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.086555
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Sub-Consultant Prior Arrangement Disclosure Obligation
type: Sub-ConsultantPriorArrangementDisclosureUponDirectAgencySolicitationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sub-Consultant Prior Arrangement Disclosure Upon Direct Agency Solicitation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer X required the capability to recognize his obligation to disclose to the government agency, when submitting his qualifications for direct prime engagement, the existence of his prior sub-consultant arrangements with Firms A and B
casecontext: Engineer X was contacted directly by the agency after being arranged as sub-consultant by both Firms A and B; he submitted qualifications without definitively disclosing the prior arrangements
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Partial: Engineer X submitted his qualifications but did not definitively state whether he would undertake the work as prime professional; the case indicates he should have disclosed the prior arrangements
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer X
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract
textreferences: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.077462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Sub-Consultant Prior Arrangement Disclosure Upon Direct Agency Solicitation
type: Sub-ConsultantPriorArrangementDisclosureUponDirectAgencySolicitationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sub-Consultant Prior Arrangement Disclosure Upon Direct Agency Solicitation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer X was obligated to disclose to the government agency, when submitting qualifications for direct prime engagement, the existence of his prior sub-consultant arrangements with both Firms A and B.
casecontext: Engineer X contacted directly by government agency after having been arranged as sub-consultant by both Firms A and B in their respective solicitation responses
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: BER Discussion's identification of Engineer X's disclosure obligation regarding prior sub-consultant arrangements when responding to the agency's direct solicitation
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer X
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer X should consider carefully whether his accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B.
textreferences: Engineer X should consider carefully whether his accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B.
textreferences: We find no grounds in the code which would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis if so desired by the client and the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.086408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Supplanting Prohibition Non-Activation — No Definite Client Selection
type: SupplantingRuleContract-or-NegotiationPredicateNon-ExpansionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firms A and B had only informally arranged for Engineer X's services as sub-consultant but had not been selected or entered into negotiation with the agency. The supplanting prohibition therefore did not bar Engineer X from accepting direct agency engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer X
constraintclass: Supplanting Rule Contract-or-Negotiation Predicate Non-Expansion Constraint
constraintstatement: The anti-supplanting prohibition did not constrain Engineer X from accepting the government agency's direct solicitation because neither Firm A nor Firm B had been selected or entered into negotiation with the agency for the specific contract — the two-part predicate for the supplanting prohibition was not satisfied.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 11(a) (former) — Supplanting prohibition; NSPE BER Cases 62-10 and 62-18
sourcetext: The government agency... asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer X received and responded to the government agency's direct solicitation
textreferences: The firm of Engineer X was not on the original list of those contacted.
textreferences: The government agency... asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X...
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.079395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Supplanting Prohibition Non-Activation — No Definite Steps by Client
type: SupplantingRuleContract-or-NegotiationPredicateNon-ExpansionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer X was named as sub-consultant by both Firms A and B in their qualification submissions, but neither firm had been selected for negotiation or awarded a contract; the BER found the supplanting prohibition was not triggered and Engineer X could accept the direct engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer X
constraintclass: Supplanting Rule Contract-or-Negotiation Predicate Non-Expansion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer X was not constrained by the Section 11(a) supplanting prohibition from accepting the direct agency engagement because neither Firm A nor Firm B had been selected for negotiation or had a contract for the specific work — the anti-supplanting prohibition's two-part predicate (existing contract or definite steps toward selection) was not satisfied.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 11(a) (former); BER Cases 62-10 and 62-18
sourcetext: Section 11 (a), which prohibits one engineer from supplanting another, is no bar unless it be shown that 'definite steps' have been taken by the client to retain another engineer.
temporalscope: At the time the government agency directly solicited Engineer X
textreferences: Section 11 (a), which prohibits one engineer from supplanting another, is no bar unless it be shown that 'definite steps' have been taken by the client to retain another engineer.
textreferences: neither Firm A nor Firm B had any commitment or expectation of being awarded the contract at the time the agency contacted Engineer X
textreferences: the mandate of Section 11 (a) does not come into play unless '... the engineer has been informed by the client that he has been selected to negotiate an agreement for a specific project,' (Case 62-10) or that it be shown that '... the client specifically intended to retain the engineer for the ... work' (Case 62-18).
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.084379
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Artfully Misleading Solicitation Statement
type: ArtfulMisrepresentationinNegotiationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Artful Misrepresentation in Negotiation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A required the capability to recognize that its statement — technically true in that it had arranged Engineer X — was artfully constructed to create a false impression that it would make a substantive prime contribution, constituting an ethical violation
casecontext: Firm A's solicitation response was technically true (it had arranged Engineer X) but misleadingly implied substantive prime contribution capacity
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firm A's statement that it had arranged Engineer X while it would furnish all other services created the false impression of substantive prime capability when those other services were nominal
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.076093
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Honorable Procurement Conduct Failure
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A required the capability to conduct itself honorably in the government procurement by refraining from interposing itself as a nominal prime contractor between the agency and the specialist who could perform all required work directly
casecontext: Firm A's conduct in the procurement was found to be inconsistent with honorable, responsible, and fair professional conduct
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firm A interposed itself as a nominal prime contractor, exploiting its prior arrangement with Engineer X to gain a competitive position it was not substantively qualified to hold
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.076895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Nominal Prime Broker Interposition Prohibition
type: NominalPrimeBrokerInterpositionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm A responded affirmatively to the government agency's solicitation, stating it had arranged for Engineer X's specialized expertise while it would furnish all other services — services that were in actuality nominal in nature.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Firm A
constraintclass: Nominal Prime Broker Interposition Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm A was prohibited from representing itself as a capable prime contractor to the government agency when its actual contribution would be nominal and all substantive technical work would be performed by Engineer X as sub-consultant.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Sections on honest qualification representation, honorable competitive conduct, and prime professional responsibility standard; NSPE BER precedent on Section 6 specialist obligations
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X... to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
temporalscope: At the time of submitting qualifications to the government agency and throughout the procurement process
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work...
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X... to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.078265
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Nominal Prime Contribution Self-Assessment Failure
type: NominalPrimeContributionSelf-AssessmentandBroker-RoleTransparencyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Nominal Prime Contribution Self-Assessment and Broker-Role Transparency Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A required the capability to honestly assess that its planned contribution was nominal and to disclose this to the agency rather than representing itself as a capable prime contractor furnishing all other services
casecontext: Firm A responded affirmatively to the government solicitation, arranging Engineer X as sub-consultant while claiming to furnish all other services — services that were in actuality nominal
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firm A stated it would furnish all other services when those services would be nominal in nature, without disclosing the nominal character of its contribution
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.075830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Nominal Prime Contribution Substantiality Threshold Failure
type: NominalPrimeContributionSubstantialityThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm A's proposed contribution was limited to nominal administrative services while Engineer X would perform all substantive technical work, falling below the substantiality threshold required for ethical prime engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Firm A
constraintclass: Nominal Prime Contribution Substantiality Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm A was constrained by the prime professional responsibility standard to make a substantive technical contribution commensurate with a prime role; its planned nominal contribution failed to meet this threshold, prohibiting it from ethically accepting the prime role.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former) — Prime Professional Responsibility Standard; NSPE BER precedent
sourcetext: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
temporalscope: Throughout the procurement and any resulting contract performance
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work...
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.078533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Nominal Prime Interposition Public Procurement Harm Recognition
type: NominalPrimeInterpositionPublicProcurementHarmRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Nominal Prime Interposition Public Procurement Harm Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A required the capability to recognize that interposing itself as a nominal prime contractor would harm the public procurement process by adding cost, reducing accountability, and subverting the agency's ability to engage the most qualified firm directly
casecontext: The government agency ultimately had to bypass Firms A and B and contact Engineer X directly, demonstrating the procurement distortion caused by the nominal prime strategy
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firm A did not recognize or act on the procurement harms caused by its nominal prime interposition strategy
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.077156
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Deficiency
type: Pre-AcceptanceCompetenceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A required the capability to honestly assess whether it possessed the technical competence to make a substantive prime contribution before responding affirmatively to the specialized government solicitation
casecontext: The work required highly specialized technical knowledge that Firm A did not possess, yet it responded affirmatively as a prime contractor
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firm A accepted a prime contractor role without possessing the specialized expertise required, planning to rely entirely on Engineer X for the substantive technical work
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability to provide services in a highly specialized area of technical knowledge.
textreferences: A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability to provide services in a highly specialized area of technical knowledge.
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.076632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Specialist-Retention Clause Contextual Reading Violation
type: PrimeProfessionalSpecialist-RetentionClauseContextualSubstantialityReadingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm A proposed to serve as prime contractor with Engineer X as sole technical contributor, invoking the specialist-retention provision to justify this arrangement; the BER found this misread the clause out of context of the full Section 6 substantiality requirement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Firm A and its decision-making engineers
constraintclass: Prime Professional Specialist-Retention Clause Contextual Substantiality Reading Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm A was constrained from invoking the specialist-retention clause of Section 6 to justify its prime role when its only substantive service would be to arrange for Engineer X's services; the specialist-retention clause required reading in context of the full Section 6 competence requirement, which presupposes that the prime is performing substantial services.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former), read in full context
sourcetext: We read this procedure in the context of the full Section 6, however, and conclude that in totality Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional engineer will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional engineer is performing substantial services of a project.
temporalscope: At the time of submitting qualifications and proposing the prime-contractor arrangement
textreferences: We read this procedure in the context of the full Section 6, however, and conclude that in totality Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional engineer will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional engineer is performing substantial services of a project.
textreferences: we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.083813
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Technically True Misleading Statement in Procurement
type: TechnicallyTrueMisleadingStatementRecognitionandAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A required the capability to recognize that its technically accurate statement about having arranged Engineer X was nonetheless materially misleading because it omitted the nominal nature of its own planned contribution
casecontext: Firm A's solicitation response exploited the ambiguity between 'having arranged a specialist' and 'being a capable prime contractor'
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firm A's statement was technically accurate but omitted the critical context that its own services would be nominal, creating a false impression of substantive prime capability
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X
textreferences: that they would themselves furnish all other services involved
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.076376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Artfully Misleading Solicitation Statement
type: ArtfulMisrepresentationinNegotiationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Artful Misrepresentation in Negotiation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm B required the capability to recognize that its statement — technically true in that it had arranged Engineer X — was artfully constructed to create a false impression that it would make a substantive prime contribution, constituting an ethical violation
casecontext: Firm B's solicitation response was technically true (it had arranged Engineer X) but misleadingly implied substantive prime contribution capacity
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firm B's statement that it had arranged Engineer X while it would furnish all other services created the false impression of substantive prime capability when those other services were nominal
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.076217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Honorable Procurement Conduct Failure
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm B required the capability to conduct itself honorably in the government procurement by refraining from interposing itself as a nominal prime contractor between the agency and the specialist who could perform all required work directly
casecontext: Firm B's conduct in the procurement was found to be inconsistent with honorable, responsible, and fair professional conduct
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firm B interposed itself as a nominal prime contractor, exploiting its prior arrangement with Engineer X to gain a competitive position it was not substantively qualified to hold
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.077029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Nominal Prime Broker Interposition Prohibition
type: NominalPrimeBrokerInterpositionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm B, like Firm A, responded affirmatively to the government agency's solicitation, stating it had arranged for Engineer X's specialized expertise while it would furnish all other services — services that were in actuality nominal in nature.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Firm B
constraintclass: Nominal Prime Broker Interposition Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm B was prohibited from representing itself as a capable prime contractor to the government agency when its actual contribution would be nominal and all substantive technical work would be performed by Engineer X as sub-consultant.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Sections on honest qualification representation, honorable competitive conduct, and prime professional responsibility standard
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X... to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
temporalscope: At the time of submitting qualifications to the government agency and throughout the procurement process
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X... to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.078396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Nominal Prime Contribution Self-Assessment Failure
type: NominalPrimeContributionSelf-AssessmentandBroker-RoleTransparencyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Nominal Prime Contribution Self-Assessment and Broker-Role Transparency Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm B required the capability to honestly assess that its planned contribution was nominal and to disclose this to the agency rather than representing itself as a capable prime contractor furnishing all other services
casecontext: Firm B responded affirmatively to the government solicitation, arranging Engineer X as sub-consultant while claiming to furnish all other services — services that were in actuality nominal
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firm B stated it would furnish all other services when those services would be nominal in nature, without disclosing the nominal character of its contribution
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.075963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Nominal Prime Contribution Substantiality Threshold Failure
type: NominalPrimeContributionSubstantialityThresholdConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm B's proposed contribution was limited to nominal administrative services while Engineer X would perform all substantive technical work, falling below the substantiality threshold required for ethical prime engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Firm B
constraintclass: Nominal Prime Contribution Substantiality Threshold Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm B was constrained by the prime professional responsibility standard to make a substantive technical contribution commensurate with a prime role; its planned nominal contribution failed to meet this threshold, prohibiting it from ethically accepting the prime role.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former) — Prime Professional Responsibility Standard; NSPE BER precedent
sourcetext: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
temporalscope: Throughout the procurement and any resulting contract performance
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work...
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.078667
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Nominal Prime Interposition Public Procurement Harm Recognition
type: NominalPrimeInterpositionPublicProcurementHarmRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Nominal Prime Interposition Public Procurement Harm Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm B required the capability to recognize that interposing itself as a nominal prime contractor would harm the public procurement process by adding cost, reducing accountability, and subverting the agency's ability to engage the most qualified firm directly
casecontext: The government agency ultimately had to bypass Firms A and B and contact Engineer X directly, demonstrating the procurement distortion caused by the nominal prime strategy
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firm B did not recognize or act on the procurement harms caused by its nominal prime interposition strategy
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.077326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Deficiency
type: Pre-AcceptanceCompetenceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm B required the capability to honestly assess whether it possessed the technical competence to make a substantive prime contribution before responding affirmatively to the specialized government solicitation
casecontext: The work required highly specialized technical knowledge that Firm B did not possess, yet it responded affirmatively as a prime contractor
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firm B accepted a prime contractor role without possessing the specialized expertise required, planning to rely entirely on Engineer X for the substantive technical work
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability to provide services in a highly specialized area of technical knowledge.
textreferences: A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability to provide services in a highly specialized area of technical knowledge.
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.076760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Specialist-Retention Clause Contextual Reading Violation
type: PrimeProfessionalSpecialist-RetentionClauseContextualSubstantialityReadingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm B proposed to serve as prime contractor with Engineer X as sole technical contributor, invoking the specialist-retention provision to justify this arrangement; the BER found this misread the clause out of context of the full Section 6 substantiality requirement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Firm B and its decision-making engineers
constraintclass: Prime Professional Specialist-Retention Clause Contextual Substantiality Reading Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm B was constrained from invoking the specialist-retention clause of Section 6 to justify its prime role when its only substantive service would be to arrange for Engineer X's services; the specialist-retention clause required reading in context of the full Section 6 competence requirement, which presupposes that the prime is performing substantial services.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former), read in full context
sourcetext: We read this procedure in the context of the full Section 6, however, and conclude that in totality Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional engineer will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional engineer is performing substantial services of a project.
temporalscope: At the time of submitting qualifications and proposing the prime-contractor arrangement
textreferences: We read this procedure in the context of the full Section 6, however, and conclude that in totality Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional engineer will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional engineer is performing substantial services of a project.
textreferences: we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.083945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Technically True Misleading Statement in Procurement
type: TechnicallyTrueMisleadingStatementRecognitionandAvoidanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm B required the capability to recognize that its technically accurate statement about having arranged Engineer X was nonetheless materially misleading because it omitted the nominal nature of its own planned contribution
casecontext: Firm B's solicitation response exploited the ambiguity between 'having arranged a specialist' and 'being a capable prime contractor'
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firm B's statement was technically accurate but omitted the critical context that its own services would be nominal, creating a false impression of substantive prime capability
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X
textreferences: that they would themselves furnish all other services involved
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.076506
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Affirmative Response
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: principals or decision-makers
foreseen unintended effects: Potential ethical violation by offering prime services they could not substantially perform
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of misrepresenting their substantive capability to the agency
fulfills obligation text: Disclosing their intent to use a specialist
fulfills obligation text: Responding to a legitimate government solicitation
guided by principle text: Competence
guided by principle text: Honesty
guided by principle text: Integrity in professional representations
guided by principle text: Public welfare
has agent: Engineers within Firm A and Firm B
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Secure a government contract by positioning their firms as capable prime professionals for the specialized project
requires capability text: Ability to make a substantial professional contribution to the project beyond brokering or administration
requires capability text: Substantive in-house expertise in the highly specialized technical subject matter
temporal marker: Response stage, after receiving agency solicitation
temporal sequence: 4
violates obligation text: Obligation not to misrepresent their qualifications to a client
violates obligation text: Obligation not to undertake engineering engagements unless qualified to perform the services involved (Section 6)
violates obligation text: Obligation of honesty and transparency regarding their substantive capabilities
within competence: false
comment: Firms A and B each independently decided to respond affirmatively to the agency's solicitation, representing themselves as capable of providing the required specialized services despite lacking the core technical expertise in-house.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065526
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Artfully Misleading Procurement Statement Prohibition
type: BusinessNegotiationArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firms A and B's statements were technically true (they had arranged for Engineer X and would furnish other services) but created the materially false impression that they would make a substantial prime contribution, when in actuality their services would be nominal.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Firms A and B
constraintclass: Business Negotiation Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Firms A and B were prohibited from making technically true but artfully misleading statements in their solicitation responses — specifically, representing that they had arranged for Engineer X's expertise and would furnish all other services, when those other services were nominal, creating a false impression of substantive prime capability.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Non-deception provisions; prohibition on misleading statements in professional dealings
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X... to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
temporalscope: At the time of submitting qualification statements to the government agency
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X... to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.078825
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Misuse
type: CompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementPlanningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Capability
capabilitystatement: Firms A and B required the capability to recognize that engaging Engineer X as a sub-consultant to fill a competence gap is only ethically permissible when the prime firm itself makes a substantive contribution — not when the prime role is purely nominal brokerage
casecontext: The legitimate use of sub-consultant engagement to fill competence gaps requires the prime firm to make a substantive contribution; Firms A and B's planned contribution was nominal
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firms A and B attempted to use the sub-consultant engagement mechanism to position themselves as prime contractors without making any substantive technical contribution
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firms A and B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
textreferences: stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.077844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Competitive Procurement Fairness Violation
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: By representing themselves as capable prime contractors while planning to rely entirely on Engineer X for all substantive technical work, Firms A and B undermined the fairness of the competitive procurement process and the agency's ability to make a genuinely qualification-based selection.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Firms A and B
constraintclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
constraintstatement: Firms A and B were constrained by competitive procurement fairness requirements to not undermine the government agency's ability to identify and engage the most qualified firm through the open qualification-based selection process by interposing themselves as nominal prime contractors.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: QBS procurement law; NSPE Code of Ethics competitive procurement provisions
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X... to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
temporalscope: Throughout the government solicitation process
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work...
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X... to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.079536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Ethical Referral Obligation — Recommend Direct Specialist Engagement
type: NominalPrimeBrokerInterpositionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER found that Firms A and B's ethical position, given their nominal contribution, was to recommend direct agency contact with Engineer X rather than to submit themselves as prime contractors.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Firms A and B
constraintclass: Nominal Prime Broker Interposition Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Firms A and B were constrained, upon recognizing that their only substantive service would be brokerage, to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required, rather than interposing themselves as nominal prime contractors.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former); general ethical conduct provisions
sourcetext: Their ethical position in that event was to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting qualification responses
textreferences: Their ethical position in that event was to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.085082
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Ethics Code Individual Applicability Recognition Failure
type: EthicsCodeGovernment-AgencyandConsulting-FirmIndividualEngineerApplicabilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethics Code Government-Agency and Consulting-Firm Individual Engineer Applicability Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineers within Firms A and B who had the power of decision or effective recommendation were individually obligated to apply the ethics code to their own conduct, regardless of the consulting firm organizational form.
casecontext: Government solicitation for highly specialized engineering services; Firms A and B responded as nominal prime contractors while arranging Engineer X as sole technical contributor
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure to recognize individual ethics code applicability when structuring broker-only prime contractor responses to government solicitation
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineers within Firms A and B with decision-making power or effective recommendation authority
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the code
textreferences: We therefore treat the case before us as involving actions of engineers in the governmental agency and consulting firms in situations in which the engineer(s) had the power of decision or effective recommendation as to the procedure followed.
textreferences: business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the code
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.085221
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Geographic Factor Substantiality Calibration Failure
type: PrimeSubstantialityGeographicandLocalFactorCalibrationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER noted that geographic location, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors should be considered in defining 'substantial,' implying that Firms A and B should have assessed whether such factors elevated their contribution above nominal — but the facts indicated their contribution remained brokerage-only.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Firms A and B and their decision-making engineers
constraintclass: Prime Substantiality Geographic and Local Factor Calibration Constraint
constraintstatement: Firms A and B were constrained to assess whether their proposed contributions — including any geographic, local-conditions familiarity, or other pertinent factors — met the substantiality threshold before accepting the prime role; the definition of 'substantial' required calibration to include such factors, but even with this calibration, their contributions remained nominal.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former); BER interpretive guidance on 'substantial'
sourcetext: In defining the word 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors.
temporalscope: At the time of assessing whether to submit qualifications for the prime role
textreferences: If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.
textreferences: In defining the word 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.084100
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Honorable Competitive Conduct in Specialized Procurement
type: ProcurementCompetitionHonorableConductConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firms A and B's interposition as nominal prime contractors, when they could not make a substantive contribution, constituted dishonorable competitive conduct that undermined the integrity of the qualification-based selection process.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Firms A and B
constraintclass: Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
constraintstatement: Firms A and B were required to conduct themselves honorably and fairly in the government procurement process, which prohibited interposing themselves as nominal prime contractors between the agency and Engineer X when they could not make a substantive contribution.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6, III.7 — Honorable competitive conduct; prohibition on improper competitive methods
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X...
temporalscope: Throughout the government solicitation and procurement process
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work...
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X...
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.078963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Hypothetical Compliant Path Specialist Retention
type: PrimeContractorSpecialist-RetentionProvisionSubstantive-ContributionContextualReadingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Prime Contractor Specialist-Retention Provision Substantive-Contribution Contextual Reading Capability
capabilitystatement: Had Firms A and B proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they would have correctly applied the specialist-retention provision by retaining Engineer X for additional expertise while performing substantial prime services themselves.
casecontext: BER Discussion's identification of the hypothetical compliant scenario for Firms A and B
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Hypothetical scenario identified by BER Discussion as the compliant path: firms performing substantial work and retaining Engineer X for specialized expertise
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineers within Firms A and B (hypothetical compliant scenario)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.
textreferences: If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.085609
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Hypothetical Geographic Contribution Compliant Path
type: SubstantivePrimeContributionGeographicandLocalFactorCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Substantive Prime Contribution Geographic and Local Factor Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: Had Firms A and B possessed and correctly assessed substantive geographic, local-conditions, or other client-benefit contributions, they could have legitimately proposed a prime contractor role with Engineer X as specialist sub-consultant.
casecontext: BER Discussion's articulation of the multi-factor substantive-contribution threshold
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: BER Discussion's identification of geographic location, local conditions familiarity, and other pertinent factors as legitimate components of the substantive-contribution calculus
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineers within Firms A and B (hypothetical compliant scenario)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In defining the word 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors.
textreferences: In defining the word 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.085817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Nominal Prime Contribution Self-Assessment Failure
type: NominalPrimeContributionSelf-AssessmentandBroker-RoleTransparencyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Nominal Prime Contribution Self-Assessment and Broker-Role Transparency Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineers within Firms A and B failed to honestly assess that their planned contribution to the prime contract was merely nominal (brokerage/administrative) and failed to transparently disclose this to the agency or recommend direct engagement of Engineer X.
casecontext: Government solicitation for highly specialized engineering services; Firms A and B each arranged Engineer X as sub-consultant while proposing to serve as prime contractors
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Responding to government solicitation as prime contractors while arranging Engineer X as sole technical contributor, without disclosing the nominal nature of their own contribution
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineers within Firms A and B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: it appears that Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor to the project.
textreferences: Their ethical position in that event was to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required.
textreferences: it appears that Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor to the project.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.086280
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Nominal Prime Interposition Public Procurement Harm Recognition Failure
type: NominalPrimeInterpositionPublicProcurementHarmRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Nominal Prime Interposition Public Procurement Harm Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineers within Firms A and B failed to recognize that interposing themselves as nominal prime contractors between the government agency and Engineer X — who could perform all required work independently — caused concrete harm to the public procurement process.
casecontext: Government solicitation for highly specialized engineering services; Firms A and B interposed themselves as nominal prime contractors while Engineer X could perform all required work
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Responding to government solicitation as nominal prime contractors, causing the agency to receive responses that obscured the availability of direct specialist engagement and potentially increasing cost and reducing accountability
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineers within Firms A and B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: it appears that Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor to the project.
textreferences: it appears that Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor to the project.
textreferences: it was apparent that neither would contribute very much, if anything, to the project
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.086708
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Nominal Prime Role — Section 6 Competence Acceptance Prohibition
type: NominalPrimeBrokerInterpositionProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firms A and B were primarily offering to serve as brokers, furnishing only negotiation and administration services while looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor; the BER found this violated Section 6's competence requirement for prime engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Firms A and B
constraintclass: Nominal Prime Broker Interposition Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Firms A and B were prohibited by Section 6 from accepting the prime contract when their only substantive service would be to arrange for Engineer X's services; the first part of Section 6 precluded accepting an engineering engagement unless qualified to perform the services involved, and a brokerage-only role did not satisfy this requirement.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former)
sourcetext: The first part of Section 6 of the code precludes an engineer from accepting an engineering engagement unless qualified to perform the services involved.
temporalscope: At the time of submitting qualifications and proposing the prime-contractor arrangement
textreferences: The first part of Section 6 of the code precludes an engineer from accepting an engineering engagement unless qualified to perform the services involved.
textreferences: it appears that Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor to the project.
textreferences: we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.084666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation in Qualification Submission
type: PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firms A and B's qualification submissions omitted the material fact that their own services would be nominal, while representing that they had arranged for Engineer X's expertise — a misrepresentation of pertinent facts designed to enhance their apparent qualifications.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Firms A and B
constraintclass: Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Firms A and B were prohibited from misrepresenting pertinent facts in their qualification submissions — specifically, the nominal nature of their own planned contribution — with the intent to enhance their apparent qualifications for the specialized procurement.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Non-misrepresentation provisions; BER Case 83-1 dual-element misrepresentation standard
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X... to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
temporalscope: At the time of submitting qualification statements to the government agency
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X... to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.079697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Failure in Specialized Procurement
type: Pre-AcceptanceCompetenceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineers within Firms A and B failed to conduct an honest and rigorous self-assessment of their firms' technical competence in the highly specialized engineering services required before accepting the prime contractor role.
casecontext: Government solicitation for highly specialized engineering services requiring domain expertise that Firms A and B did not possess
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Responding to government solicitation as prime contractors for highly specialized services without possessing the requisite technical competence, relying entirely on Engineer X as sole technical contributor
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineers within Firms A and B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The first part of Section 6 of the code precludes an engineer from accepting an engineering engagement unless qualified to perform the services involved.
textreferences: On the basis of the stated facts, it appears that Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor to the project.
textreferences: The first part of Section 6 of the code precludes an engineer from accepting an engineering engagement unless qualified to perform the services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.086837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Procurement Rationalization Resistance Failure
type: ProcurementRationalizationResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Rationalization Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: Firms A and B required the capability to resist rationalizing their nominal prime contractor strategy — potentially rationalizing it as a legitimate use of sub-consultant arrangements — and to maintain ethical procurement standards
casecontext: The firms may have rationalized their conduct as a standard sub-consultant arrangement, failing to recognize that the nominal nature of their own contribution made this an impermissible procurement strategy
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firms A and B rationalized their nominal prime role as a legitimate sub-consultant arrangement rather than recognizing it as an ethical violation of procurement integrity
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Firms A and B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.077972
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Solicitation Misrepresentation in Specialized Procurement
type: SolicitationMisrepresentationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Solicitation Misrepresentation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Firms A and B required the capability to recognize that their solicitation responses misrepresented their qualifications and capability by implying they would make a substantive prime contribution when their planned contribution was nominal
casecontext: The firms' responses to the government solicitation implied they would furnish all other services substantively, when those services would be nominal in nature
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure: Firms A and B's solicitation responses misrepresented their capability by implying substantive prime contribution capacity they did not possess
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firms A and B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.078122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Specialist-Retention Provision Contextual Reading Failure
type: PrimeContractorSpecialist-RetentionProvisionSubstantive-ContributionContextualReadingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Prime Contractor Specialist-Retention Provision Substantive-Contribution Contextual Reading Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineers within Firms A and B failed to correctly read the specialist-retention provision of Section 6 in context of the full competence requirement, incorrectly invoking it to justify a broker-only prime contractor role.
casecontext: Firms A and B each arranged Engineer X as sub-consultant while proposing to serve as prime contractors with only brokerage/administrative contributions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Responding to government solicitation as prime contractors while arranging Engineer X as sole technical contributor, without recognizing that the specialist-retention provision presupposes substantial prime services
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineers within Firms A and B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: We read this procedure in the context of the full Section 6, however, and conclude that in totality Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional engineer will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional engineer is performing substantial services of a project.
textreferences: On that basis we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
textreferences: We read this procedure in the context of the full Section 6, however, and conclude that in totality Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional engineer will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional engineer is performing substantial services of a project.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.085481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B disclosing Engineer X arrangement before agency contacting Engineer X directly
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X
from entity text: Firms A and B disclosing Engineer X arrangement
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: agency contacting Engineer X directly
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: agency contacting Engineer X directly
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B responses meets agency concluding Firms A and B would not contribute substantially
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: meets
evidence: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X
from entity text: Firms A and B responses
owl time property: time:intervalMeets
to entity text: agency concluding Firms A and B would not contribute substantially
comment: Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
interval meets: agency concluding Firms A and B would not contribu
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066333
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Government Agency Engineers Ethics Code Individual Applicability Recognition
type: EthicsCodeGovernment-AgencyandConsulting-FirmIndividualEngineerApplicabilityRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethics Code Government-Agency and Consulting-Firm Individual Engineer Applicability Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineers within the government agency who had the power of decision or effective recommendation in the procurement process were individually subject to the ethics code, regardless of their governmental organizational form.
casecontext: Government agency procurement process for specialized engineering services; agency engineers exercised procurement authority to contact Engineer X directly
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that governmental agency form does not exempt individual engineers from ethics code compliance in procurement decisions
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineers within the government agency with decision-making power or effective recommendation authority
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Although this note refers to corporations rather than government agencies or firms, its premise applies to all forms of organizations, including governmental agencies and consulting firms.
textreferences: Although this note refers to corporations rather than government agencies or firms, its premise applies to all forms of organizations, including governmental agencies and consulting firms.
textreferences: We therefore treat the case before us as involving actions of engineers in the governmental agency and consulting firms in situations in which the engineer(s) had the power of decision or effective recommendation as to the procedure followed.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.085351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Government Agency Non-Bindingness to Original Solicitation List — Engineer X Direct Contact
type: AgencyNon-BindingnesstoOriginalSolicitationListUponNominal-ContributionDeterminationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The government agency contacted Engineer X directly despite his not being on the original list of 15 firms; the BER found no ethical bar to this action because the agency had determined the responding firms would not make a substantial contribution and Engineer X was identified as the genuinely qualified specialist.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Government agency procurement engineers
constraintclass: Agency Non-Bindingness to Original Solicitation List Upon Nominal-Contribution Determination Constraint
constraintstatement: The government agency was not bound by the original solicitation list of 15 firms and was ethically and procedurally permitted to make direct contact with Engineer X once it had determined from two independent sources that he was the highly qualified specialist required and that the responding firms would contribute little or nothing of technical substance.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; qualification-based selection procurement principles; BER analysis
sourcetext: we perceive no reason why it should not make direct contact with Engineer X once having learned from two separate sources that he was a highly qualified specialist of the type required.
temporalscope: After reviewing qualifications submitted by responding firms and determining nominal contribution
textreferences: Nor did the fact that Firms A and B supplied the information as to the special qualifications of Engineer X impose any duty on the agency to award the contract to Firms A and B when it was apparent that neither would contribute very much, if anything, to the project.
textreferences: The mere fact that some eight firms had responded to the invitation for an expression of interest and qualification did not bind the agency to select one of those firms for the contract.
textreferences: we perceive no reason why it should not make direct contact with Engineer X once having learned from two separate sources that he was a highly qualified specialist of the type required.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.084240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Government Agency Out-of-List Direct Solicitation of Engineer X
type: Out-of-ListDirectAgencySolicitationProcurementIntegrityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The government agency contacted Engineer X directly after learning from Firms A and B's submissions that he was the genuine source of specialized expertise. Engineer X's firm was not on the original list of 15 firms contacted, raising procurement integrity questions that required legitimate grounding.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Government agency
constraintclass: Out-of-List Direct Agency Solicitation Procurement Integrity Constraint
constraintstatement: The government agency's direct solicitation of Engineer X — who was not on the original list of 15 firms — was constrained to be grounded in legitimate procurement integrity concerns (the nominal nature of Firms A and B's contributions) rather than favoritism, and required transparent documentation of the rationale.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: QBS procurement law; NSPE Code of Ethics procurement integrity provisions; public procurement fairness standards
sourcetext: The firm of Engineer X was not on the original list of those contacted.
temporalscope: At the time the agency determined Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution and decided to contact Engineer X directly
textreferences: The firm of Engineer X was not on the original list of those contacted.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X...
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.079237
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Government Agency Procurement Information Asymmetry Recognition and Correction
type: ProcurementInformationAsymmetryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Information Asymmetry Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The government agency demonstrated the capability to recognize that Firms A and B's responses created a procurement information asymmetry — the agency had been misled about the substantive contribution those firms would make — and acted to correct it by directly contacting Engineer X
casecontext: The government agency evaluated eight responses, determined Firms A and B would not make substantial contributions, and directly contacted Engineer X to explore direct prime engagement
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Success: The agency correctly identified that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution and took corrective action by directly soliciting Engineer X
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:16.405550+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Government Agency
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.077715
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor Expression-of-Interest Non-Bindingness Recognition
type: AgencyExpression-of-InterestResponseNon-BindingnessRecognitionandDirectSpecialistContactAuthorityCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Agency Expression-of-Interest Response Non-Bindingness Recognition and Direct Specialist Contact Authority Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineers within the government agency correctly recognized that the eight firms' responses to the expression-of-interest solicitation did not bind the agency to select one of those firms, and exercised their authority to contact Engineer X directly after determining that Firms A and B would not make substantial contributions.
casecontext: Government agency received eight responses to expression-of-interest solicitation, determined Firms A and B would not make substantial contributions, and contacted Engineer X directly
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Agency's direct contact with Engineer X after evaluating qualification responses and determining that responding firms would not contribute substantially to the project
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:51:09.366526+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineers within the government agency procurement function
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The mere fact that some eight firms had responded to the invitation for an expression of interest and qualification did not bind the agency to select one of those firms for the contract.
textreferences: Nor did the fact that Firms A and B supplied the information as to the special qualifications of Engineer X impose any duty on the agency to award the contract to Firms A and B when it was apparent that neither would contribute very much, if anything, to the project.
textreferences: The mere fact that some eight firms had responded to the invitation for an expression of interest and qualification did not bind the agency to select one of those firms for the contract.
textreferences: We perceive no reason why it should not make direct contact with Engineer X once having learned from two separate sources that he was a highly qualified specialist of the type required.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.085955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Government Procurement Contact List Integrity Standard - Engineer X Solicitation
type: GovernmentProcurementContactListIntegrityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: Federal A/E selection law; public procurement fairness norms
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Government Procurement Contact List Integrity Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Government Procurement Contact List Integrity Standard
sourcetext: The firm of Engineer X was not on the original list of those contacted
textreferences: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional
textreferences: The firm of Engineer X was not on the original list of those contacted
usedby: Engineer X in deciding whether and how to respond to the agency's direct solicitation
usedincontext: Engineer X was not on the original list of 15 firms contacted, yet the agency contacted him directly after learning he was named by Firms A and B; the ethical permissibility of this out-of-list contact and Engineer X's appropriate response are central to the case
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.067126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE-BER-Case-62-10
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 62-10
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:13.479755+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:13.479755+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: the mandate of Section 11 (a) does not come into play unless '. . . the engineer has been informed by the client that he has been selected to negotiate an agreement for a specific project,' ( Case 62-10 )
textreferences: the mandate of Section 11 (a) does not come into play unless '. . . the engineer has been informed by the client that he has been selected to negotiate an agreement for a specific project,' ( Case 62-10 )
usedby: BER in determining that neither Firm A nor Firm B had reached the threshold for supplanting protection
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that the Section 11(a) supplanting prohibition is triggered only when 'the engineer has been informed by the client that he has been selected to negotiate an agreement for a specific project'
version: 1962
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.069107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE-BER-Case-62-18
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 62-18
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:13.479755+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:13.479755+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: or that it be shown that'. . . the client specifically intended to retain the engineer for the . . . work' ( Case 62-18 )
textreferences: or that it be shown that'. . . the client specifically intended to retain the engineer for the . . . work' ( Case 62-18 )
usedby: BER in determining that neither Firm A nor Firm B had reached the threshold for supplanting protection
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that the Section 11(a) supplanting prohibition requires that 'the client specifically intended to retain the engineer for the work' — a second threshold condition complementing Case 62-10
version: 1962
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.069231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE-Board-Directors-Directive-January-1971
type: ExpertInterpretation
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE Board of Directors
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Directors Directive on Code Applicability to Organizations (January 1971)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:13.479755+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:13.479755+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Expert Interpretation
sourcetext: This point has now been noted by action of the NSPE Board of Directors in its directive adopted in January 1971 to include the following note on each printing of the Code of Ethics
textreferences: Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures. The code is clearly written to apply to the engineer
textreferences: This point has now been noted by action of the NSPE Board of Directors in its directive adopted in January 1971 to include the following note on each printing of the Code of Ethics
textreferences: business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the code
usedby: BER in framing the analysis of engineers acting within the governmental agency and consulting firms
usedincontext: Resolves the threshold technicality of whether the NSPE Code of Ethics applies to organizations (corporations, government agencies, consulting firms) by affirming that individual engineers within those organizations remain personally bound by the Code
version: January 1971
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.069371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.99
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:13.479755+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:13.479755+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: The Code of Ethics applies only to individual engineers and not to organizations as such.
textreferences: The Code of Ethics applies only to individual engineers and not to organizations as such.
textreferences: We find no grounds in the code which would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis
usedby: BER throughout the analysis as the foundational ethical framework
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing all aspects of the case: engineer competence obligations, prime professional duties, specialist retention, and anti-supplanting prohibitions
version: Current at time of case (with January 1971 Board directive note)
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.069502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-11a
type: EngineerSupplantingProhibitionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section 11(a) (historical) — Prohibition on Supplanting Another Engineer
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:13.479755+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:13.479755+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Supplanting Prohibition Standard
sourcetext: Section 11 (a), which prohibits one engineer from supplanting another, is no bar unless it be shown that 'definite steps' have been taken by the client to retain another engineer.
textreferences: Section 11 (a), which prohibits one engineer from supplanting another, is no bar unless it be shown that 'definite steps' have been taken by the client to retain another engineer.
textreferences: The Engineer will not attempt to supplant another engineer in a particular employment after becoming aware that definite steps have been taken toward the other's employment.
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer X's ethical position in accepting the direct contract
usedincontext: Determines whether Engineer X's direct acceptance of the contract would constitute unethical supplanting of Firms A or B; BER concludes the threshold conditions for this prohibition were not met
version: Pre-revision (historical; noted as no longer existing in current form)
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.068955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Section-6
type: EngineerSpecialistRetentionObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics, Section 6 (historical) — Engineer Competence and Specialist Engagement
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:13.479755+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:13.479755+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Specialist Retention Obligation Standard
sourcetext: The first part of Section 6 of the code precludes an engineer from accepting an engineering engagement unless qualified to perform the services involved.
textreferences: Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional engineer will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional engineer is performing substantial services of a project.
textreferences: The first part of Section 6 of the code precludes an engineer from accepting an engineering engagement unless qualified to perform the services involved.
textreferences: The second clause of Section 6 recognizes the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interest of the project.
usedby: BER in evaluating whether Firms A and B acted ethically in offering to serve as prime professionals
usedincontext: Establishes that engineers may only undertake assignments for which they are qualified, and that a prime professional must perform substantial services rather than acting as a mere broker; also recognizes the propriety of retaining experts and specialists
version: Pre-revision (historical; noted as no longer existing in current form)
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.068798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE Board January 1971 Directive Individual Engineer Code Applicability — Firms A and B Engineers
type: Business-FormNon-InfluenceonIndividualEthicsCodeConformanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firms A and B submitted qualifications representing prime capability while planning to rely entirely on Engineer X; the organizational form of the firms could not shield individual engineers from ethics code obligations regarding honest qualification representation and substantive prime contribution.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineers within Firms A and B who had power of decision or effective recommendation
constraintclass: Business-Form Non-Influence on Individual Ethics Code Conformance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineers within Firms A and B who had the power of decision or effective recommendation regarding the procurement response were individually bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics regardless of the corporate or firm form through which services were delivered; the business form of Firms A and B could not negate or influence their individual obligation to conform to the Code.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Board of Directors Directive, January 1971; NSPE Code of Ethics (all pertinent sections)
sourcetext: business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the code
temporalscope: Throughout the procurement process and submission of qualifications
textreferences: business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the code
textreferences: we treat the case before us as involving actions of engineers in the governmental agency and consulting firms in situations in which the engineer(s) had the power of decision or effective recommendation as to the procedure followed
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.083535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE Board January 1971 Directive Individual Engineer Code Applicability — Government Agency Engineers
type: Business-FormNon-InfluenceonIndividualEthicsCodeConformanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The government agency's decision to contact Engineer X directly outside the original solicitation list required individual engineers within the agency to exercise judgment consistent with the Code of Ethics, not merely institutional procurement procedures.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineers within the government agency who had power of decision or effective recommendation
constraintclass: Business-Form Non-Influence on Individual Ethics Code Conformance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineers within the government agency who had the power of decision or effective recommendation regarding the procurement process were individually bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics; the governmental agency form could not negate or influence their individual obligation to conform to the Code in conducting the procurement.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:50:54.112733+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Board of Directors Directive, January 1971; NSPE Code of Ethics (all pertinent sections)
sourcetext: Although this note refers to corporations rather than government agencies or firms, its premise applies to all forms of organizations, including governmental agencies and consulting firms.
temporalscope: Throughout the procurement process
textreferences: Although this note refers to corporations rather than government agencies or firms, its premise applies to all forms of organizations, including governmental agencies and consulting firms.
textreferences: we treat the case before us as involving actions of engineers in the governmental agency and consulting firms in situations in which the engineer(s) had the power of decision or effective recommendation as to the procedure followed
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.083677
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE Board of Directors directive before Discussion section analysis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: This point has now been noted by action of the NSPE Board of Directors in its directive adopted in January 1971 to include the following note on each printing of the Code of Ethics
from entity text: NSPE Board of Directors directive
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Discussion section analysis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Discussion section analysis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE Code Individual Applicability — Firms A and B Engineer Conduct
type: RegulatoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The NSPE Board of Directors clarified that the NSPE Code of Ethics applies to individual engineers within firms and government agencies, not to the organizations themselves — meaning the individual engineers at Firms A and B who prepared and submitted the misleading qualification statements bear personal ethical responsibility.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Individual engineers within Firms A and B
constraintclass: Regulatory Constraint
constraintstatement: The NSPE Code of Ethics applies to the individual engineers within Firms A and B who made the decision to submit qualification statements misrepresenting the nominal nature of their firms' contributions, not to the corporate entities as such — constraining those individual engineers to comply with all Code provisions regardless of their firms' business decisions.
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:42:21.436720+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Board of Directors Directive (January 1971) — Code applies to individual engineers, not organizations
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X...
temporalscope: Throughout the procurement process
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X...
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.079963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Engineer Competence Scope
type: EngineerCompetenceScopeStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Competence Scope Standard
sourcetext: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X
textreferences: Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X
usedby: Government agency in assessing whether Engineer X could serve as prime professional; ethical analysis of whether Firms A and B were competent to serve as prime
usedincontext: The case establishes that the work is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from other firms, grounding the agency's judgment that Engineer X alone is qualified to serve as prime professional
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.067281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics
type: EngineerSolicitationandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional
textreferences: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional
usedby: Engineer X in deciding how to respond to the government agency's direct contact
usedincontext: Engineer X is placed in the position of responding to a government solicitation that arose because two competing firms named him as their key consultant; the ethics of his response — submitting qualifications without committing to serve as prime — must be evaluated against professional competition norms
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Qualification Representation Obligations
type: QualificationRepresentationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification Representation Standard
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X...to provide the highly specialized expertise
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X...to provide the highly specialized expertise
textreferences: these other services would be nominal in nature
usedby: Government agency evaluating Firms A and B; ethical analysis of Firms A and B's conduct
usedincontext: Firms A and B represented to the government agency that they had arranged for Engineer X's specialized expertise, implying they could deliver the full scope of services, when in actuality their own contribution would be nominal — raising questions about honest representation of qualifications
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Prime Professional Responsibility Standard - Nominal Contribution Prohibition
type: PrimeProfessionalResponsibilityStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering procurement norms
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Prime Professional Responsibility Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Prime Professional Responsibility Standard
sourcetext: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X
textreferences: these other services would be nominal in nature
usedby: Government agency in evaluating Firms A and B's proposed arrangements; ethical analysis of whether Firms A and B acted properly
usedincontext: The government agency concluded that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, as their services would be nominal while Engineer X would provide all substantive specialized expertise — the core ethical issue driving the agency's decision to contact Engineer X directly
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066995
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Public Procurement Fairness Standard - Out-of-List Contact
type: PublicProcurementFairnessStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Professional engineering procurement norms; federal and state A/E selection frameworks
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Procurement Fairness Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Procurement Fairness Standard
sourcetext: The firm of Engineer X was not on the original list of those contacted
textreferences: The firm of Engineer X was not on the original list of those contacted
textreferences: the government agency...then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant
usedby: Government agency in deciding to contact Engineer X directly
usedincontext: The government agency's decision to contact Engineer X — a firm not on the original solicitation list — raises questions about equitable treatment of all firms in the procurement process and whether bypassing the original list is consistent with fair procurement norms
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law - Government Agency Solicitation Process
type: Qualification-BasedSelectionProcurementLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.83
createdby: Federal and state A/E selection statutes
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:32:47.840069+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
sourcetext: A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability to provide services in a highly specialized area of technical knowledge
textreferences: A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability to provide services in a highly specialized area of technical knowledge
usedby: Government agency in structuring its procurement; Engineer X in responding to the solicitation
usedincontext: The government agency's process of contacting 15 firms, soliciting statements of expertise and capability, and evaluating qualifications reflects a qualification-based selection framework; the legal and ethical rules governing this process constrain both the agency's and Engineer X's conduct
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.067426
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Qualifications Submission Received
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Engineer_X_Conflict_Of_Interest_Constraint
activates constraint: Fair_Competition_Constraint
activates constraint: Procurement_Integrity_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer X is now formally in the procurement process despite never being on the original solicitation list; the competitive field has been informally expanded; the original 8 respondents' positions are potentially affected by Engineer X's entry.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Determine_Whether_Expanded_Pool_Requires_Formal_Process
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Evaluate_Engineer_X_Qualifications_Fairly
creates obligation: Engineer_X_Obligation_To_Clarify_His_Competitive_Position_Relative_To_Firms_A_And_B
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Phase 5. Following agency's direct contact with Engineer X
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: medium
comment: Following the agency's direct contact with Engineer X, his submission of qualifications was received by the agency, formally placing his credentials in the procurement record. This outcome created a new competitive situation in which an originally excluded party was now a formal candidate.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017544
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017602
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021630
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.020386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.020621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.021312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Firm A or B to offer its services as the prime professional under the stated circumstances?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019027
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Engineer X have an independent ethical obligation to disclose to the government agency, when submitting his qualifications in response to the direct solicitation, that he had already made informal arrangements with both Firms A and B to serve as their subconsultant — and does the omission of that disclosure in his ambiguous response itself raise a honesty concern?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019195
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Would the ethical analysis change if Firms A and B had been transparent with the agency from the outset — explicitly stating in their qualification submissions that Engineer X would perform all specialized technical work and that their own contribution would be nominal — rather than implying they possessed the requisite expertise themselves?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019247
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Is there a threshold at which a firm's reliance on a subconsultant for specialized work becomes ethically permissible — for example, where the prime firm provides genuine project management, coordination, or local regulatory expertise — and if so, how should that threshold be calibrated in highly specialized technical procurements where the nominal services are truly de minimis?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does Engineer X bear any moral responsibility for the competitive disruption caused by his willingness to enter informal arrangements with two competing firms simultaneously, and should the Code of Ethics require engineers who serve as specialist subconsultants to limit such parallel arrangements in order to preserve fairness in competitive procurement?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Was it consistent with the Code of Ethics for the agency to contact Engineer X directly rather than through Firms A or B as the prime professional?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Free and Open Competition in specialized procurement — which supports the agency's right to bypass Firms A and B and contact Engineer X directly — conflict with the Specialist Non-Supplanting Direct Engagement Permissibility principle, given that Engineer X had already made informal arrangements with those firms, and at what point do those informal arrangements create a relational obligation strong enough to constrain the agency's independent procurement judgment?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019682
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Competence Prerequisite for Engagement Acceptance principle — which condemns Firms A and B for offering prime services they cannot substantively deliver — conflict with the Specialist Engagement Obligation Contextual Application principle, which recognizes that prime firms may legitimately engage specialists to fill competence gaps, and how should the Code distinguish between a legitimate prime-subconsultant structure and an ethically impermissible broker-only interposition?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Broker-Only Role Transparency Obligation of Firms A and B — which requires honest disclosure of their actual limited contribution — conflict with the Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering principle when applied to the agency's response, in that the agency's corrective action of bypassing the original list and directly soliciting Engineer X, while restoring procurement integrity, may itself set a precedent that discourages firms from honestly disclosing specialist reliance for fear of being cut out of the procurement entirely?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Ethics Code Individual-Person Applicability principle — which holds individual engineers within firms and agencies personally accountable to the Code — conflict with the Fairness in Professional Competition principle when applied to Engineer X, in that holding him individually responsible for the competitive consequences of his parallel informal arrangements with competing firms may impose a burden the Code was not designed to place on specialist engineers who are sought out by multiple competing primes without their own solicitation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019915
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 3
question text: Would it be ethical for Engineer X or his firm to accept the contract under the stated circumstances?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Firms A and B violate a categorical duty of honest representation by submitting qualifications that implied substantive prime capability while knowing their actual contribution would be nominal, regardless of whether the agency was ultimately harmed?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.020289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the broker-only prime structure proposed by Firms A and B produce net harm to the public interest by interposing a nominally contributing intermediary between the government agency and the most qualified expert, thereby increasing cost, reducing accountability, and distorting the competitive procurement process?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.020353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Firms A and B demonstrate the professional integrity expected of engineering firms by attempting to position themselves as prime professionals in a domain where they possessed no substantive expertise, or does this conduct reflect a failure of the virtues of honesty, competence, and professional humility?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.020438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer X act with the professional integrity and transparency expected of a recognized expert by submitting qualifications to the agency without definitively disclosing or resolving his prior informal arrangements with Firms A and B, and does this ambiguity reflect a virtue deficit in candor even if it does not rise to a formal ethical violation?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.020490
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Firms A and B had transparently disclosed to the agency at the outset that they intended to rely entirely on Engineer X for the specialized technical work and would themselves contribute only nominal administrative services, would their solicitation responses have been ethically permissible, or would the substantive contribution threshold failure have remained a disqualifying ethical defect regardless of disclosure?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.020542
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If the government agency had remained bound by its original solicitation list and declined to contact Engineer X directly, what ethical obligations would have fallen on Engineer X upon learning that two competing firms were each representing him as their exclusive technical resource — and would he have been obligated to proactively notify the agency or withdraw from both arrangements?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.020591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If Engineer X had declined the agency's direct solicitation out of loyalty to his prior informal arrangements with Firms A and B, would that decision have served the public interest, and would the ethical analysis of Firms A and B's conduct have changed — or would their nominal prime proposals have remained ethically impermissible regardless of Engineer X's choice?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.019301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If one or more of the other six affirmative respondents — firms not relying on Engineer X — had been technically capable of performing the specialized work independently, would the agency's decision to bypass the original solicitation list and contact Engineer X directly still have been ethically justified, or does the justification depend specifically on the finding that no responding firm could make a substantial independent contribution?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.020671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017631
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017993
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018329
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.018401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017767
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017881
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T12:13:08.017937
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Solicitation Pool Formed
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Equitable_Solicitation_Constraint
activates constraint: Fair_Competition_Constraint
causes state change: A bounded competitive field is established; Engineer X's firm is structurally absent from the formal process; the agency's selection options are implicitly constrained to the 15 solicited firms.
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Evaluate_Responses_Objectively
creates obligation: Agency_Obligation_To_Solicit_Fairly
emergency status: low
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Phase 1. Prior to solicitation issuance
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: low
comment: A pool of 15 engineering firms was assembled by the agency as the universe of candidates eligible to respond to the specialized technical project solicitation. This pool's composition inherently excluded Engineer X's firm, setting the stage for later procedural complications.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.065755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

agency contacting Engineer X before any definite steps to retain Firm A or Firm B
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: neither Firm A nor Firm B had any commitment or expectation of being awarded the contract at the time the agency contacted Engineer X
from entity text: agency contacting Engineer X
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: any definite steps to retain Firm A or Firm B
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: any definite steps to retain Firm A or Firm B
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

agency contacting Engineer X directly before Engineer X submitting qualifications
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional
from entity text: agency contacting Engineer X directly
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer X submitting qualifications
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer X submitting qualifications
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

agency solicitation of 15 firms before 8 firms responding affirmatively
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest... Eight firms responded affirmatively.
from entity text: agency solicitation of 15 firms
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: 8 firms responding affirmatively
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: 8 firms responding affirmatively
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

agency solicitation of 15 firms before Engineer X's firm being contacted
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: The firm of Engineer X was not on the original list of those contacted... the agency then contacted Engineer X
from entity text: agency solicitation of 15 firms
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer X's firm being contacted
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer X s firm being contacted
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.066304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.729817+00:00
value: The principle does not override the permissibility finding but adds a layer of relational due diligence — Engineer X must satisfy himself that acceptance does not breach prior commitments, even if it does not violate the formal supplanting prohibition.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.731430+00:00
value: The agency's independent judgment that the primes would not make a substantial contribution, combined with Engineer X's passive response to agency-initiated contact, resolves the tension in favor of permissibility of the direct engagement.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.731320+00:00
value: The definite steps threshold resolves the apparent tension between the supplanting prohibition and Engineer X's acceptance of the direct engagement — because no definite steps had been taken toward either firm, no supplanting occurred.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.733813+00:00
value: The principle does not override the permissibility finding but adds a layer of relational due diligence — Engineer X must satisfy himself that acceptance does not breach prior commitments, even if it does not violate the formal supplanting prohibition.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.733954+00:00
value: The principle does not override the permissibility finding but adds a layer of relational due diligence — Engineer X must satisfy himself that acceptance does not breach prior commitments, even if it does not violate the formal supplanting prohibition.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.734069+00:00
value: Permissibility is established by the absence of definite steps toward the competing firms; the residual obligation to review prior arrangements with Firms A and B is noted as a separate prudential consideration.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.732679+00:00
value: The principle does not override the permissibility finding but adds a layer of relational due diligence — Engineer X must satisfy himself that acceptance does not breach prior commitments, even if it does not violate the formal supplanting prohibition.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.732774+00:00
value: Honesty in responding to a legitimate agency inquiry takes precedence; Engineer X's measured response was both honest and appropriately cautious.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.730062+00:00
value: Permissibility is established by the absence of definite steps toward the competing firms; the residual obligation to review prior arrangements with Firms A and B is noted as a separate prudential consideration.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.732560+00:00
value: The definite steps threshold resolves the apparent tension between the supplanting prohibition and Engineer X's acceptance of the direct engagement — because no definite steps had been taken toward either firm, no supplanting occurred.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.733641+00:00
value: No tension — the principle is applied as a threshold dispositional rule that clears the way for substantive ethics analysis of individual conduct.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.730265+00:00
value: Transparency and faithful agency to the procuring authority override the firms' commercial interest in capturing the prime contract role when their contribution would be purely nominal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.731564+00:00
value: Transparency and faithful agency to the procuring authority override the firms' commercial interest in capturing the prime contract role when their contribution would be purely nominal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.734137+00:00
value: Transparency and faithful agency to the procuring authority override the firms' commercial interest in capturing the prime contract role when their contribution would be purely nominal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.732863+00:00
value: Honesty in professional representations overrides competitive interest; the firm's obligation to accurately characterize its contribution is not diminished by competitive pressure to respond affirmatively.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.731039+00:00
value: The specialist engagement provision is read in the context of the full competence section, requiring that the prime be performing substantial services before the specialist engagement authorization applies.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.734551+00:00
value: The specialist engagement provision is read in the context of the full competence section, requiring that the prime be performing substantial services before the specialist engagement authorization applies.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.733072+00:00
value: No tension — the competence prerequisite and the substantive contribution threshold operate in concert to prohibit acceptance of a prime role where the firm can only broker.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.732331+00:00
value: The specialist engagement provision is read in the context of the full competence section, requiring that the prime be performing substantial services before the specialist engagement authorization applies.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.730377+00:00
value: Transparency and faithful agency to the procuring authority override the firms' commercial interest in capturing the prime contract role when their contribution would be purely nominal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.731724+00:00
value: Transparency and faithful agency to the procuring authority override the firms' commercial interest in capturing the prime contract role when their contribution would be purely nominal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.734200+00:00
value: Transparency and faithful agency to the procuring authority override the firms' commercial interest in capturing the prime contract role when their contribution would be purely nominal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.732970+00:00
value: Honesty in professional representations overrides competitive interest; the firm's obligation to accurately characterize its contribution is not diminished by competitive pressure.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.731172+00:00
value: The specialist engagement provision is read in the context of the full competence section, requiring that the prime be performing substantial services before the specialist engagement authorization applies.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.734613+00:00
value: The specialist engagement provision is read in the context of the full competence section, requiring that the prime be performing substantial services before the specialist engagement authorization applies.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.733158+00:00
value: No tension — the competence prerequisite and the substantive contribution threshold operate in concert to prohibit acceptance of a prime role where the firm can only broker.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.732466+00:00
value: The specialist engagement provision is read in the context of the full competence section, requiring that the prime be performing substantial services before the specialist engagement authorization applies.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.730879+00:00
value: The contextual calibration principle prevents mechanical rejection of non-technical contributions while the misrepresentation prohibition prevents pretextual invocation of geographic factors to disguise a brokerage-only role.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.733383+00:00
value: The deception avoidance obligation applies to omissions and framings that create false impressions, not only to affirmative misstatements; the firms' omission of the nominal character of their services was ethically equivalent to an affirmative misrepresentation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.732201+00:00
value: The deception avoidance obligation applies to omissions and framings that create false impressions, not only to affirmative misstatements; the firms' omission of the nominal character of their services was ethically equivalent to an affirmative misrepresentation.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.730550+00:00
value: The obligation to recommend direct specialist engagement overrides competitive self-interest in retaining the prime role when the firm's contribution would be purely nominal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.731856+00:00
value: The obligation to recommend direct specialist engagement overrides competitive self-interest in retaining the prime role when the firm's contribution would be purely nominal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.730729+00:00
value: Fairness in competition requires honest representation of capabilities; competitive advantage obtained through misrepresentation of substantive contribution is not a legitimate form of competition.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.731957+00:00
value: Honesty in professional representations is not subject to competitive pressure exceptions; the obligation to accurately represent capabilities applies regardless of the competitive stakes.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.734389+00:00
value: Fairness in competition requires honest representation of capabilities; competitive advantage obtained through misrepresentation of substantive contribution is not a legitimate form of competition.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.734484+00:00
value: The contextual calibration principle prevents mechanical rejection of non-technical contributions while the misrepresentation prohibition prevents pretextual invocation of geographic factors to disguise a brokerage-only role.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.733884+00:00
value: Professional competence obligations are not diminished by the availability of a competent sub-consultant; the prime firm must itself be capable of making a substantial contribution to the work.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.732083+00:00
value: Professional competence obligations are not diminished by the availability of a competent sub-consultant; the prime firm must itself be capable of making a substantial contribution to the work.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.733494+00:00
value: The contextual calibration principle prevents mechanical rejection of non-technical contributions while the misrepresentation prohibition prevents pretextual invocation of geographic factors to disguise a brokerage-only role.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.734298+00:00
value: The obligation to recommend direct specialist engagement overrides competitive self-interest in retaining the prime role when the firm's contribution would be purely nominal.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.733258+00:00
value: The ethical obligation to honestly assess and represent one's substantive contribution overrides competitive and business development incentives to respond affirmatively to specialized solicitations.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T03:54:25.733723+00:00
value: The agency's independent procurement judgment is deemed consistent with fairness and procurement integrity because no binding commitment had been made to any respondent and the agency acted in the public interest in securing the most qualified specialist.

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm A responded affirmatively to the government solicitation stating it had arranged Engineer X as a specialized sub-consultant and would itself furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal in nature

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B made representations to the government agency that they had arranged Engineer X as a sub-consultant and would furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal — constituting a false assurance of substantive capability

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B lacked the substantive contribution threshold required to ethically accept a prime contract role in this highly specialized procurement, as their entire technical contribution depended on Engineer X and their own services would be nominal

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The nominal prime structure proposed by Firms A and B — in which they would serve as prime contractors while contributing only nominal services and routing all substantive technical work to Engineer X — threatened the integrity of the public procurement process

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The case illustrates the boundary of permissible competitive conduct: while firms may legitimately compete for contracts by assembling teams with specialist sub-consultants, the ethical boundary is crossed when the firm's own contribution is nominal

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: By responding affirmatively to the government solicitation while intending only a nominal role, Firms A and B gained an unfair competitive advantage over other firms that might have responded honestly about their capabilities or declined to respond

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B used framing in their solicitation responses that created a false impression of substantive team capability — representing that they would furnish 'all other services' while omitting that those services were nominal in nature

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion finds that Firms A and B, whose only substantive service would have been to arrange for Engineer X's services, should not have offered to undertake the prime contract and instead should have recommended to the agency that it directly engage Engineer X

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion instructs that in defining 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm B responded affirmatively to the government solicitation stating it had arranged Engineer X as a specialized sub-consultant and would itself furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal in nature

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B made representations to the government agency that they had arranged Engineer X as a sub-consultant and would furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B lacked the substantive contribution threshold required to ethically accept a prime contract role in this highly specialized procurement

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The nominal prime structure proposed by Firms A and B — in which they would serve as prime contractors while contributing only nominal services and routing all substantive technical work to Engineer X — threatened the integrity of the public procurement process

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: By responding affirmatively to the government solicitation while intending only a nominal role, Firms A and B gained an unfair competitive advantage over other firms

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B used framing in their solicitation responses that created a false impression of substantive team capability

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion finds that Firms A and B, whose only substantive service would have been to arrange for Engineer X's services, should not have offered to undertake the prime contract and instead should have recommended to the agency that it directly engage Engineer X

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion instructs that in defining 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X, having been arranged as sub-consultant by Firms A and B, responded to the government agency's independent direct solicitation by submitting his qualifications — an action that was ethically permissible because the agency independently initiated the contact

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion finds no ethical bar to the agency's direct contact with Engineer X after learning from two separate sources that he was a highly qualified specialist — the agency was not bound to select from among the eight responding firms

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion finds no grounds in the code that would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis when desired by the client, given that no definite steps had been taken toward retaining either Firm A or Firm B

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion applies the 'definite steps' threshold from Cases 62-10 and 62-18 to find that neither Firm A nor Firm B had any commitment or expectation of being awarded the contract at the time the agency contacted Engineer X — and therefore the supplanting prohibition was not triggered

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion notes that Engineer X should consider carefully whether accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B — acknowledging that prior sub-consultant arrangements with competing firms create relational obligations that must be reviewed before independent acceptance

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X responded to the government agency's direct solicitation by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitively whether he would be willing to undertake the work as prime professional — an honest, measured response that acknowledged uncertainty

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion disposes of the threshold question of whether the ethics code applies to the government agency and consulting firms by establishing that the code applies to the individual engineers within those organizations who had the power of decision or effective recommendation

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion affirms that the code's provision permitting a prime professional to retain specialists is proper and valuable, but only when the prime is itself performing substantial services — the specialist engagement provision is not a license for broker-only prime arrangements

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion finds no ethical bar to the agency's direct contact with Engineer X after learning from two separate sources that he was a highly qualified specialist — the agency was not bound to select from among the eight responding firms

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion disposes of the threshold question of whether the ethics code applies to the government agency and consulting firms by establishing that the code applies to the individual engineers within those organizations who had the power of decision or effective recommendation

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B, recognizing that the entire substantive technical work fell within Engineer X's expertise and that their own contributions would be nominal, were obligated to transparently disclose their brokerage-only role to the government agency and recommend direct engagement of Engineer X

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion finds that Firms A and B, whose only substantive service would have been to arrange for Engineer X's services, should not have offered to undertake the prime contract and instead should have recommended to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion identifies the hypothetical compliant path: if Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they would have acted appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X as a sub-consultant

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion instructs that in defining 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors — recognizing that non-technical contributions may count toward the substantiality threshold

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion affirms that the code's provision permitting a prime professional to retain specialists is proper and valuable, but only when the prime is itself performing substantial services

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X responded to the government agency's direct solicitation by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitively whether he would be willing to undertake the work as prime professional — an honest, measured response

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion disposes of the threshold question of whether the ethics code applies to the government agency and consulting firms by establishing that the code applies to the individual engineers within those organizations who had the power of decision or effective recommendation

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion finds no ethical bar to the agency's direct contact with Engineer X after learning from two separate sources that he was a highly qualified specialist — the agency was not bound to select from among the eight responding firms

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B made representations to the government agency that they had arranged Engineer X as a sub-consultant and would furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal — constituting a false assurance of substantive capability

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B used framing in their solicitation responses that created a false impression of substantive team capability — representing that they would furnish 'all other services' while omitting that those services were nominal in nature

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B made representations to the government agency that they had arranged Engineer X as a sub-consultant and would furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal — constituting a false assurance of substantive capability

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: By responding affirmatively to the government solicitation while intending only a nominal role, Firms A and B gained an unfair competitive advantage over other firms that might have responded honestly about their capabilities or declined to respond

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The nominal prime structure proposed by Firms A and B — in which they would serve as prime contractors while contributing only nominal services and routing all substantive technical work to Engineer X — threatened the integrity of the public procurement process

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion affirms that the code's provision permitting a prime professional to retain specialists is proper and valuable, but only when the prime is itself performing substantial services — the specialist engagement provision is not a license for broker-only prime arrangements

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion affirms that the code's provision permitting a prime professional to retain specialists is proper and valuable, but only when the prime is itself performing substantial services — the specialist engagement provision is not a license for broker-only prime arrangements

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm A responded affirmatively to the government solicitation stating it had arranged Engineer X as a specialized sub-consultant and would itself furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal in nature

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B made representations to the government agency that they had arranged Engineer X as a sub-consultant and would furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal — constituting a false assurance of substantive capability

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firm B responded affirmatively to the government solicitation stating it had arranged Engineer X as a specialized sub-consultant and would itself furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal in nature

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B made representations to the government agency that they had arranged Engineer X as a sub-consultant and would furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to refrain from representing themselves as capable prime contractors when their actual contribution would be nominal

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B made representations to the government agency that they had arranged Engineer X as a sub-consultant and would furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal — constituting a false assurance of substantive capability

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The nominal prime structure proposed by Firms A and B — in which they would serve as prime contractors while contributing only nominal services and routing all substantive technical work to Engineer X — threatened the integrity of the public procurement process

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B made representations to the government agency that they had arranged Engineer X as a sub-consultant and would furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal — constituting a false assurance of substantive capability

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B used framing in their solicitation responses that created a false impression of substantive team capability — representing that they would furnish 'all other services' while omitting that those services were nominal in nature

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B lacked the substantive contribution threshold required to ethically accept a prime contract role in this highly specialized procurement, as their entire technical contribution depended on Engineer X and their own services would be nominal

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B lacked the substantive contribution threshold required to ethically accept a prime contract role in this highly specialized procurement, as their entire technical contribution depended on Engineer X and their own services would be nominal

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B lacked the substantive contribution threshold required to ethically accept a prime contract role in this highly specialized procurement, as their entire technical contribution depended on Engineer X and their own services would be nominal

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion instructs that in defining 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion identifies the hypothetical compliant path: if Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they would have acted appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X as a sub-consultant

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion instructs that in defining 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion finds that Firms A and B, whose only substantive service would have been to arrange for Engineer X's services, should not have offered to undertake the prime contract and instead should have recommended to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion finds that Firms A and B, whose only substantive service would have been to arrange for Engineer X's services, should not have offered to undertake the prime contract and instead should have recommended to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion finds that Firms A and B, whose only substantive service would have been to arrange for Engineer X's services, should not have offered to undertake the prime contract and instead should have recommended to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B, recognizing that the entire substantive technical work fell within Engineer X's expertise and that their own contributions would be nominal, were obligated to transparently disclose their brokerage-only role to the government agency and recommend direct engagement of Engineer X

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X, having been arranged as sub-consultant by Firms A and B, responded to the government agency's independent direct solicitation by submitting his qualifications — an action that was ethically permissible because the agency independently initiated the contact

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion finds no grounds in the code that would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis when desired by the client, given that no definite steps had been taken toward retaining either Firm A or Firm B

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion applies the 'definite steps' threshold from Cases 62-10 and 62-18 to find that neither Firm A nor Firm B had any commitment or expectation of being awarded the contract at the time the agency contacted Engineer X — and therefore the supplanting prohibition was not triggered

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion notes that Engineer X should consider carefully whether accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B — acknowledging that prior sub-consultant arrangements with competing firms create relational obligations that must be reviewed before independent acceptance

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X responded to the government agency's direct solicitation by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitively whether he would be willing to undertake the work as prime professional — an honest, measured response

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firm A responded affirmatively to the government solicitation stating it had arranged Engineer X as a specialized sub-consultant and would itself furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal in nature

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B lacked the substantive contribution threshold required to ethically accept a prime contract role in this highly specialized procurement, as their entire technical contribution depended on Engineer X and their own services would be nominal

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B were obligated to conduct themselves honorably and fairly in the government procurement process, which required not interposing themselves as nominal prime contractors to gain competitive advantage

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to ensure their firms would make a substantive — not merely nominal — technical contribution commensurate with the prime contractor role

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within Firm A were obligated to read the specialist-retention provision of Section 6 in context of the full competence requirement, recognizing that the provision does not permit accepting a prime role when the firm's only substantive contribution would be to arrange for a specialist

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firm B responded affirmatively to the government solicitation stating it had arranged Engineer X as a specialized sub-consultant and would itself furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal in nature

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firm B was obligated to ensure it would make a substantive technical contribution commensurate with a prime contractor role before accepting that role; having only nominal services to offer, Firm B should have declined the prime role

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firm B was obligated to disclose to the government agency that its own contribution would be nominal and to recommend that the agency engage Engineer X directly, rather than interposing itself as a nominal prime contractor.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B were obligated to refrain from misrepresenting their qualifications and capability in the government solicitation by implying they would furnish substantive services when those services would in fact be nominal.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to refrain from representing themselves as capable prime contractors when their actual contribution would be nominal

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to conduct an honest and rigorous self-assessment of their firms' technical competence in the highly specialized domain before accepting the prime contract role

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within Firms A and B, recognizing that their only substantive service would be to arrange for Engineer X's services, were obligated to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firm A was obligated to disclose to the government agency that its own contribution would be nominal and to recommend that the agency engage Engineer X directly, rather than interposing itself as a nominal prime contractor.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to assess whether their proposed contributions — including any geographic, local-conditions familiarity, or other contextual benefits — met the substantiality threshold before offering to serve as prime

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B were obligated to represent their qualifications and capability honestly in their solicitation responses

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B were obligated to refrain from making statements in their solicitation responses that were technically true but designed to mislead the agency

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B were obligated to conduct themselves honorably and fairly in the government procurement process

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to ensure their firms would make a substantive — not merely nominal — technical contribution commensurate with the prime contractor role

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within Firm B were obligated to read the specialist-retention provision of Section 6 in context of the full competence requirement, recognizing that the provision does not permit accepting a prime role when the firm's only substantive contribution would be to arrange for a specialist

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X was obligated to disclose to the government agency the existence of his prior sub-consultant arrangements with both Firms A and B when submitting qualifications for direct prime engagement

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X was obligated to disclose to the government agency, when submitting his qualifications for direct prime engagement, the existence of his prior sub-consultant arrangements with both Firms A and B

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X was entitled to recognize that responding to the government agency's direct solicitation did not constitute improper supplanting of Firms A or B, because the agency independently initiated the contact based on its own determination of his qualifications

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X was obligated to verify whether the supplanting prohibition was triggered before accepting the direct engagement — specifically, whether either Firm A or Firm B had been informed by the agency that they were selected to negotiate

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B were obligated to refrain from misrepresenting their qualifications and capability in the government solicitation by implying they would furnish substantive services when those services would in fact be nominal.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X was obligated to carefully consider whether accepting the direct prime contract from the government agency would violate any arrangement he had made with Firms A or B as part of the sub-consultant arrangements

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The Discussion disposes of the threshold question of whether the ethics code applies to the government agency and consulting firms by establishing that the code applies to the individual engineers within those organizations who had the power of decision or effective recommendation

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within the government agency were entitled — and obligated to recognize their authority — to make direct contact with Engineer X after learning from two separate sources of his specialized qualifications, without being bound by the prior expression-of-interest responses

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within the government agency and within Firms A and B who had the power of decision or effective recommendation were personally obligated to comply with the ethics code, regardless of the organizational form (governmental agency or consulting firm)

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B, recognizing that the entire substantive technical work fell within Engineer X's expertise and that their own contributions would be nominal, were obligated to transparently disclose their brokerage-only role to the government agency and recommend direct engagement of Engineer X

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B, recognizing that the entire substantive technical work fell within Engineer X's expertise and that their own contributions would be nominal, were obligated to transparently disclose their brokerage-only role to the government agency

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B, recognizing that the entire substantive technical work fell within Engineer X's expertise and that their own contributions would be nominal, were obligated to transparently disclose their brokerage-only role to the government agency

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Had Firms A and B proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities — including geographic, local-conditions, or other contextual contributions — they would have satisfied the substantiality threshold and acted appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X as a sub-consultant

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to refrain from representing themselves as capable prime contractors when their actual contribution would be nominal — limited to brokerage and administrative coordination — while all substantive technical work would be performed by Engineer X

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to conduct an honest and rigorous self-assessment of their firms' technical competence in the highly specialized domain before accepting the prime contract role

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within Firms A and B, recognizing that their only substantive service would be to arrange for Engineer X's services, were obligated to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better-qualified engineer

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to assess whether their proposed contributions — including any geographic, local-conditions familiarity, or other contextual benefits — met the substantiality threshold before offering to serve as prime

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B were obligated to represent their qualifications and capability honestly in their solicitation responses, including accurately characterizing the nominal nature of their own technical contribution

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Firms A and B were obligated to refrain from making statements in their solicitation responses that were technically true (they had arranged Engineer X and would furnish other services) but designed to mislead the agency

Agency Direct Expert Solicitation Outside Original List
type: Agency-InitiatedDirectExpertSolicitationOutsideOriginalListState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From agency's determination that Firms A and B were acting as brokers through Engineer X's response
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: Government agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: We perceive no reason why it should not make direct contact with Engineer X once having learned from two separate sources that he was a highly qualified specialist
stateclass: Agency-Initiated Direct Expert Solicitation Outside Original List State
subject: Government agency's direct contact with Engineer X after determining responding firms would not contribute substantially
terminatedby: Engineer X's submission of qualifications (ambiguous prime role acceptance)
textreferences: The mere fact that some eight firms had responded to the invitation for an expression of interest and qualification did not bind the agency to select one of those firms
textreferences: We perceive no reason why it should not make direct contact with Engineer X once having learned from two separate sources that he was a highly qualified specialist
triggeringevent: Agency learned from two separate sources that Engineer X was a highly qualified specialist; determined neither responding firm would contribute substantially
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.071207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Agency Direct Solicitation of Engineer X Outside Original List
type: Agency-InitiatedDirectExpertSolicitationOutsideOriginalListState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the agency's determination that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution through Engineer X's submission of qualifications
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: Government Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:33:15.517940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:33:15.517940+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The firm of Engineer X was not on the original list of those contacted.
stateclass: Agency-Initiated Direct Expert Solicitation Outside Original List State
subject: Government agency's direct contact with Engineer X
terminatedby: Engineer X submitting qualifications without definitive commitment
textreferences: The firm of Engineer X was not on the original list of those contacted.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract and asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account.
triggeringevent: Agency concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution and directly contacting Engineer X
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.068063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Competence Prerequisite for Engagement Acceptance Applied to Firms A and B
type: ProfessionalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
appliedto: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
balancingwith: Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist-Direct Referral Obligation
balancingwith: Substantive Contribution Threshold as Ethical Prerequisite for Prime Engagement
concept category: Capability
concreteexpression: The Discussion applies the competence prerequisite to find that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract when their only substantive service would be to arrange for Engineer X's services — because the code precludes an engineer from accepting an engineering engagement unless qualified to perform the services involved.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, professional competence requires not merely that a firm hold a license, but that it be genuinely capable of performing the substantive engineering services for which it is accepting prime responsibility — a brokerage-only role does not satisfy the competence prerequisite.
invokedby: Ethics Board applying Section 6 of the Code
principleclass: Professional Competence
sourcetext: The first part of Section 6 of the code precludes an engineer from accepting an engineering engagement unless qualified to perform the services involved.
tensionresolution: No tension — the competence prerequisite and the substantive contribution threshold operate in concert to prohibit acceptance of a prime role where the firm can only broker.
textreferences: The first part of Section 6 of the code precludes an engineer from accepting an engineering engagement unless qualified to perform the services involved.
textreferences: it appears that Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor to the project.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.080286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Competitive Procurement Integrity Context
type: CompetitiveProcurementPublicInterestAlignmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From initial solicitation through contract award
affectedparties: All 15 solicited firms
affectedparties: Eight responding firms
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Government Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:33:15.517940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:33:15.517940+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability to provide services in a highly specialized area of technical knowledge.
stateclass: Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment State
subject: The government agency's solicitation process for specialized engineering services
terminatedby: Contract award or procurement cancellation
textreferences: A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability to provide services in a highly specialized area of technical knowledge.
triggeringevent: Government agency issuing solicitation to 15 firms for highly specialized technical services
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.068506
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Prior Informal Commitments to Competing Firms
type: ExpertPriorInformalCommitmentConflictingwithDirectAgencySolicitationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer X made arrangements with Firms A and B through the resolution of the procurement
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: Government Agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:33:15.517940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:33:15.517940+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X
stateclass: Expert Prior Informal Commitment Conflicting with Direct Agency Solicitation State
subject: Engineer X's prior arrangements with Firms A and B versus direct agency solicitation
terminatedby: Unresolved in the case text — Engineer X submitted qualifications without definitive commitment
textreferences: The government agency...contacted Engineer X...asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X
triggeringevent: Engineer X making arrangements with both Firm A and Firm B to serve as subconsultant, followed by direct agency solicitation to serve as prime
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.071352
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Prime Substantiality Threshold Determination
type: PrimeEngineerSubstantialityThresholdDeterminationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Firm A's submission of qualifications through the agency's determination that Firm A would contribute nominally
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Firm A engineers
affectedparties: Government agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor
stateclass: Prime Engineer Substantiality Threshold Determination State
subject: Firm A's proposed prime role with Engineer X as sole technical contributor
terminatedby: Agency determination that Firm A would not make a substantial contribution; agency direct contact with Engineer X
textreferences: Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor
textreferences: Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X
triggeringevent: Firm A proposed to serve as prime professional while arranging for Engineer X to provide all technical services
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.070432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Prime Substantiality Threshold Determination
type: PrimeEngineerSubstantialityThresholdDeterminationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Firm B's submission of qualifications through the agency's determination that Firm B would contribute nominally
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Firm B engineers
affectedparties: Government agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker'
stateclass: Prime Engineer Substantiality Threshold Determination State
subject: Firm B's proposed prime role with Engineer X as sole technical contributor
terminatedby: Agency determination that Firm B would not make a substantial contribution; agency direct contact with Engineer X
textreferences: Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker'
textreferences: neither would contribute very much, if anything, to the project
triggeringevent: Firm B proposed to serve as prime professional while arranging for Engineer X to provide all technical services
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.070576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Free and Open Competition Boundary Condition in Specialized Procurement
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionasEngineeringEthicsBoundaryCondition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Competitive solicitation among 15 contacted firms
appliedto: Government agency specialized engineering services procurement
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The case illustrates the boundary of permissible competitive conduct: while firms may legitimately compete for contracts by assembling teams with specialist sub-consultants, the ethical boundary is crossed when the firm's own contribution is nominal and its solicitation response misrepresents the substantive nature of its team — conduct that falls beyond the ethical bounds of free and open competition.
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Free and open competition is a legitimate and valued principle in engineering procurement, but it operates within ethical boundaries that prohibit misrepresentation of capabilities. The nominal prime strategy of Firms A and B exceeded those boundaries by using competitive mechanisms to capture a contract the firms could not genuinely perform.
invokedby: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
invokedby: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
invokedby: Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor
principleclass: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
sourcetext: A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability to provide services in a highly specialized area of technical knowledge.
tensionresolution: Free and open competition does not license misrepresentation of capabilities; the ethical boundaries of competition require honest representation of the firm's substantive contribution.
textreferences: A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability to provide services in a highly specialized area of technical knowledge.
textreferences: Eight firms responded affirmatively.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.073069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

NSPE Code Individual Applicability Clarification Active
type: CodeIndividual-Not-OrganizationApplicabilityClarificationActiveState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From January 1971 NSPE Board of Directors directive onward, active throughout this case analysis
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Engineers in Firm A
affectedparties: Engineers in Firm B
affectedparties: Engineers in the government agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: The Code of Ethics applies only to individual engineers and not to organizations as such
stateclass: Code Individual-Not-Organization Applicability Clarification Active State
subject: NSPE Code of Ethics applicability to engineers within firms and government agencies
terminatedby: Not terminated — persistent clarification state
textreferences: The Code of Ethics applies only to individual engineers and not to organizations as such
textreferences: We therefore treat the case before us as involving actions of engineers in the governmental agency and consulting firms in situations in which the engineer(s) had the power of decision or effective recommendation
textreferences: business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the code
triggeringevent: NSPE Board of Directors directive adopted January 1971 clarifying code applies to individuals not organizations
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.068659
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Nominal Subconsultant Arrangement — Firm A
type: NominalSubconsultantArrangementMisrepresentingPrimeCapabilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Firm A's submission through agency's direct contact with Engineer X
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Firm A engineers
affectedparties: Government agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor
stateclass: Nominal Subconsultant Arrangement Misrepresenting Prime Capability State
subject: Firm A's qualification submission representing prime capability while planning to rely entirely on Engineer X
terminatedby: Agency bypassed Firm A and contacted Engineer X directly
textreferences: Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor
triggeringevent: Firm A arranged for Engineer X as subconsultant while offering to serve as prime with only brokerage/administrative contribution
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.070870
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Nominal Subconsultant Arrangement — Firm B
type: NominalSubconsultantArrangementMisrepresentingPrimeCapabilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Firm B's submission through agency's direct contact with Engineer X
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Firm B engineers
affectedparties: Government agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker'
stateclass: Nominal Subconsultant Arrangement Misrepresenting Prime Capability State
subject: Firm B's qualification submission representing prime capability while planning to rely entirely on Engineer X
terminatedby: Agency bypassed Firm B and contacted Engineer X directly
textreferences: Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker'
textreferences: neither would contribute very much, if anything, to the project
triggeringevent: Firm B arranged for Engineer X as subconsultant while offering to serve as prime with only brokerage/administrative contribution
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.071057
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Professional Competence Threshold Not Met by Firms A and B for Prime Role
type: ProfessionalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Highly specialized engineering services
appliedto: Prime contract role in government procurement
balancingwith: Business development incentives
balancingwith: Competitive interest in prime contract award
concept category: Capability
concreteexpression: Firms A and B lacked the professional competence to perform the highly specialized technical work that was the subject of the government solicitation, and their acceptance of a prime role would have placed them in a position of representing competence they did not possess — a violation of the professional competence obligation.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional competence requires that engineers only accept engagements for which they are competent. Firms A and B's intended reliance on Engineer X for all substantive technical work demonstrates that they lacked the competence to perform the prime role in this specialized engagement.
invokedby: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
invokedby: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
principleclass: Professional Competence
sourcetext: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
tensionresolution: Professional competence obligations are not diminished by the availability of a competent sub-consultant; the prime firm must itself be capable of making a substantial contribution to the work.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.073223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Prior Arrangement Disclosure Upon Direct Agency Solicitation
type: SpecialistSub-ConsultantPriorArrangementDisclosureUponDirectAgencySolicitationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer X Prior Informal Commitments to Competing Firms
casecontext: Engineer X had been independently arranged as sub-consultant by both Firms A and B before being directly solicited by the government agency. The BER noted Engineer X did not state definitively whether he would accept the contract independently.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Honesty Principle Invoked in Engineer X Qualification Submission
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer X
obligationclass: Specialist Sub-Consultant Prior Arrangement Disclosure Upon Direct Agency Solicitation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer X was obligated to disclose to the government agency the existence of his prior sub-consultant arrangements with both Firms A and B when submitting qualifications for direct prime engagement, to ensure the agency had complete information about the procurement context.
sourcetext: We might note, however, that Engineer X should consider carefully whether his accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B.
temporalscope: Upon submitting qualifications in response to the agency's direct solicitation
textreferences: Honesty Principle Invoked in Engineer X Qualification Submission: Engineer X responded to the government agency's direct solicitation by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitively whether he would accept the contract independently.
textreferences: We might note, however, that Engineer X should consider carefully whether his accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.083399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Disclosure in Direct Solicitation Response
type: SpecialistSub-ConsultantPriorArrangementDisclosureUponDirectAgencySolicitationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Agency Direct Solicitation of Engineer X Outside Original List
casecontext: Engineer X had been independently arranged as sub-consultant by both Firms A and B before the agency contacted him directly; his qualification submission should have acknowledged these prior arrangements.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Honesty Principle Invoked in Engineer X Qualification Submission
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer X
obligationclass: Specialist Sub-Consultant Prior Arrangement Disclosure Upon Direct Agency Solicitation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer X was obligated to disclose to the government agency, when submitting his qualifications for direct prime engagement, the existence of his prior sub-consultant arrangements with both Firms A and B, to ensure the agency had complete information about the procurement context.
sourcetext: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract
temporalscope: At the time of submitting qualifications to the government agency in response to the direct solicitation
textreferences: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.074644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime
type: SpecialistExpertRepositionedasPrimeEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Ethics Code Individual-Person Applicability Invoked in Organizational Context
adheres to principle: Honesty Principle Invoked in Engineer X Qualification Submission
adheres to principle: Specialist Engagement Obligation Contextual Application in Prime-Sub Structure
has obligation: Ethics Code Individual Applicability to Government Agency Engineers in Procurement
attributes: {'expertise': 'Recognized expert in the highly specialized technical subject matter', 'firm_status': 'Principal in his own firm', 'prior_arrangements': 'Pre-arranged as sub-consultant by both Firm A and Firm B', 'response_to_agency': 'Submitted qualifications without definitive commitment to serve as prime', 'work_scope': 'Entirely within his field of expertise; no other firms required'}
caseinvolvement: A recognized expert and firm principal initially arranged by both Firms A and B as their specialized sub-consultant. Subsequently contacted directly by the government agency and invited to submit qualifications as prime professional. Submitted qualifications without definitively committing to serve as prime. The work is entirely within his field of expertise and requires no other firms.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:33:00.934159+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:33:00.934159+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'directly_solicited_by', 'target': 'Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor'}
relationships: {'type': 'pre_arranged_by', 'target': 'Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor'}
relationships: {'type': 'pre_arranged_by', 'target': 'Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm
textreferences: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional.
textreferences: Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
textreferences: the government agency...asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.067751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B No Definite Selection Steps — Anti-Supplanting Non-Activation
type: Anti-SupplantingRuleNon-ActivationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the agency's direct solicitation of Engineer X; no formal selection of Firms A or B had occurred
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: Government agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:49.572726+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Section 11 (a), which prohibits one engineer from supplanting another, is no bar unless it be shown that 'definite steps' have been taken by the client to retain another engineer
stateclass: Anti-Supplanting Rule Non-Activation State
subject: Engineer X's eligibility to accept direct agency engagement without violating anti-supplanting prohibition
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case — Engineer X's acceptance decision remains open
textreferences: Section 11 (a), which prohibits one engineer from supplanting another, is no bar unless it be shown that 'definite steps' have been taken by the client to retain another engineer
textreferences: We find no grounds in the code which would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis if so desired by the client and the firm
textreferences: neither Firm A nor Firm B had any commitment or expectation of being awarded the contract at the time the agency contacted Engineer X
triggeringevent: Agency contacted Engineer X directly after determining Firms A and B would not contribute substantially; no prior formal selection of any firm
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.070732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Specialist-Retaining Prime (Hypothetical Compliant Path)
type: Specialist-RetainingPrimeConsultingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Specialist Engagement Obligation Contextual Application in Prime-Sub Structure
adheres to principle: Substantive Contribution Contextual Calibration Applied to Geographic and Local Factors
adheres to principle: Substantive Contribution Threshold Applied to Hypothetical Compliant Path for Firms A and B
has obligation: Firms A and B Hypothetical Compliant Path Substantive Contribution Geographic Calibration
attributes: {'scenario_type': 'Hypothetical compliant path', 'condition': 'If firms had proposed to provide substantial portion of work through own capabilities', 'ethical_finding': 'Would have acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X'}
caseinvolvement: The Discussion identifies a hypothetical compliant scenario: if Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they would have acted appropriately in arranging for Engineer X's expertise. This captures the legitimate version of the prime-specialist relationship contemplated by Section 6 of the Code.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:33.097225+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:33.097225+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'would_retain_specialist', 'target': 'Engineer X Non-Supplanting Direct Contract Accepting Specialist'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Specialist-Retaining Prime Consulting Engineer
sourcetext: If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.
textreferences: If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.
textreferences: Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional engineer will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional engineer is performing substantial services of a project.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.070280
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Government Agency Expression-of-Interest Non-Bindingness Recognition in Direct Contact with Engineer X
type: AgencyExpression-of-InterestResponseNon-BindingnessRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Agency Direct Expert Solicitation Outside Original List
casecontext: The government agency, after evaluating eight responses and determining Firms A and B would not make substantial contributions, independently contacted Engineer X directly for prime engagement.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Agency Independent Procurement Judgment Applied to Direct Contact with Engineer X
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineers within the government agency with procurement decision authority
obligationclass: Agency Expression-of-Interest Response Non-Bindingness Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineers within the government agency were entitled — and obligated to recognize their authority — to make direct contact with Engineer X after learning from two separate sources of his specialized qualifications, without being bound by the eight firms' prior expressions of interest and qualification statements.
sourcetext: we perceive no reason why it should not make direct contact with Engineer X once having learned from two separate sources that he was a highly qualified specialist of the type required.
temporalscope: After evaluating the eight expression-of-interest responses and determining their inadequacy
textreferences: Nor did the fact that Firms A and B supplied the information as to the special qualifications of Engineer X impose any duty on the agency to award the contract to Firms A and B when it was apparent that neither would contribute very much, if anything, to the project.
textreferences: The mere fact that some eight firms had responded to the invitation for an expression of interest and qualification did not bind the agency to select one of those firms for the contract.
textreferences: we perceive no reason why it should not make direct contact with Engineer X once having learned from two separate sources that he was a highly qualified specialist of the type required.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.082300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor
type: SpecializedTechnicalServicesSolicitingGovernmentAgency
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Agency Independent Procurement Judgment Applied to Direct Contact with Engineer X
adheres to principle: Ethics Code Individual-Person Applicability Invoked in Organizational Context
has obligation: Ethics Code Individual Applicability to Government Agency Engineers in Procurement
has obligation: Government Agency Expression-of-Interest Non-Bindingness Recognition in Direct Contact with Engineer X
attributes: {'procurement_method': 'Direct solicitation to defined firm list with capability evaluation', 'authority': 'Government agency with procurement decision authority', 'action_taken': 'Bypassed original list to directly solicit recognized specialist'}
caseinvolvement: Contacted 15 firms for specialized engineering services, evaluated eight responses, determined Firms A and B would not make substantial contributions, then directly contacted Engineer X to invite him to submit qualifications as prime professional.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:33:00.934159+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:33:00.934159+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'direct_solicitor', 'target': 'Engineer X Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicitor', 'target': 'Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicitor', 'target': 'Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Specialized Technical Services Soliciting Government Agency
sourcetext: A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability
textreferences: A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability
textreferences: the government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.069987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Substantive Contribution Threshold Applied to Hypothetical Compliant Path for Firms A and B
type: SubstantiveContributionThresholdasEthicalPrerequisiteforPrimeEngagement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firms A and B Specialist-Retaining Prime (Hypothetical Compliant Path)
balancingwith: Specialist Engagement Obligation When Client Interests Require It
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Discussion identifies the hypothetical compliant path: if Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they would have acted appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X and proposing this mode of service to the client.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the substantive contribution threshold is satisfied when the prime firm genuinely proposes to perform a substantial portion of the work through its own capabilities, with the specialist providing supplementary expertise — not when the specialist provides all technical substance.
invokedby: Ethics Board defining compliant conduct
principleclass: Substantive Contribution Threshold as Ethical Prerequisite for Prime Engagement
sourcetext: If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.
tensionresolution: The threshold is met when the prime's own capabilities constitute a substantial portion of the work — the specialist engagement is then a legitimate supplement rather than a substitute for prime competence.
textreferences: If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.080713
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Direct Engagement Permissibility Upon Agency-Initiated Contact
type: SpecialistNon-SupplantingDirectEngagementPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government agency direct solicitation of Engineer X
appliedto: Prime contract submission by Engineer X
balancingwith: Loyalty to Firms A and B who had arranged the sub-consultant relationship
balancingwith: Procurement integrity concerns
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer X, having been arranged as sub-consultant by Firms A and B, responded to the government agency's independent direct solicitation by submitting his qualifications — an action that was ethically permissible because the agency independently initiated contact after determining the primes would not make a substantial contribution, and Engineer X did not actively solicit the direct engagement.
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer X's response to the agency's direct inquiry was ethically permissible: the agency independently concluded the primes would not make a substantial contribution, the work was entirely within Engineer X's expertise, and Engineer X responded without definitively committing — a measured, honest response to an agency-initiated inquiry.
invokedby: Engineer X Non-Supplanting Direct Contract Accepting Specialist
principleclass: Specialist Non-Supplanting Direct Engagement Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional.
tensionresolution: The agency's independent judgment that the primes would not make a substantial contribution, combined with Engineer X's passive response to agency-initiated contact, resolves the tension in favor of permissibility of the direct engagement.
textreferences: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract and asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.072129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Broker-Only Prime Recommending Specialist Referral
type: Broker-OnlyPrimeEngineeringFirmRecommendingSpecialistReferral
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Broker-Only Role Transparency Obligation of Firms A and B
adheres to principle: Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Obligation Applied to Firms A and B
has obligation: Firm A Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty
has obligation: Firm B Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty
has obligation: Firms A and B Broker-Only Role Specialist Referral Obligation
attributes: {'prescribed_action': 'Recommend agency directly contact Engineer X', 'actual_action': 'Offered to serve as prime contractor', 'ethical_gap': 'Failed to refer; instead misrepresented substantive contribution'}
caseinvolvement: The Discussion's normative finding is that Firms A and B, recognizing they could contribute only brokerage services, should have recommended to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X rather than offering to serve as prime contractors. This individual captures the prescriptive ethical path the Discussion identifies for firms in this position.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:33.097225+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:33.097225+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'should_have_advised', 'target': 'Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor'}
relationships: {'type': 'should_have_referred', 'target': 'Engineer X Non-Supplanting Direct Contract Accepting Specialist'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Broker-Only Prime Engineering Firm Recommending Specialist Referral
sourcetext: Their ethical position in that event was to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required.
textreferences: Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
textreferences: Their ethical position in that event was to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.070152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Nominal Capability Misrepresentation by Firm B in Solicitation Response
type: NominalCapabilityMisrepresentationProhibitioninProcurementResponses
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government agency solicitation response
appliedto: Public procurement process
balancingwith: Competitive interest in prime contract award
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm B responded affirmatively to the government solicitation stating it had arranged Engineer X as a specialized sub-consultant and would itself furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal in nature — creating a materially false impression of the firm's substantive contribution.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Firm B's affirmative response implied a genuine team with substantial contributions from both the firm and Engineer X, when the firm's own contribution was nominal. This misrepresentation misled the agency about the actual distribution of work and expertise.
invokedby: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
principleclass: Nominal Capability Misrepresentation Prohibition in Procurement Responses
sourcetext: Firm B stated it had arranged Engineer X as sub-consultant and would furnish all other services, when in actuality those services were nominal.
tensionresolution: Honesty in professional representations overrides competitive interest; the firm's obligation to accurately characterize its contribution is not diminished by competitive pressure.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.071796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Definite Steps Threshold Applied to Firms A and B Non-Commitment Status
type: DefiniteStepsThresholdforEngineerSupplantingProhibitionActivation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X Non-Supplanting Direct Contract Accepting Specialist
appliedto: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
appliedto: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
appliedto: Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Independent Arrangement Relational Obligation Review Before Direct Engagement Acceptance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Discussion applies the 'definite steps' threshold from Cases 62-10 and 62-18 to find that neither Firm A nor Firm B had any commitment or expectation of being awarded the contract at the time the agency contacted Engineer X — and therefore the supplanting prohibition did not activate to bar Engineer X's acceptance of the direct engagement.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the absence of formal selection notification or specific intent to retain either Firm A or Firm B meant that the supplanting prohibition threshold had not been crossed — Engineer X's acceptance of the direct engagement was therefore ethically permissible under the non-supplanting provision.
invokedby: Ethics Board applying Section 11(a) and Cases 62-10, 62-18
principleclass: Definite Steps Threshold for Engineer Supplanting Prohibition Activation
sourcetext: neither Firm A nor Firm B had any commitment or expectation of being awarded the contract at the time the agency contacted Engineer X.
tensionresolution: The definite steps threshold resolves the apparent tension between the supplanting prohibition and Engineer X's acceptance of the direct engagement — because no definite steps had been taken toward either firm, no supplanting occurred.
textreferences: Section 11 (a), which prohibits one engineer from supplanting another, is no bar unless it be shown that 'definite steps' have been taken by the client to retain another engineer.
textreferences: neither Firm A nor Firm B had any commitment or expectation of being awarded the contract at the time the agency contacted Engineer X
textreferences: the mandate of Section 11 (a) does not come into play unless '... the engineer has been informed by the client that he has been selected to negotiate an agreement for a specific project,' (Case 62-10) or that it be shown that '... the client specifically intended to retain the engineer for the ... work' (Case 62-18).
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.081183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Ethics Code Individual Applicability to Government Agency Engineers in Procurement
type: EthicsCodeBusiness-FormNon-WaivabilityIndividualEngineerComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: NSPE Code Individual Applicability Clarification Active
casecontext: The BER disposed of the threshold technicality by establishing that the ethics code applies to individual engineers within all organizational forms, including government agencies and consulting firms, not merely to corporations.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Ethics Code Individual-Person Applicability Invoked in Organizational Context
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineers within the government agency and consulting firms (Firms A, B) with decision-making or recommendation authority
obligationclass: Ethics Code Business-Form Non-Waivability Individual Engineer Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineers within the government agency and within Firms A and B who had the power of decision or effective recommendation were personally obligated to comply with the ethics code, regardless of the organizational form (governmental agency or consulting firm) through which they acted.
sourcetext: The Code of Ethics applies only to individual engineers and not to organizations as such.
temporalscope: Throughout the procurement process
textreferences: Although this note refers to corporations rather than government agencies or firms, its premise applies to all forms of organizations, including governmental agencies and consulting firms.
textreferences: The Code of Ethics applies only to individual engineers and not to organizations as such.
textreferences: We therefore treat the case before us as involving actions of engineers in the governmental agency and consulting firms in situations in which the engineer(s) had the power of decision or effective recommendation as to the procedure followed.
textreferences: business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the code
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.081614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Nominal Contribution Misrepresentation
type: NominalSubconsultantArrangementMisrepresentingPrimeCapabilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Firms A and B submitted their affirmative responses through the agency's determination that they would not make a substantial contribution
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: Government Agency
affectedparties: Other six responding firms
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:33:15.517940+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:33:15.517940+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
stateclass: Nominal Subconsultant Arrangement Misrepresenting Prime Capability State
subject: Firms A and B's qualification submissions to the government agency
terminatedby: Government agency's determination that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
triggeringevent: Firms A and B submitting affirmative responses claiming capability while arranging for Engineer X to provide all specialized expertise, with their own services being nominal
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.067913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Failure
type: Pre-AcceptanceCompetenceSelf-AssessmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Competitive Procurement Integrity Context
prevails over: Firms A and B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
casecontext: Firms A and B lacked the technical competence to perform the highly specialized work that was the subject of the government solicitation, yet responded affirmatively as prime contractors.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineers within Firms A and B with authority over the solicitation response
obligationclass: Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to conduct an honest and rigorous self-assessment of their firms' technical competence in the highly specialized domain before accepting the prime contract role, and to decline the engagement given their lack of substantive technical capability in the specialized area.
sourcetext: The first part of Section 6 of the code precludes an engineer from accepting an engineering engagement unless qualified to perform the services involved.
temporalscope: Before submitting the solicitation response
textreferences: The first part of Section 6 of the code precludes an engineer from accepting an engineering engagement unless qualified to perform the services involved.
textreferences: it appears that Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor to the project.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.082990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Substantive Contribution Geographic Factor Calibration Failure
type: SubstantiveContributionGeographicandLocalFactorCalibrationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Firms A and B Nominal Contribution Misrepresentation
casecontext: The BER noted that in defining 'substantial,' consideration should be given to geographic location, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors — implying Firms A and B should have assessed whether such factors could justify their prime role before responding.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Substantive Contribution Contextual Calibration Applied to Geographic and Local Factors
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineers within Firms A and B with authority over the solicitation response
obligationclass: Substantive Contribution Geographic and Local Factor Calibration Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to assess whether their proposed contributions — including any geographic, local-conditions familiarity, or other contextual benefits — met the substantiality threshold before offering to serve as prime contractors; the facts indicate no such substantial contextual contribution was identified or offered.
sourcetext: In defining the word 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the solicitation response
textreferences: If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.
textreferences: In defining the word 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.082019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Specialist Non-Supplanting Direct Engagement Permissibility Applied to Engineer X
type: SpecialistNon-SupplantingDirectEngagementPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X Non-Supplanting Direct Contract Accepting Specialist
appliedto: Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor
balancingwith: Definite Steps Threshold for Engineer Supplanting Prohibition Activation
balancingwith: Independent Arrangement Relational Obligation Review Before Direct Engagement Acceptance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Discussion finds no grounds in the code that would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis when desired by the client, given that no definite steps had been taken toward retaining either Firm A or Firm B and the work fell entirely within Engineer X's specialized expertise.
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, Engineer X's acceptance of the direct prime engagement was ethically permissible because the agency independently initiated contact, no definite steps had been taken toward the competing firms, and the work fell entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise.
invokedby: Ethics Board evaluating Engineer X's conduct
principleclass: Specialist Non-Supplanting Direct Engagement Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: We find no grounds in the code which would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis if so desired by the client and the firm.
tensionresolution: Permissibility is established by the absence of definite steps toward the competing firms; the residual obligation to review prior arrangements with Firms A and B is noted as a separate prudential consideration.
textreferences: Section 11 (a), which prohibits one engineer from supplanting another, is no bar unless it be shown that 'definite steps' have been taken by the client to retain another engineer.
textreferences: We find no grounds in the code which would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis if so desired by the client and the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.081326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Agency Independent Procurement Judgment Applied to Direct Contact with Engineer X
type: AgencyIndependentProcurementJudgmentNon-BindingnesstoPriorExpression-of-InterestRespondents
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X Non-Supplanting Direct Contract Accepting Specialist
appliedto: Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Discussion finds no ethical bar to the agency's direct contact with Engineer X after learning from two separate sources that he was a highly qualified specialist — the agency was not bound to select from among the eight responding firms, and the fact that Firms A and B supplied the information about Engineer X did not impose any duty to award the contract to them.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the agency's independent judgment that neither Firm A nor Firm B would contribute substantially to the project was a sufficient basis for bypassing the expression-of-interest respondents and directly engaging the identified specialist.
invokedby: Ethics Board evaluating agency conduct
principleclass: Agency Independent Procurement Judgment Non-Bindingness to Prior Expression-of-Interest Respondents
sourcetext: The mere fact that some eight firms had responded to the invitation for an expression of interest and qualification did not bind the agency to select one of those firms for the contract.
tensionresolution: The agency's independent procurement judgment is deemed consistent with fairness and procurement integrity because no binding commitment had been made to any respondent and the agency acted in the public interest in securing the most qualified specialist.
textreferences: Nor did the fact that Firms A and B supplied the information as to the special qualifications of Engineer X impose any duty on the agency to award the contract to Firms A and B when it was apparent that neither would contribute very much, if anything, to the project.
textreferences: The mere fact that some eight firms had responded to the invitation for an expression of interest and qualification did not bind the agency to select one of those firms for the contract.
textreferences: we perceive no reason why it should not make direct contact with Engineer X once having learned from two separate sources that he was a highly qualified specialist of the type required.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.081008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Ethics Code Individual-Person Applicability Invoked in Organizational Context
type: EthicsCodeIndividual-PersonApplicabilityNon-WaivabilityThroughBusinessForm
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime
appliedto: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
appliedto: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
appliedto: Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Discussion disposes of the threshold question of whether the ethics code applies to the government agency and consulting firms by establishing that the code applies to the individual engineers within those organizations who had the power of decision or effective recommendation — not to the organizations as such — and that business form cannot negate individual professional obligations.
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle requires treating the case as involving the conduct of individual engineers within the agency and firms who held decision-making or recommendation authority, regardless of whether those entities are corporations, government agencies, or consulting firms.
invokedby: Ethics Board applying the directive
invokedby: NSPE Board of Directors (January 1971 directive)
principleclass: Ethics Code Individual-Person Applicability Non-Waivability Through Business Form
sourcetext: The Code of Ethics applies only to individual engineers and not to organizations as such... business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the code.
tensionresolution: No tension — the principle is applied as a threshold dispositional rule that clears the way for substantive ethics analysis of individual conduct.
textreferences: Although this note refers to corporations rather than government agencies or firms, its premise applies to all forms of organizations, including governmental agencies and consulting firms.
textreferences: Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures.
textreferences: The Code of Ethics applies only to individual engineers and not to organizations as such.
textreferences: We therefore treat the case before us as involving actions of engineers in the governmental agency and consulting firms in situations in which the engineer(s) had the power of decision or effective recommendation as to the procedure followed.
textreferences: business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the code.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.080125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Hypothetical Compliant Path Substantive Contribution Geographic Calibration
type: SubstantiveContributionGeographicandLocalFactorCalibrationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firms A and B Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition in Procurement Response
casecontext: The BER identified the hypothetical compliant path: if Firms A and B had proposed substantial contributions of their own, their arrangement with Engineer X would have been appropriate.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
derived from principle: Substantive Contribution Contextual Calibration Applied to Geographic and Local Factors
derived from principle: Substantive Contribution Threshold Applied to Hypothetical Compliant Path for Firms A and B
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineers within Firms A and B (hypothetical compliant scenario)
obligationclass: Substantive Contribution Geographic and Local Factor Calibration Obligation
obligationstatement: Had Firms A and B proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities — including geographic, local-conditions, or other contextual contributions — they would have satisfied the substantiality threshold and could ethically have arranged Engineer X as a specialist sub-consultant.
sourcetext: If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.
temporalscope: Hypothetical — at the time of solicitation response preparation
textreferences: If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.
textreferences: In defining the word 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.082165
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Nominal Prime Role Misrepresentation Ethics Violation
type: NominalPrimeCapabilityMisrepresentationNon-CommissionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firms A and B responded affirmatively to the government solicitation, each independently arranging Engineer X as sub-consultant while representing they would furnish all other services — when in reality their contribution was nominal.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Firms A and B
derived from principle: Nominal Capability Misrepresentation by Firm A in Solicitation Response
derived from principle: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Implicated by Nominal Prime Structure
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineers within Firms A and B with authority over the solicitation response
obligationclass: Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation Non-Commission Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to refrain from representing themselves as capable prime contractors when their actual contribution would be nominal — limited to brokerage and administrative coordination — while all substantive technical work would be performed by Engineer X as the sole technical contributor.
sourcetext: it appears that Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor to the project.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the solicitation response
textreferences: On that basis we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
textreferences: it appears that Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor to the project.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.082710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Honesty Principle Invoked in Engineer X Qualification Submission
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government agency direct solicitation response
appliedto: Prime contract qualification submission
balancingwith: Loyalty to Firms A and B who had arranged the sub-consultant relationship
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer X responded to the government agency's direct solicitation by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitively whether he would be willing to undertake the work as prime professional — an honest, measured response that accurately represented his position without overclaiming or underclaiming.
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Engineer X's honest, non-committal response to the agency's inquiry exemplifies the honesty principle: he submitted accurate qualifications without making a definitive commitment he was not prepared to make, thereby providing the agency with accurate information while preserving his own decision-making autonomy.
invokedby: Engineer X Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional.
tensionresolution: Honesty in responding to a legitimate agency inquiry takes precedence; Engineer X's measured response was both honest and appropriately cautious.
textreferences: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.073358
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Nominal Capability Misrepresentation by Firm A in Solicitation Response
type: NominalCapabilityMisrepresentationProhibitioninProcurementResponses
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government agency solicitation response
appliedto: Public procurement process
balancingwith: Competitive interest in prime contract award
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm A responded affirmatively to the government solicitation stating it had arranged Engineer X as a specialized sub-consultant and would itself furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal in nature — creating a materially false impression of the firm's substantive contribution.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Firm A's affirmative response implied a genuine team with substantial contributions from both the firm and Engineer X, when the firm's own contribution was nominal. This misrepresentation misled the agency about the actual distribution of work and expertise.
invokedby: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
principleclass: Nominal Capability Misrepresentation Prohibition in Procurement Responses
sourcetext: Firm A stated it had arranged Engineer X as sub-consultant and would furnish all other services, when in actuality those services were nominal.
tensionresolution: Honesty in professional representations overrides competitive interest; the firm's obligation to accurately characterize its contribution is not diminished by competitive pressure to respond affirmatively.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.071655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated by Nominal Prime Responses
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Competitive procurement process among eight responding firms
appliedto: Government agency solicitation
balancingwith: Business development interests
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: By responding affirmatively to the government solicitation while intending only a nominal role, Firms A and B gained an unfair competitive advantage over other firms that might have responded honestly about their capabilities or declined to respond — and over Engineer X's firm, which was not on the original contact list and could not respond directly.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Competitive fairness requires that all firms respond honestly about their capabilities. Firms A and B's nominal prime strategy distorted the competitive field by allowing them to advance in the selection process based on Engineer X's expertise rather than their own — an unfair competitive advantage over firms that responded based on their genuine capabilities.
invokedby: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
invokedby: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: Eight firms responded affirmatively. Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X.
tensionresolution: Fairness in competition requires honest representation of capabilities; competitive advantage obtained through misrepresentation of substantive contribution is not a legitimate form of competition.
textreferences: Eight firms responded affirmatively.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.072908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Specialist-Retention Provision Contextual Reading Violation
type: Specialist-RetentionProvisionPrime-Substantive-ContributionContextualReadingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firm A Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
casecontext: Firm A responded affirmatively to the government solicitation, arranging Engineer X as sub-consultant while its own contribution would be nominal — limited to brokerage and administrative coordination.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Specialist Engagement Obligation Contextual Application in Prime-Sub Structure
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineers within Firm A with authority over the solicitation response
obligationclass: Specialist-Retention Provision Prime-Substantive-Contribution Contextual Reading Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineers within Firm A were obligated to read the specialist-retention provision of Section 6 in context of the full competence requirement, recognizing that the provision does not permit accepting a prime role when the firm's only substantive service would be to arrange for Engineer X's services, with no substantial technical contribution of its own.
sourcetext: The second clause of Section 6 recognizes the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interest of the project.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the solicitation response
textreferences: On that basis we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
textreferences: The second clause of Section 6 recognizes the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interest of the project.
textreferences: We read this procedure in the context of the full Section 6, however, and conclude that in totality Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional engineer will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional engineer is performing substantial services of a project.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.081763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
type: SubstantivePrimeContributionThresholdComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firm A Specialist-Retention Provision Contextual Reading Violation
defeasible under: Firm A Prime Substantiality Threshold Determination
prevails over: Firm A Specialist-Retention Provision Contextual Reading Violation
casecontext: Firm A proposed to serve as prime contractor for highly specialized engineering services while its own contribution would be nominal, with all substantive work performed by Engineer X.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Substantive Contribution Threshold Failure by Firms A and B
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm A
obligationclass: Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm A was obligated to ensure it would make a substantive technical contribution commensurate with a prime contractor role before accepting that role; having only nominal services to offer, Firm A should have declined the prime role or restructured the engagement.
sourcetext: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
temporalscope: Prior to submitting the solicitation response and throughout the procurement process
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.074370
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Specialist-Retention Provision Contextual Reading Violation
type: Specialist-RetentionProvisionPrime-Substantive-ContributionContextualReadingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firm B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
casecontext: Firm B responded affirmatively to the government solicitation, independently arranging Engineer X as sub-consultant while its own contribution would be nominal.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Specialist Engagement Obligation Contextual Application in Prime-Sub Structure
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineers within Firm B with authority over the solicitation response
obligationclass: Specialist-Retention Provision Prime-Substantive-Contribution Contextual Reading Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineers within Firm B were obligated to read the specialist-retention provision of Section 6 in context of the full competence requirement, recognizing that the provision does not permit accepting a prime role when the firm's only substantive service would be to arrange for Engineer X's services, with no substantial technical contribution of its own.
sourcetext: On that basis we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the solicitation response
textreferences: On that basis we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
textreferences: it appears that Firm A and Firm B were primarily offering to serve in the capacity of a 'broker' and would furnish only the services involved in the negotiations and administration of the contract, looking to Engineer X as the sole technical contributor to the project.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.081891
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
type: SubstantivePrimeContributionThresholdComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firm B Specialist-Retention Provision Contextual Reading Violation
defeasible under: Firm B Prime Substantiality Threshold Determination
prevails over: Firm B Specialist-Retention Provision Contextual Reading Violation
casecontext: Firm B proposed to serve as prime contractor for highly specialized engineering services while its own contribution would be nominal, with all substantive work performed by Engineer X.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
derived from principle: Substantive Contribution Threshold Failure by Firms A and B
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm B
obligationclass: Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm B was obligated to ensure it would make a substantive technical contribution commensurate with a prime contractor role before accepting that role; having only nominal services to offer, Firm B should have declined the prime role or restructured the engagement.
sourcetext: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
temporalscope: Prior to submitting the solicitation response and throughout the procurement process
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.074506
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation in Solicitation
type: QualificationsNon-FalsificationandNon-MisrepresentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firms A and B stated they would furnish all other services beyond Engineer X's specialized expertise, creating a misleading impression of substantive team capability when those other services were nominal.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Firms A and B
derived from principle: Solicitation Deception Avoidance Obligation Violated by Firms A and B
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firms A and B
obligationclass: Qualifications Non-Falsification and Non-Misrepresentation Obligation
obligationstatement: Firms A and B were obligated to refrain from misrepresenting their qualifications and capability in the government solicitation by implying they would furnish substantive services when those services would in fact be nominal.
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
temporalscope: At the time of submitting solicitation responses
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.075372
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Independent Arrangement Relational Obligation Review Applied to Engineer X and Firms A and B
type: IndependentArrangementRelationalObligationReviewBeforeDirectEngagementAcceptance
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X Non-Supplanting Direct Contract Accepting Specialist
appliedto: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
appliedto: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
balancingwith: Definite Steps Threshold for Engineer Supplanting Prohibition Activation
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Specialist Non-Supplanting Direct Engagement Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Discussion notes that Engineer X should consider carefully whether accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B — acknowledging that prior sub-consultant arrangements with competing firms may generate independent relational obligations separate from the formal supplanting prohibition analysis.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: In this context, the principle operates as a residual prudential obligation — even though the supplanting prohibition does not bar Engineer X's acceptance, he retains an independent obligation to review and honor any commitments made in his prior arrangements with Firms A and B.
invokedby: Ethics Board noting residual prudential obligation
principleclass: Independent Arrangement Relational Obligation Review Before Direct Engagement Acceptance
sourcetext: Engineer X should consider carefully whether his accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B.
tensionresolution: The principle does not override the permissibility finding but adds a layer of relational due diligence — Engineer X must satisfy himself that acceptance does not breach prior commitments, even if it does not violate the formal supplanting prohibition.
textreferences: we might note, however, that Engineer X should consider carefully whether his accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.081476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Implicated by Nominal Prime Structure
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government agency specialized engineering services procurement
appliedto: Public contract award process
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The nominal prime structure proposed by Firms A and B — in which they would serve as prime contractors while contributing only nominal services and routing all substantive technical work to Engineer X — threatened the integrity of the public procurement process by interposing unnecessary intermediaries that would capture prime contract fees without making genuine technical contributions.
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public procurement integrity requires that prime contractors genuinely contribute to the work. The nominal prime structure proposed by Firms A and B would have resulted in a contract award to firms that could not make substantial contributions, undermining the qualification-based selection process and potentially wasting public resources on unnecessary intermediary fees.
invokedby: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
invokedby: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
invokedby: Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X.
tensionresolution: Procurement integrity requires that competitive responses be honest about the nature of the firm's contribution; the agency's independent determination that the firms would not make a substantial contribution and its direct engagement of Engineer X represents the appropriate corrective action.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract and asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account.
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.072734
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Agency-Initiated Direct Engagement Non-Supplanting Permissibility
type: Agency-InitiatedSpecialistDirectEngagementNon-SupplantingPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance
prevails over: Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance
prevails over: Engineer X Supplanting Prohibition Definite-Steps Threshold Verification
casecontext: Engineer X had been arranged as sub-consultant by both Firms A and B; the government agency independently contacted Engineer X directly after concluding the firms would not make a substantial contribution; Engineer X submitted qualifications in response.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Engineer X Direct Engagement Permissibility Upon Agency-Initiated Contact
derived from principle: Specialist Non-Supplanting Direct Engagement Permissibility Applied to Engineer X
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer X
obligationclass: Agency-Initiated Specialist Direct Engagement Non-Supplanting Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer X was entitled to recognize that responding to the government agency's direct solicitation did not constitute improper supplanting of Firms A or B, because the agency independently initiated the contact based on its own determination that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution.
sourcetext: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract and asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of the government agency's direct solicitation
textreferences: Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract and asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.083270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Supplanting Prohibition Definite-Steps Threshold Verification
type: SupplantingProhibitionDefinite-StepsThresholdVerificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance
defeasible under: Firms A and B No Definite Selection Steps — Anti-Supplanting Non-Activation
casecontext: Engineer X was contacted directly by the government agency after being arranged as sub-consultant by both Firms A and B. The BER applied the 'definite steps' threshold from Cases 62-10 and 62-18 to find no supplanting prohibition was triggered.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Definite Steps Threshold Applied to Firms A and B Non-Commitment Status
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer X
obligationclass: Supplanting Prohibition Definite-Steps Threshold Verification Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer X was obligated to verify whether the supplanting prohibition was triggered before accepting the direct engagement — specifically, whether either Firm A or Firm B had been informed by the agency that they were selected to negotiate, or whether the agency specifically intended to retain either firm. The BER found neither condition was met, confirming Engineer X could ethically accept the direct engagement.
sourcetext: Section 11 (a), which prohibits one engineer from supplanting another, is no bar unless it be shown that 'definite steps' have been taken by the client to retain another engineer.
temporalscope: Upon receiving the government agency's direct solicitation
textreferences: Section 11 (a), which prohibits one engineer from supplanting another, is no bar unless it be shown that 'definite steps' have been taken by the client to retain another engineer.
textreferences: Under this reading we find that neither Firm A nor Firm B had any commitment or expectation of being awarded the contract at the time the agency contacted Engineer X.
textreferences: We find no grounds in the code which would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis if so desired by the client and the firm.
textreferences: the mandate of Section 11 (a) does not come into play unless '. . . the engineer has been informed by the client that he has been selected to negotiate an agreement for a specific project,' (Case 62-10) or that it be shown that '. . . the client specifically intended to retain the engineer for the . . . work' (Case 62-18).
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.082438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty
type: Broker-OnlyPrimeRoleTransparencyandSpecialist-DirectReferralObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firm A Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation in Government Solicitation
prevails over: Firm A Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation in Government Solicitation
casecontext: Firm A recognized that all substantive technical work fell within Engineer X's expertise and that its own contribution would be limited to nominal administrative services; it should have disclosed this and recommended direct engagement of Engineer X.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Obligation Applied to Firms A and B
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm A
obligationclass: Broker-Only Prime Role Transparency and Specialist-Direct Referral Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm A was obligated to disclose to the government agency that its own contribution would be nominal and to recommend that the agency engage Engineer X directly, rather than interposing itself as a nominal prime contractor.
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the solicitation response, or upon recognizing the nominal nature of its own contribution
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.074096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty
type: Broker-OnlyPrimeRoleTransparencyandSpecialist-DirectReferralObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firm B Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation in Government Solicitation
prevails over: Firm B Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation in Government Solicitation
casecontext: Firm B recognized that all substantive technical work fell within Engineer X's expertise and that its own contribution would be limited to nominal administrative services; it should have disclosed this and recommended direct engagement of Engineer X.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Obligation Applied to Firms A and B
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm B
obligationclass: Broker-Only Prime Role Transparency and Specialist-Direct Referral Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm B was obligated to disclose to the government agency that its own contribution would be nominal and to recommend that the agency engage Engineer X directly, rather than interposing itself as a nominal prime contractor.
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the solicitation response, or upon recognizing the nominal nature of its own contribution
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.074232
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Honest Competence Representation Violation in Specialized Procurement
type: HonestCompetenceRepresentationinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firms A and B Honorable Professional Conduct in Specialized Procurement
prevails over: Firms A and B Honorable Professional Conduct in Specialized Procurement
casecontext: Firms A and B responded affirmatively to a government solicitation for highly specialized services, implying substantive capability while their actual contribution would be nominal.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Firms A and B
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firms A and B
obligationclass: Honest Competence Representation in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: Firms A and B were obligated to represent their qualifications and capability honestly in their solicitation responses, including accurately characterizing the nominal nature of their own technical contribution and not creating a false impression of substantive team capability.
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting solicitation responses to the government agency
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.074774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Broker-Only Role Transparency Obligation of Firms A and B
type: Broker-OnlyRoleTransparencyandSpecialist-DirectReferralObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X specialist engagement
appliedto: Government agency solicitation
appliedto: Public procurement process
balancingwith: Competitive interest in prime contract award
balancingwith: Loyalty to business development interests
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firms A and B, recognizing that the entire substantive technical work fell within Engineer X's expertise and that their own contributions would be nominal, were obligated to transparently disclose their brokerage-only role to the government agency and recommend that the agency engage Engineer X directly.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethical path for Firms A and B was not to interpose themselves as nominal primes but to acknowledge their brokerage-only role and facilitate direct engagement of the specialist — serving the agency's interest in obtaining the best qualified services efficiently.
invokedby: Firms A and B Broker-Only Prime Recommending Specialist Referral
principleclass: Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist-Direct Referral Obligation
sourcetext: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
tensionresolution: Transparency and faithful agency to the procuring authority override the firms' commercial interest in capturing the prime contract role when their contribution would be purely nominal.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The work to be performed is entirely within Engineer X's field of expertise and does not require services from firms other than those of Engineer X.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.071985
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Non-Supplanting Direct Contract Accepting Specialist
type: Non-SupplantingDirectContractAcceptingSpecialistEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Agency Independent Procurement Judgment Applied to Direct Contact with Engineer X
adheres to principle: Definite Steps Threshold Applied to Firms A and B Non-Commitment Status
adheres to principle: Engineer X Direct Engagement Permissibility Upon Agency-Initiated Contact
adheres to principle: Independent Arrangement Relational Obligation Review Applied to Engineer X and Firms A and B
adheres to principle: Specialist Non-Supplanting Direct Engagement Permissibility Applied to Engineer X
has obligation: Engineer X Agency-Initiated Direct Engagement Non-Supplanting Permissibility
has obligation: Engineer X Prior Arrangement Disclosure Upon Direct Agency Solicitation
has obligation: Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance
has obligation: Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Disclosure in Direct Solicitation Response
has obligation: Engineer X Supplanting Prohibition Definite-Steps Threshold Verification
attributes: {'specialty': 'Highly qualified specialist of the type required', 'prior_role': 'Sub-consultant arranged by Firms A and B', 'new_role': 'Prospective direct prime contractor', 'anti_supplanting_analysis': "No definite steps taken toward Firms A or B's engagement; no bar under Section 11(a)"}
caseinvolvement: A recognized technical specialist initially arranged as sub-consultant by Firms A and B, subsequently contacted directly by the government agency and invited to submit qualifications as prime professional. The Discussion finds no ethical bar to accepting the direct contract under Section 11(a) but notes Engineer X must consider whether prior arrangements with Firms A or B create obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:34:33.097225+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:34:33.097225+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'arranged_by', 'target': 'Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor'}
relationships: {'type': 'arranged_by', 'target': 'Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor'}
relationships: {'type': 'directly_solicited_by', 'target': 'Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Non-Supplanting Direct Contract Accepting Specialist Engineer
sourcetext: We find no grounds in the code which would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis if so desired by the client and the firm.
textreferences: Engineer X should consider carefully whether his accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B.
textreferences: Section 11 (a), which prohibits one engineer from supplanting another, is no bar unless it be shown that 'definite steps' have been taken by the client to retain another engineer.
textreferences: We find no grounds in the code which would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis if so desired by the client and the firm.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.069779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation in Government Solicitation
type: NominalPrimeCapabilityMisrepresentationNon-CommissionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firm A Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty
defeasible under: Nominal Subconsultant Arrangement — Firm A
casecontext: Government agency solicitation for highly specialized engineering services; Firm A responded affirmatively stating it had arranged Engineer X as sub-consultant and would furnish all other services, but those other services were nominal.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Firms A and B
derived from principle: Nominal Capability Misrepresentation by Firm A in Solicitation Response
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm A
obligationclass: Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation Non-Commission Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm A was obligated to refrain from representing itself as a capable prime contractor furnishing all other services when, in actuality, those other services would be nominal in nature, with all substantive technical work to be performed by Engineer X.
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
temporalscope: At the time of submitting the solicitation response to the government agency
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.073736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation in Government Solicitation
type: NominalPrimeCapabilityMisrepresentationNon-CommissionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firm B Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty
defeasible under: Nominal Subconsultant Arrangement — Firm B
casecontext: Government agency solicitation for highly specialized engineering services; Firm B responded affirmatively stating it had arranged Engineer X as sub-consultant and would furnish all other services, but those other services were nominal.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Firms A and B
derived from principle: Nominal Capability Misrepresentation by Firm B in Solicitation Response
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm B
obligationclass: Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation Non-Commission Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm B was obligated to refrain from representing itself as a capable prime contractor furnishing all other services when, in actuality, those other services would be nominal in nature, with all substantive technical work to be performed by Engineer X.
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
temporalscope: At the time of submitting the solicitation response to the government agency
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.073892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Solicitation Deception Avoidance Obligation Violated by Firms A and B
type: SolicitationDeceptionAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government agency solicitation responses
appliedto: Qualification statements submitted to government agency
balancingwith: Competitive interest in prime contract award
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firms A and B used framing in their solicitation responses that created a false impression of substantive team capability — representing that they would furnish 'all other services' while omitting that those services were nominal in nature, thereby deceiving the procuring agency about the genuine composition and contribution of the proposed team.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The firms' solicitation responses were structured to imply a capable, multi-contributor team. The omission of the nominal character of the firms' own services constituted a deceptive framing that misled the agency — a violation of the obligation to avoid misleading language in solicitation of professional employment.
invokedby: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
invokedby: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
principleclass: Solicitation Deception Avoidance Obligation
sourcetext: Firms A and B stated they would furnish all other services involved; in actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
tensionresolution: The deception avoidance obligation applies to omissions and framings that create false impressions, not only to affirmative misstatements; the firms' omission of the nominal character of their services was ethically equivalent to an affirmative misrepresentation.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.072563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition in Procurement Response
type: ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firms A and B Hypothetical Compliant Path Substantive Contribution Geographic Calibration
defeasible under: Firms A and B Nominal Contribution Misrepresentation
prevails over: Firms A and B Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation in Solicitation
casecontext: The statement that firms would 'furnish all other services' was technically true but artfully misleading because those other services were nominal in nature, creating a false impression of substantive capability.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Firms A and B
derived from principle: Solicitation Deception Avoidance Obligation Violated by Firms A and B
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firms A and B
obligationclass: Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: Firms A and B were obligated to refrain from making statements in their solicitation responses that were technically true (they had arranged Engineer X and would furnish other services) but designed to mislead the agency into believing they would make a substantial contribution, when those other services were nominal.
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting solicitation responses
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.075526
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Honorable Professional Conduct in Specialized Procurement
type: HonorableProfessionalConductinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firms A and B Honest Competence Representation Violation in Specialized Procurement
casecontext: By responding affirmatively to a specialized procurement while intending only a nominal role, Firms A and B gained an unfair competitive advantage over firms that honestly disclosed their limitations or did not respond.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
derived from principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated by Nominal Prime Responses
derived from principle: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Implicated by Nominal Prime Structure
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:39:47.884884+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firms A and B
obligationclass: Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: Firms A and B were obligated to conduct themselves honorably and fairly in the government procurement process, which required not interposing themselves as nominal prime contractors to gain competitive advantage when their actual contribution would be nominal.
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
temporalscope: Throughout the procurement process
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.075690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Substantive Contribution Threshold Failure by Firms A and B
type: SubstantiveContributionThresholdasEthicalPrerequisiteforPrimeEngagement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government agency solicitation response
appliedto: Highly specialized engineering services procurement
balancingwith: Business development incentives
balancingwith: Competitive interest in prime contract award
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firms A and B lacked the substantive contribution threshold required to ethically accept a prime contract role in this highly specialized procurement, as their entire technical contribution depended on Engineer X and their own services would be nominal in nature.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The government agency's independent conclusion that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution validates the principle that substantive contribution is an ethical prerequisite for prime engagement — the firms' own assessment of their capabilities should have led them to the same conclusion before responding affirmatively.
invokedby: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
invokedby: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
principleclass: Substantive Contribution Threshold as Ethical Prerequisite for Prime Engagement
sourcetext: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X.
tensionresolution: The ethical obligation to honestly assess and represent one's substantive contribution overrides competitive and business development incentives to respond affirmatively to specialized solicitations.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X...
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.072278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance
type: PriorSub-ConsultantArrangementConflictReviewBeforeIndependentAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer X Agency-Initiated Direct Engagement Non-Supplanting Permissibility
competes with: Engineer X Supplanting Prohibition Definite-Steps Threshold Verification
defeasible under: Firms A and B No Definite Selection Steps — Anti-Supplanting Non-Activation
casecontext: Engineer X had been independently arranged as sub-consultant by both Firms A and B. The BER noted this as a prudential obligation even while finding no ethics code bar to direct engagement.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Independent Arrangement Relational Obligation Review Applied to Engineer X and Firms A and B
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer X
obligationclass: Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer X was obligated to carefully consider whether accepting the direct prime contract from the government agency would violate any arrangement he had made with Firms A or B as part of the sub-consultant arrangements, and to resolve any such conflicts before proceeding with independent acceptance.
sourcetext: We might note, however, that Engineer X should consider carefully whether his accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B.
temporalscope: Before accepting the direct prime contract from the government agency
textreferences: We might note, however, that Engineer X should consider carefully whether his accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.082579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Broker-Only Role Specialist Referral Obligation
type: Broker-OnlyPrimeRoleTransparencyandSpecialist-DirectReferralObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firms A and B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
prevails over: Firms A and B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
casecontext: Firms A and B could contribute only brokerage and administrative coordination; the entire substantive technical scope fell within Engineer X's expertise. The BER found their ethical position was to recommend direct engagement of Engineer X.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Broker-Only Role Transparency Obligation of Firms A and B
derived from principle: Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Obligation Applied to Firms A and B
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineers within Firms A and B with authority over the solicitation response
obligationclass: Broker-Only Prime Role Transparency and Specialist-Direct Referral Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineers within Firms A and B, recognizing that their only substantive service would be to arrange for Engineer X's services, were obligated to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better-qualified engineer for the services required, rather than offering to serve as nominal prime contractors.
sourcetext: Their ethical position in that event was to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the solicitation response
textreferences: On that basis we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
textreferences: Their ethical position in that event was to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.082856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firms A and B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
type: SubstantivePrimeContributionThresholdComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Firms A and B Broker-Only Role Specialist Referral Obligation
defeasible under: Firms A and B Nominal Contribution Misrepresentation
casecontext: Firms A and B proposed to serve as prime contractors while delegating all substantive technical work to Engineer X, retaining only nominal administrative and brokerage functions.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Substantive Contribution Threshold Failure by Firms A and B
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:48:04.527242+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineers within Firms A and B with authority over the solicitation response
obligationclass: Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineers within Firms A and B were obligated to ensure their firms would make a substantive — not merely nominal — technical contribution commensurate with the prime contractor role, and to decline the prime role, restructure the engagement, or disclose their nominal role and recommend direct specialist engagement when they could not meet this threshold.
sourcetext: On that basis we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
temporalscope: Before submitting the solicitation response
textreferences: If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.
textreferences: On that basis we believe that Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
textreferences: Their ethical position in that event was to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.083123
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Substantive Contribution Contextual Calibration Applied to Geographic and Local Factors
type: SubstantiveContributionContextualCalibrationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
appliedto: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
balancingwith: Nominal Capability Misrepresentation Prohibition in Procurement Responses
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Discussion instructs that in defining 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors — recognizing that non-technical contributions may constitute substantiality in appropriate contexts.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, geographic proximity and local-conditions familiarity are identified as potentially legitimate bases for substantiality — but only when genuinely present and relevant to project success, not as pretextual justifications for a brokerage-only role.
invokedby: Ethics Board defining 'substantial contribution'
principleclass: Substantive Contribution Contextual Calibration Principle
sourcetext: In defining the word 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors.
tensionresolution: The contextual calibration principle prevents mechanical rejection of non-technical contributions while the misrepresentation prohibition prevents pretextual invocation of geographic factors to disguise a brokerage-only role.
textreferences: In defining the word 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.080845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Specialist Engagement Obligation Contextual Application in Prime-Sub Structure
type: SpecialistEngagementObligationWhenClientInterestsRequireIt
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime
appliedto: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
appliedto: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
balancingwith: Nominal Capability Misrepresentation Prohibition in Procurement Responses
balancingwith: Substantive Contribution Threshold as Ethical Prerequisite for Prime Engagement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Discussion affirms that the code's provision permitting a prime professional to retain specialists is proper and valuable, but only when the prime is itself performing substantial services — the specialist engagement provision is not a standalone authorization for brokerage-only primes to legitimize their role by naming a specialist.
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the specialist engagement obligation operates within the constraint that the prime must be performing substantial services of its own — it is a supplement to genuine prime competence, not a substitute for it.
invokedby: Ethics Board interpreting Section 6 second clause
principleclass: Specialist Engagement Obligation When Client Interests Require It
sourcetext: Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional engineer will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional engineer is performing substantial services of a project.
tensionresolution: The specialist engagement provision is read in the context of the full competence section, requiring that the prime be performing substantial services before the specialist engagement authorization applies.
textreferences: The second clause of Section 6 recognizes the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interest of the project.
textreferences: We read this procedure in the context of the full Section 6, however, and conclude that in totality Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional engineer will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional engineer is performing substantial services of a project.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.080435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Obligation Applied to Firms A and B
type: Broker-OnlyRoleTransparencyandSpecialist-DirectReferralObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
appliedto: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
appliedto: Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Discussion finds that Firms A and B, whose only substantive service would have been to arrange for Engineer X's services, should not have offered to undertake the prime contract and instead should have recommended to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:45:18.835804+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the broker-only transparency obligation required Firms A and B to disclose their brokerage-only role and redirect the agency to Engineer X directly, rather than interposing themselves as nominal primes.
invokedby: Ethics Board applying Section 6
principleclass: Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist-Direct Referral Obligation
sourcetext: Their ethical position in that event was to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required.
tensionresolution: The obligation to recommend direct specialist engagement overrides competitive self-interest in retaining the prime role when the firm's contribution would be purely nominal.
textreferences: Firms A and B should not have offered to undertake the prime contract if their only substantive service would be to arrange for the services of Engineer X.
textreferences: Their ethical position in that event was to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.080583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Firms A and B
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Government agency solicitation response
appliedto: Qualification and capability representations
balancingwith: Competitive interest in winning contracts
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firms A and B made representations to the government agency that they had arranged Engineer X as a sub-consultant and would furnish all other services, when in actuality those other services were nominal — constituting a false assurance of substantive capability that misled the agency about the true nature of the proposed team.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:37:38.249789+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The firms' representations implied a genuine division of labor with substantial contributions from both the firm and Engineer X. The actuality — that the firms' services were nominal — rendered these representations materially misleading, violating the obligation to make only truthful and accurate representations of capabilities.
invokedby: Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
invokedby: Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Firms A and B stated they would furnish all other services involved; in actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
tensionresolution: Honesty in professional representations is not subject to competitive pressure exceptions; the obligation to accurately represent capabilities applies regardless of the competitive stakes.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.072420
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor
type: NominalPrimeContractorEngineeringFirm
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Obligation Applied to Firms A and B
adheres to principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated by Nominal Prime Responses
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Firms A and B
adheres to principle: Nominal Capability Misrepresentation by Firm B in Solicitation Response
adheres to principle: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Implicated by Nominal Prime Structure
adheres to principle: Solicitation Deception Avoidance Obligation Violated by Firms A and B
adheres to principle: Substantive Contribution Contextual Calibration Applied to Geographic and Local Factors
adheres to principle: Substantive Contribution Threshold Failure by Firms A and B
has obligation: Firm B Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty
has obligation: Firm B Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation in Government Solicitation
has obligation: Firm B Specialist-Retention Provision Contextual Reading Violation
has obligation: Firm B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
has obligation: Firms A and B Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition in Procurement Response
has obligation: Firms A and B Broker-Only Role Specialist Referral Obligation
has obligation: Firms A and B Honest Competence Representation Violation in Specialized Procurement
has obligation: Firms A and B Honorable Professional Conduct in Specialized Procurement
has obligation: Firms A and B Nominal Prime Role Misrepresentation Ethics Violation
has obligation: Firms A and B Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Failure
has obligation: Firms A and B Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation in Solicitation
has obligation: Firms A and B Substantive Contribution Geographic Factor Calibration Failure
has obligation: Firms A and B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
attributes: {'arrangement': 'Pre-arranged Engineer X as specialized sub-consultant', 'own_contribution': 'Nominal — other services of peripheral nature', 'qualification_basis': "Engineer X's expertise, not firm's own"}
caseinvolvement: Responded affirmatively to the government solicitation, stating it had independently arranged Engineer X as a specialized sub-consultant while it would furnish all other (in actuality nominal) services. Sought to serve as prime contractor despite being unable to substantially contribute to the core specialized work.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:33:00.934159+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:33:00.934159+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'arranged_specialist', 'target': 'Engineer X Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime'}
relationships: {'type': 'competing_with', 'target': 'Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Nominal Prime Contractor Engineering Firm
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.067572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction

Firm A Nominal Prime Contractor
type: NominalPrimeContractorEngineeringFirm
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Obligation Applied to Firms A and B
adheres to principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated by Nominal Prime Responses
adheres to principle: Free and Open Competition Boundary Condition in Specialized Procurement
adheres to principle: Honesty in Professional Representations Violated by Firms A and B
adheres to principle: Nominal Capability Misrepresentation by Firm A in Solicitation Response
adheres to principle: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Implicated by Nominal Prime Structure
adheres to principle: Solicitation Deception Avoidance Obligation Violated by Firms A and B
adheres to principle: Substantive Contribution Contextual Calibration Applied to Geographic and Local Factors
adheres to principle: Substantive Contribution Threshold Failure by Firms A and B
has obligation: Firm A Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty
has obligation: Firm A Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation in Government Solicitation
has obligation: Firm A Specialist-Retention Provision Contextual Reading Violation
has obligation: Firm A Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
has obligation: Firms A and B Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition in Procurement Response
has obligation: Firms A and B Broker-Only Role Specialist Referral Obligation
has obligation: Firms A and B Honest Competence Representation Violation in Specialized Procurement
has obligation: Firms A and B Honorable Professional Conduct in Specialized Procurement
has obligation: Firms A and B Nominal Prime Role Misrepresentation Ethics Violation
has obligation: Firms A and B Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Failure
has obligation: Firms A and B Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation in Solicitation
has obligation: Firms A and B Substantive Contribution Geographic Factor Calibration Failure
has obligation: Firms A and B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
attributes: {'arrangement': 'Pre-arranged Engineer X as specialized sub-consultant', 'own_contribution': 'Nominal — other services of peripheral nature', 'qualification_basis': "Engineer X's expertise, not firm's own"}
caseinvolvement: Responded affirmatively to the government solicitation, stating it had arranged Engineer X as a specialized sub-consultant while it would furnish all other (in actuality nominal) services. Sought to serve as prime contractor despite being unable to substantially contribute to the core specialized work.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 161
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T11:33:00.934159+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 161
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T11:33:00.934159+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'arranged_specialist', 'target': 'Engineer X Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime'}
relationships: {'type': 'competing_with', 'target': 'Firm B Nominal Prime Contractor'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'Government Agency Specialized Technical Services Solicitor'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Nominal Prime Contractor Engineering Firm
sourcetext: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
textreferences: In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
textreferences: Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
wasattributedto: Case 161 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T11:58:20.069641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 161 Extraction