ProEthica Case 162 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.170843
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Authority Equal-Access Modification Permission with Public Objection
type: Authority-PermittedEqual-AccessProcurementModificationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From authority's grant of modification permission through public and council objection period
affectedparties: All competing firms
affectedparties: City council members
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Public utility authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:04.438800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:04.438800+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A
stateclass: Authority-Permitted Equal-Access Procurement Modification State
subject: Public utility authority's legally cleared grant of equal-access mid-process modification permission, contested by public and council on procurement-intent grounds
terminatedby: Resolution of public/council objections; final procurement selection
textreferences: a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it
textreferences: some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal, alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law, and that Firm A had acted unethically in making its request
textreferences: the utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A
triggeringevent: Authority receiving legal advice of no impediment and granting Firm A's modification request with equal-access condition
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.173066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

BER Case 71-2
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 71-2
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:09.660808+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:09.660808+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: we observed in Case 71-2 that Section 6 of the code '...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: The earlier case related to a single firm employing other firms as associates for part of the work, with the prime firm retaining full legal responsibility for the project assignment.
textreferences: we observed in Case 71-2 that Section 6 of the code '...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 see no real difference in the ethical obligation when instead of one 'prime' firm the legal entity is to be a joint venture in which all the involved firms are jointly responsible
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about joint venture specialist engagement obligations
usedincontext: Cited as precedent establishing that NSPE Code Section 6 recognizes the propriety of prime professionals retaining experts and specialists, and that a prime firm retaining full legal responsibility may engage associate firms for part of the work — analogically extended in this case to joint ventures where all firms share joint responsibility
version: 1971
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.174348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

BER Ethics Board QBS Law Best-Qualified Firm Permissive Procedure Interpretation
type: QBSLawBest-QualifiedFirmPermissiveProcedureInterpretationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: QBS Law Best-Qualified Firm Permissive Procedure Interpretation Capability
capabilitystatement: The BER applied purposive statutory interpretation to conclude that QBS law permits procedures enabling firms to present their best qualifications, recognizing that a contrary interpretation would produce a peculiar and self-defeating result
casecontext: The BER analyzed whether the utility authority's amendment procedure violated QBS law and ethics, concluding that the procedure was consistent with the law's purpose
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The BER's observation that interpreting QBS law to preclude qualification-enhancing procedures would be inconsistent with the law's fundamental purpose of selecting the best qualified firm
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: BER Ethics Reviewing Body
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: it would indeed be a peculiar result that a state or local law intended to have the client select the 'best qualified' firm be interpreted to preclude a procedure intended to present each 'firm' in its best light of technical and other professional qualifications.
textreferences: it would indeed be a peculiar result that a state or local law intended to have the client select the 'best qualified' firm be interpreted to preclude a procedure intended to present each 'firm' in its best light of technical and other professional qualifications.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.189768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Brooks Act (Federal A/E Selection Law)
type: Qualification-BasedSelectionProcurementLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: United States Congress
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Brooks Architect-Engineers Act (40 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:09.660808+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:09.660808+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
sourcetext: the applicable laws are similar to the Federal A/E selection law (Brooks Act) and the laws of other states, which contemplate a procedure whereby the public body may select the 'best qualified' firm
textreferences: the applicable laws are similar to the Federal A/E selection law (Brooks Act) and the laws of other states, which contemplate a procedure whereby the public body may select the 'best qualified' firm
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review to contextualize the governing procurement framework
usedincontext: Referenced as the federal analog to the applicable state law and local ordinance on engineering services procurement, establishing the 'best qualified' firm selection standard against which the ethical permissibility of joint venture team revision is assessed
version: Federal statute
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.174573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Case 162 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.192128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Case 71-2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.714367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

CausalLink_Propose Joint Venture Structur
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.714605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

CausalLink_Reorganize Joint Venture Team
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.714640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

CausalLink_Request Permission to Revise S
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

CausalLink_Submit Revised Qualification P
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Code Section 6 Upgrade-or-Withdraw Binary Firm A QBS Power Facility
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm A's joint venture was publicly identified by the screening committee as lacking sufficient technical support; Firm A chose to restructure its joint venture team and request permission to amend its SOQ
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Firm A competing in QBS procurement for power facility addition
constraintclass: Code Section 6 Qualification Deficiency Upgrade-or-Withdraw Binary Constraint
constraintstatement: Upon receiving screening committee feedback indicating that its joint venture lacked sufficient technical support, Firm A was constrained by Code Section 6 to either upgrade its qualifications through internal or external revisions to its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration — with no ethically permissible intermediate option of continuing to compete without addressing the identified deficiency.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:14.010395+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:14.010395+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former); BER Case 71-2
sourcetext: under the mandate of 6 of the code, Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture for the assignment once it was indicated that additional technical support was required by the client
temporalscope: From the moment screening committee feedback identified the qualification deficiency until Firm A either upgraded or withdrew
textreferences: Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade its qualifications through either internal or external revisions in its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration
textreferences: under the mandate of 6 of the code, Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture for the assignment once it was indicated that additional technical support was required by the client
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.187313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Competing Engineering Firms Equal Amendment Opportunity Acceptance and Response
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The six other shortlisted firms were given the same opportunity as Firm A to revise their qualification submissions. Their equal treatment preserved the free and open competitive character of the QBS process.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Other Six Competing Engineering Firms (Equal Amendment Opportunity Recipients)
obligationclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
obligationstatement: The other six competing engineering firms were obligated to recognize that the equal amendment opportunity extended to them by the utility authority preserved the competitive fairness of the QBS process, and to respond to that opportunity in a manner consistent with honest and accurate representation of their qualifications.
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
temporalscope: Upon receiving notice from the utility authority of the equal amendment opportunity
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.179384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Competing Engineering Firms Equal Amendment Opportunity Recipients
type: PublicProcurementObjectorStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Competing engineering firms (collective)', 'procurement_context': 'Qualifications-based selection for public utility engineering services', 'interest': 'Procedural fairness and equal treatment in QBS amendment process'}
caseinvolvement: Other firms competing in the QBS process who were given the same opportunity as Firm A to revise their qualification submissions. Their equal treatment is the ethical basis for finding Firm A's amendment procedure fair. They represent the competitive field whose interests in procedural fairness are protected by the equal-opportunity requirement.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:13.233673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:13.233673+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'competes_with', 'target': 'Firm A Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead'}
relationships: {'type': 'evaluated_by', 'target': 'QBS Screening Committee Qualification Feedback Body'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Procurement Objector Stakeholder
sourcetext: we do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity
textreferences: we do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.175256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Competing Firms Equal Amendment Opportunity Recognition and Response
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The other six competing engineering firms demonstrated — or were required to demonstrate — the capability to recognize that the equal amendment opportunity extended to them by the utility authority was a legitimate and fair procedural accommodation, and to make informed decisions about whether to exercise that opportunity.
casecontext: The equal amendment opportunity extended to all competing firms was the key fairness mechanism that distinguished the utility authority's accommodation as ethically permissible
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Being offered the same opportunity as Firm A to revise their qualification submissions, and making informed decisions about whether to exercise that opportunity
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Competing Engineering Firms Equal Amendment Opportunity Recipients (Other Six Competing Engineering Firms)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.184197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Competitive Procurement Public Interest Framework for Power Facility
type: CompetitiveProcurementPublicInterestAlignmentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the entire procurement process from public announcement through contract execution
affectedparties: All competing firms
affectedparties: City council
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Public utility authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:04.438800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:04.438800+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: publicly invited qualification statements from interested engineering firms
stateclass: Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment State
subject: The overall QBS procurement framework designed to serve public interest by selecting the most qualified firm for a large, complex public utility project
terminatedby: Contract execution with selected firm
textreferences: publicly invited qualification statements from interested engineering firms
textreferences: the agency is required to select the 'most qualified' firm for negotiation of a contract
textreferences: the state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered
triggeringevent: Public utility authority's public announcement and invitation for qualification statements under state law and local ordinance
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.173454
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was ethical for Firm A to seek to alter its qualification proposal in order to improve its position to secure the contract.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.715583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Procurement-Fairness
cited provision2: Public-Procurement-Fairness-Equal-Treatment-Norm
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that it was ethical for Firm A to seek to alter its qualification proposal, the manner in which Firm A conditioned its amendment request — explicitly requiring that equal amendment opportunity be extended to all seven competing firms — represents a meaningful ethical act in its own right, not merely a procedural formality. By insisting on symmetrical access as a precondition rather than simply requesting a private accommodation, Firm A demonstrated that its conduct was oriented toward preserving competitive integrity rather than exploiting an informational advantage. This self-imposed constraint distinguishes Firm A's conduct from a purely self-interested maneuver and provides the primary ethical justification for the Board's conclusion. However, the Board did not address whether this equal-access condition was substantively sufficient to neutralize the informational asymmetry Firm A already possessed. Because the screening committee's deficiency feedback was specific and actionable — identifying particular gaps in technical experience and personnel backup — Firm A alone knew precisely what changes would improve its competitive standing. The other six firms, having received no comparable individualized feedback, had no equivalent signal about how to strengthen their own submissions. Equal formal access to the amendment procedure therefore did not translate into equal practical opportunity to benefit from it. The Board's conclusion, while defensible, rests on a procedural equality that was real in form but limited in substance.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.716099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: State-Law-Local-Ordinance-QBS-Procurement
cited provision2: Brooks Act (Federal A/E Selection Law)
cited provision3: BER Case 71-2
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Firm A acted ethically implicitly endorses a permissive interpretation of the governing qualified-based selection law — one that treats the procurement framework as oriented toward securing the most qualified firm rather than enforcing rigid procedural closure at each stage. This interpretive stance is significant and deserves explicit recognition. The state law and local ordinance governing the utility authority's procurement were designed to ensure that the selected firm is the most qualified, not merely the most qualified among those who submitted complete and adequate proposals on the first attempt. Allowing mid-process amendments, when done transparently and with equal access extended to all competitors, is arguably more consistent with the law's underlying purpose than a strict procedural bar would be. The utility authority's decision to seek and receive legal clearance before granting the amendment request further supports this interpretation, demonstrating institutional good faith. However, the Board did not address the countervailing concern raised by public objectors and city council members: that permitting mid-process amendments effectively rewards firms that submit inadequate initial proposals, potentially creating perverse incentives in future procurements. If firms learn that deficiency feedback from screening committees can be used to revise submissions, the integrity of the initial qualification stage may be undermined over time. The Board's conclusion is sound for the specific case but leaves open the systemic question of whether the amendment procedure, if routinely permitted, would erode the procurement framework it was meant to serve.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.716191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former)
cited provision2: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Procurement-Fairness
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Firm A acted ethically does not fully resolve the question of whether Firm A had an antecedent ethical obligation under NSPE Code Section 6 to recognize and remedy its qualification deficiencies before the screening committee identified them publicly. Code Section 6 requires engineers to engage specialists when their own competence is insufficient, and this obligation is not contingent on external feedback triggering awareness of the gap. If Firm A's joint venture team was objectively deficient in technical experience and specialized personnel backup at the time of initial submission, then Firm A may have had an independent duty to self-assess and proactively cure that deficiency — or to withdraw — before the screening committee's public identification of the problem. The fact that Firm A acted only after receiving external feedback raises the question of whether its original qualification statement was an honest and accurate representation of its actual capabilities, as required by the principle of honesty in professional representations. The amendment, while ethically permissible as the Board concluded, does not retroactively cure any misrepresentation in the original submission; it merely corrects the team's composition going forward. The Board's analysis would have been strengthened by addressing whether the original submission itself met the standard of professional honesty, and whether the amendment procedure should be understood as a remediation of an ethical lapse rather than a neutral procedural option. Firm A's ethical conduct in requesting the amendment transparently and on equal terms is commendable, but the full ethical picture requires acknowledging that the need for the amendment may itself reflect a prior shortcoming in professional self-assessment.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.716275
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Firm A did gain a meaningful informational advantage by receiving specific, individualized deficiency feedback from the screening committee at a public meeting. The equal-amendment-opportunity condition extended to all seven competing firms does not fully neutralize that advantage. The other six firms received no comparable signal about how to improve their standing — they were not told they had deficiencies, nor were they given any actionable basis for restructuring their teams. The equal-access condition ensured procedural symmetry in form, but not substantive equality in competitive position. Firm A alone knew precisely what to fix and why, making its amendment strategically targeted in a way that no other firm's amendment could be. This residual informational asymmetry is ethically significant and represents a genuine, if partial, unfairness to the other competing firms, even if it does not rise to the level of rendering Firm A's conduct unethical under the Board's conclusion.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.716339
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: The utility authority's decision to grant the amendment request was procedurally defensible but substantively ambiguous with respect to the spirit of the governing procurement framework. State law and local ordinance established a sequential, structured qualification-based selection process designed to identify the most qualified firm from among those who submitted complete and accurate statements at the outset. By permitting mid-process revision of a qualification statement after screening committee feedback had already been delivered, the authority effectively allowed one firm to cure a material deficiency that the process was designed to surface and penalize. While the authority obtained legal clearance confirming no legal impediment, legal permissibility does not automatically satisfy the spirit and intent of the procurement law. The decision functionally reopened a portion of the qualification competition for one firm in a way that the original procurement framework did not anticipate or explicitly authorize, creating a procedural irregularity that the public and city council objectors were not wrong to flag, even if the Board ultimately found the conduct ethical.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.716402
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former)
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: Under NSPE Code Section 6, which obligates engineers to engage specialists when their own competence is insufficient, Firm A arguably had a pre-existing ethical obligation to recognize and cure its joint venture team's technical deficiencies before the screening committee identified them. The Code's obligation is not triggered solely by external feedback — it attaches when a firm undertakes or proposes to undertake work beyond its competence. If Firm A's original joint venture proposal lacked sufficient experience in certain technical aspects and adequate backup of specialized technical personnel, as the screening committee found, then Firm A should have identified those gaps during its own internal assessment before submitting its qualification statement. The fact that external feedback was required to surface the deficiency suggests that Firm A either failed to conduct adequate self-assessment or proceeded with a proposal it knew or should have known was technically incomplete. This does not make the subsequent amendment unethical, but it does indicate that Firm A's conduct fell short of the proactive professional standard that Code Section 6 demands, and that the amendment was remedial rather than exemplary.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.716472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: The fact that the screening committee's deficiency feedback was delivered at a public meeting rather than in a private communication is ethically significant, though not dispositive. Public delivery of the feedback reduces — but does not eliminate — the ethical concern about informational asymmetry. Because the feedback was public, any of the other six competing firms could theoretically have learned of Firm A's identified deficiencies and used that information to sharpen their own competitive positioning. However, in practice, the other firms had no deficiencies identified and thus no comparable basis for targeted amendment. The public nature of the disclosure matters most in assessing whether Firm A exploited a procedural irregularity: because the feedback was not delivered through a private channel that gave Firm A exclusive access to evaluator intelligence, the exploitation concern is meaningfully diminished. Had the feedback been private, the ethical case against Firm A's amendment request would have been substantially stronger, as it would have rested on information that no other firm could have accessed or acted upon.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.716535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: The principle of Public Welfare Paramount — which favors selecting the most technically qualified firm for a large and complex power facility — does create genuine tension with the principle of Procurement Process Spirit and Intent, but the tension is not irresolvable. The QBS framework itself was designed precisely to serve the public welfare by ensuring that the most qualified firm is selected. When strict procedural adherence would result in excluding a firm that, after amendment, may be more qualified than its competitors, rigid process compliance can paradoxically undermine the very public interest the process was designed to serve. However, this reasoning has limits: if mid-process amendments are freely permitted whenever a firm receives negative feedback, the integrity of the initial qualification submission requirement is eroded, and the process loses its capacity to screen firms on the basis of their actual, pre-feedback capabilities. The Board's conclusion that Firm A's conduct was ethical implicitly resolves this tension in favor of substantive qualification over procedural formalism, but that resolution is defensible only because the equal-access condition was imposed and legal clearance was obtained — conditions that, together, preserved enough procedural integrity to make the outcome acceptable.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.716597
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Firm A's conditioning of its amendment request on equal access for all seven competing firms was a necessary but not fully sufficient discharge of its duty of fairness. The Kantian test — whether the maxim of one's action could be universalized — is partially satisfied: if any firm that received negative screening feedback could request an amendment on the condition of equal access for all, the rule would be universalizable without self-contradiction. However, the informational advantage Firm A already possessed from the individualized screening committee feedback means that the formal equality of the equal-access condition masked a substantive inequality in competitive position. A more complete discharge of the duty of fairness would have required either that Firm A advocate for the screening committee to provide comparable individualized feedback to all seven firms before any amendments were submitted, or that the amendment process be structured so that all firms received equivalent evaluative intelligence before revising their submissions. Because neither condition was met, Firm A's equal-access condition, while ethically commendable, did not fully satisfy the deontological standard of impartiality.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.716659
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: From a consequentialist standpoint, the utility authority's decision to permit Firm A's mid-process qualification amendment is defensible as likely serving the public interest better than strict procedural adherence, provided the amended firm is genuinely more qualified than it was before and the selection process ultimately identifies the most competent firm for the power facility. The purpose of the QBS framework is not procedural compliance for its own sake but the substantive outcome of securing the most qualified engineering services for a complex and consequential public project. Allowing a firm to cure a technical deficiency identified through legitimate public feedback, under conditions of equal access and legal clearance, increases the probability that the final selection pool contains the most capable firms. The consequentialist case is strongest when the deficiency identified was genuine, the cure is substantive rather than cosmetic, and the equal-access condition ensures that no other firm is materially disadvantaged by the amendment. All three conditions appear to be met in this case, supporting the Board's conclusion on consequentialist grounds even if the deontological case is more equivocal.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.716721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Firm A demonstrated a meaningful but imperfect expression of professional integrity. The proactive disclosure of the team restructuring to the utility authority and the insistence on equal amendment access for all competitors reflect virtues of transparency and fairness that are genuinely commendable. However, virtue ethics evaluates not only the actions taken but the character dispositions from which they arise. The self-interested motivation underlying Firm A's amendment request — securing a contract it was at risk of losing — does not automatically disqualify the conduct as virtuous, since virtuous action need not be purely altruistic. But the failure to self-identify the qualification deficiency before the screening committee surfaced it suggests a deficit in the virtue of professional humility and rigorous self-assessment that a fully honorable firm would have exercised at the outset. A firm of exemplary professional character would have either submitted a complete and adequate proposal from the beginning or voluntarily withdrawn upon recognizing its own deficiencies, rather than relying on external feedback to trigger corrective action. Firm A's conduct was virtuous enough to be ethical, but not exemplary by the highest standard of professional character.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.716787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former)
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, NSPE Code Section 6's obligation to engage specialists when competence is insufficient does create an affirmative duty that, once the screening committee identified Firm A's technical deficiencies, made the team restructuring not merely permissible but morally required. If Firm A accepted the screening committee's feedback as accurate — and its subsequent action in restructuring the joint venture team implies that it did — then it was obligated under the Code to remedy the deficiency or withdraw. The amendment request was the mechanism through which Firm A fulfilled that obligation within the constraints of the active procurement. On this analysis, the amendment request was not a strategic maneuver to improve competitive position but a compliance action required by professional ethics. This framing strengthens the Board's conclusion by grounding the ethical permissibility of the amendment in a positive duty rather than merely the absence of a prohibition, and it suggests that Firm A would have acted unethically had it chosen to remain in the competition without curing the identified deficiency.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.716858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 104
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: If the screening committee's deficiency feedback had been delivered privately to Firm A rather than at a public meeting, the informational asymmetry between Firm A and the other six competing firms would have been substantially more pronounced and ethically more troubling. In that scenario, Firm A would have possessed evaluator intelligence that was structurally inaccessible to its competitors — not merely practically unused by them — making the equal-access condition a hollow remedy. The other firms would have had no basis for knowing that amendments were strategically valuable, no signal about what deficiencies the evaluators were concerned about, and no reason to believe that restructuring their teams would improve their competitive standing. Under those conditions, the equal-access condition would have provided formal procedural symmetry while masking a deep substantive inequality, and the amendment request would have been ethically impermissible even if legally unobstructed. The public nature of the feedback delivery is therefore a critical ethical variable in this case — one that the Board's analysis implicitly relies upon but does not explicitly articulate.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.716943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former)
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: If Firm A had chosen to withdraw from the procurement rather than restructure its joint venture team after learning of the screening committee's deficiency findings, that withdrawal would have been consistent with the spirit of the governing procurement law but would not necessarily have represented a higher standard of professional conduct than the amendment path Firm A actually pursued. Withdrawal would have honored the procedural integrity of the original qualification submission framework by accepting the consequences of an inadequate initial proposal. However, it would also have deprived the authority of a potentially qualified firm — one that, after restructuring, may have been among the most capable competitors — and would have done nothing to serve the public interest in securing the best engineering services for a complex power facility. Moreover, Code Section 6's obligation to engage specialists when competence is insufficient does not mandate withdrawal as the preferred remedy; it equally permits remediation through specialist engagement. Withdrawal would have been the more procedurally conservative choice, but the amendment path, pursued transparently and under equal-access conditions, was at least as ethically defensible and arguably more consistent with the Code's substantive purpose.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717011
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: If one or more of the other six competing firms had taken advantage of the equal amendment opportunity to substantially restructure their own teams, the resulting process would have been procedurally strained but not necessarily legally or ethically invalid, provided the authority continued to evaluate all firms against the same qualification criteria and the final selection remained grounded in comparative qualification assessment. The QBS framework's core requirement is that the most qualified firm be selected for negotiation — it does not prohibit the competitive field from evolving during the pre-selection phase, provided that evolution occurs under conditions of equal access and legal authorization. However, a scenario in which multiple firms substantially restructured their teams would have effectively reset the competitive field in a way that the original procurement framework did not contemplate, raising legitimate questions about whether the process retained sufficient integrity to satisfy the spirit of the governing law. The authority would have faced increasing pressure to either close the amendment window definitively or restart the procurement entirely. This counterfactual illustrates that the ethical acceptability of Firm A's amendment request was partly contingent on the other firms' decision not to exercise the equal-access opportunity in a similarly disruptive way — a contingency that Firm A could not have controlled and that the authority should have anticipated when granting the amendment permission.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717074
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: The principle of Honesty in Professional Representations creates a genuine and underappreciated tension with the permissibility of post-feedback qualification amendments. Firm A's original qualification statement represented its team's capabilities to the authority as adequate for the project. The screening committee's finding that the proposal lacked sufficient experience in certain technical aspects and desirable backup of specialized technical personnel implies that the original representation was materially incomplete or inaccurate relative to the project's requirements. Allowing Firm A to amend its submission does not retroactively cure that original misrepresentation — it replaces it with a more accurate one. The ethical question is whether the amendment process adequately acknowledges and addresses the original inaccuracy or merely papers over it. The Board's conclusion that the amendment was ethical implicitly treats the amendment as a cure rather than a concealment, which is defensible if the authority and the public are fully informed of the nature and extent of the original deficiency and the changes made to address it. Transparency about the gap between the original and amended submissions is therefore a necessary condition for the amendment to satisfy the honesty principle, not merely a procedural nicety.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Public Welfare Paramount and Procurement Process Spirit and Intent was resolved in this case by treating the QBS framework's ultimate goal — selecting the most qualified firm for a complex public project — as the interpretive lens through which procedural rules should be read, rather than treating procedural rules as ends in themselves. The Board implicitly concluded that a procurement law designed to secure the best-qualified firm cannot be construed to prohibit a mid-process correction that moves the field closer to that goal, provided the correction is made transparently and with equal access extended to all competitors. This resolution teaches that in QBS contexts, procedural integrity is instrumentally valuable rather than intrinsically absolute: when strict procedural adherence would predictably produce a less-qualified selection outcome, the spirit of the law favors the substantive goal. However, this prioritization carries a significant caveat — it is only defensible when the procedural accommodation is genuinely symmetrical, meaning all competing firms receive the same corrective opportunity, and when the authority obtains legal clearance before acting. The case thus establishes a conditional hierarchy: Public Welfare Paramount supersedes Procurement Process Spirit and Intent only when the equal-access condition and legal-clearance condition are both satisfied.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The principle of Free and Open Competition and the principle of Fairness in Professional Competition were treated as jointly satisfiable through the equal-amendment-opportunity condition, but this synthesis is only partially successful and leaves a residual tension unresolved. Extending the right to amend qualification statements to all seven shortlisted firms formally equalizes procedural access, which satisfies the structural requirement of Free and Open Competition. However, Fairness in Professional Competition demands not merely equal formal access but substantively comparable competitive positioning. Because only Firm A received specific, individualized deficiency feedback from the screening committee — feedback that identified precisely which technical gaps needed to be filled — the equal-access condition gave Firm A a strategically targeted amendment opportunity while giving the other six firms only a generic, undirected opportunity to revise. The other firms had no comparable signal about how to improve their competitive standing. This asymmetry means the two principles were reconciled at the formal level but not at the substantive level. The case teaches that when informational asymmetry is the product of a public proceeding rather than a private communication, it is treated as sufficiently neutralized for ethical purposes — but this conclusion is more defensible as a pragmatic accommodation than as a rigorous resolution of the underlying fairness tension. The public nature of the screening committee's feedback is doing significant ethical work in this analysis: had the feedback been private, the residual unfairness would likely have been disqualifying.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717261
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former)
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The interaction between the Qualification Upgrade or Withdrawal Obligation under Code Section 6 and the principle of Post-Feedback Qualification Amendment Permissibility reveals that these two principles, which might appear to be in tension, are in fact mutually reinforcing in this case — but only because the amendment mechanism was available. Code Section 6 imposes a binary obligation on a firm that recognizes its own competence deficiency: either engage qualified specialists or withdraw from the engagement. Firm A's receipt of screening committee feedback identifying technical gaps triggered this obligation. The amendment request was the mechanism through which Firm A discharged the upgrade branch of that obligation. This synthesis teaches that the ethical duty to cure a competence deficiency does not require withdrawal when a legitimate procedural pathway exists to remedy the deficiency before final selection occurs. However, the synthesis also reveals a timing problem: Code Section 6's obligation arguably arose before the screening committee identified the deficiencies, at the moment Firm A itself should have recognized that its joint venture lacked sufficient expertise for the project's technical requirements. The Board's analysis implicitly treats the screening committee's feedback as the triggering event, but a stricter reading of the Qualification Upgrade or Withdrawal Obligation would hold that Firm A's ethical duty to self-assess and proactively cure arose at the time of initial submission. This suggests the case resolves the principle tension in Firm A's favor by accepting reactive rather than proactive compliance with the competence obligation — a resolution that is ethically permissible but represents a lower standard of professional conduct than the Code's underlying purpose contemplates.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717328
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Consulting Context Specialist Engagement Obligation Active for Joint Venture
type: ConsultingContextCompetenceRemediationFlexibilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the procurement process, particularly after the screening committee's feedback
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Joint venture constituent firms
affectedparties: Utility authority client
concept category: State
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:29.060171+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:29.060171+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional is performing substantial services of a project
stateclass: Consulting Context Competence Remediation Flexibility State
subject: Firm A's ethical position regarding specialist engagement under Code Section 6 in the joint venture context
terminatedby: Firm A's revision of joint venture composition to include required technical support
textreferences: Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional is performing substantial services of a project
textreferences: we see no real difference in the ethical obligation when instead of one 'prime' firm the legal entity is to be a joint venture
triggeringevent: Code Section 6 obligation to engage experts and specialists when client interests are best served, applied to the joint venture context
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.176108
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Upon receiving public screening committee feedback identifying a qualification deficiency in its joint venture, should Firm A restructure its team to cure the deficiency, continue competing without remediation, or withdraw from the process?
focus: After receiving screening committee feedback at a public meeting indicating that its joint venture lacked sufficient technical support for the large power facility addition, Firm A must decide how to respond to the identified qualification deficiency. The firm can either restructure its joint venture team to cure the deficiency, continue competing without remediation, or withdraw from the QBS process entirely. This decision is governed by Code Section 6's specialist engagement mandate and the upgrade-or-withdraw obligation triggered by client-identified deficiencies.
option1: Proactively reorganize the joint venture by adding specialist partners or internal expertise sufficient to meet the large power facility addition's technical requirements, fulfilling the Code Section 6 specialist engagement mandate and the upgrade obligation triggered by the screening committee's feedback.
option2: Proceed in the QBS process with the existing joint venture structure despite the publicly identified deficiency, neither upgrading qualifications nor withdrawing — a course the Code Section 6 specialist engagement obligation characterizes as an ethical violation when known deficiencies remain uncured.
option3: Recognize that upgrading the joint venture's qualifications is not feasible within the procurement timeline and voluntarily withdraw from further consideration, fulfilling the ethical obligation to step aside when competence cannot be adequately demonstrated or remediated.
role label: Firm A (Joint Venture Lead)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: When seeking to submit a revised qualification proposal after restructuring its joint venture team, should Firm A openly disclose the restructuring and condition its amendment request on equal opportunity being extended to all competing firms, submit the revision without explanation, or request permission without the equal-treatment condition?
focus: Having decided to restructure its joint venture team in response to the screening committee's deficiency feedback, Firm A must now decide how to handle the submission of revised qualifications to the utility authority. The firm can openly disclose the restructuring and formally request authorization to amend its submission — conditioning that request on equal amendment opportunity being extended to all seven competing firms — or it can submit an amended proposal without explanation, or it can request permission without conditioning it on equal treatment for competitors.
option1: Openly inform the utility authority of the joint venture team restructuring, formally request authorization to submit an amended qualification statement through proper channels, and explicitly condition that request on the authority extending the same amendment opportunity to all seven competing firms — thereby satisfying both the honest disclosure obligation and the competitive fairness preservation obligation simultaneously.
option2: File the revised qualification statement reflecting the restructured joint venture without disclosing the nature of the change to the utility authority or seeking formal authorization, circumventing the procurement process and violating the honest disclosure and honorable professional conduct obligations.
option3: Honestly disclose the restructuring and seek formal authorization from the utility authority, but without conditioning the request on the authority extending equivalent amendment rights to all other competing firms — partially fulfilling the transparency obligation while failing the competitive fairness preservation obligation.
role label: Firm A (Joint Venture Lead)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should the utility authority grant Firm A's amendment request by extending equal amendment opportunity to all seven competing firms after obtaining legal clearance, deny the request and hold all firms to their original submissions, or grant the request to Firm A exclusively without extending it to other competitors?
focus: The utility authority has received Firm A's request to amend its qualification submission, conditioned on extending the same opportunity to all seven competing firms. The authority must decide whether to grant the amendment request, and if so, how to structure the procedural accommodation. This decision implicates the authority's obligation to obtain legal clearance before granting a procedural exception not explicitly provided for in the governing procurement law, and its paramount obligation to select the most qualified firm for the complex power facility project.
option1: Seek and obtain legal advice confirming no legal impediment exists under the governing procurement law, then formally extend the same qualification amendment opportunity to all seven competing firms on equal terms — satisfying the equal treatment obligation, the legal clearance obligation, and the public welfare paramount obligation to identify the most qualified firm.
option2: Decline Firm A's request on the grounds that the governing QBS law or ordinance does not explicitly authorize post-screening amendments, preserving the original procedural framework but potentially foreclosing the selection of the most technically qualified firm for a large and complex power facility.
option3: Allow Firm A alone to submit a revised qualification statement without extending the same opportunity to the other six competing firms, granting a competitive advantage through exclusive access to a procedural accommodation and violating the equal treatment principle fundamental to fair public procurement.
role label: Utility Authority (Procuring Agency)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.719035
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Given that Firm A received specific individualized deficiency feedback at a public meeting, does the equal-amendment-opportunity condition fully discharge Firm A's fairness obligations to competing firms, or must Firm A take additional steps to neutralize the informational advantage it gained?
focus: The screening committee's deficiency feedback was delivered at a public meeting, meaning all seven competing firms and members of the public were theoretically present or could access the proceedings. Firm A received specific, individualized feedback identifying its joint venture's technical shortfall. The question arises whether the public nature of the feedback delivery changes the ethical calculus regarding the informational advantage Firm A gained, and whether the equal-amendment-opportunity condition fully neutralizes that advantage or whether additional remediation is required.
option1: Proceed on the basis that conditioning the amendment request on equal opportunity for all seven firms fully neutralizes the informational advantage gained from individualized public feedback, accepting that the public nature of the meeting means all competitors had equivalent theoretical access to the same information.
option2: Go beyond the equal-amendment condition by directly notifying all six other competing firms of the specific deficiency feedback Firm A received, ensuring that any informational asymmetry arising from differential attention to or presence at the public meeting is actively eliminated rather than merely procedurally offset.
option3: Recognize that the equal-amendment condition may not fully neutralize the advantage of receiving targeted, actionable feedback, disclose this concern transparently to the utility authority, and defer to the authority's judgment — informed by legal counsel — about whether additional procedural steps are needed to preserve competitive integrity.
role label: Firm A (Joint Venture Lead)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.719137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should public objectors and elected officials pursue a formal protest of the utility authority's equal-amendment decision on the grounds that it violated procurement law, or should they recognize that the procedural accommodation — equally extended and legally cleared — does not constitute a genuine violation of procurement integrity?
focus: Members of the public and elected officials have raised objections to the utility authority's decision to allow Firm A to amend its qualification submission. These objectors must decide whether their protest is grounded in a good-faith assessment that the procedural accommodation genuinely violated the spirit and intent of the governing procurement law, or whether it reflects competitive or political motivations disproportionate to the actual procurement integrity concern — particularly given that the amendment opportunity was extended equally to all seven firms and legally cleared.
option1: File a formal procurement protest based on a good-faith legal analysis concluding that the governing QBS statute or ordinance prohibits post-screening qualification amendments regardless of equal extension, and that the utility authority exceeded its procedural authority in granting the accommodation — a protest proportionate to an actual legal violation.
option2: Assess in good faith that the equal-amendment accommodation — extended to all seven firms, legally cleared by counsel, and oriented toward identifying the most qualified firm for a complex public project — does not violate the spirit and intent of the QBS framework, and withdraw or decline to escalate the objection accordingly.
option3: Continue to oppose the amendment decision through political channels despite the absence of a clear legal violation, allowing competitive or political motivations to drive the protest rather than a proportionate assessment of actual procurement integrity harm — a course the protest proportionality obligation characterizes as an ethical failure.
role label: Public Objectors and Elected Officials
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.719211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Deficiencies Publicly Disclosed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191115
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Deficiencies Publicly Disclosed (Event 3) → Firm A Learns Of Deficiencies (Event 4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Equal Opportunity Condition as Fairness Threshold Invoked in QBS Amendment Analysis
type: EqualOpportunityConditionasFairnessThresholdinQBSTeamAmendment
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm A's joint venture team amendment
appliedto: Other six competing engineering firms' equal amendment opportunity
appliedto: Public and City Council Procurement Objectors' fairness challenge
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
balancingwith: Procurement Rule Strict Adherence Over Equitable Discretion
balancingwith: Screening Committee Public Feedback Non-Exploitation Boundary Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The NSPE Board held that allowing Firm A to revise its joint venture team composition in response to screening committee feedback was ethically permissible specifically because all competing firms were given the same opportunity to make equivalent revisions — establishing equal opportunity as the necessary and sufficient ethical condition for such amendments
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board's analysis treats equal opportunity not as a procedural nicety but as the ethical linchpin of the entire amendment permissibility analysis — without equal treatment of all competitors, the amendment would have been ethically impermissible regardless of its substantive merit
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
invokedby: QBS Screening Committee Qualification Feedback Body
invokedby: Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
principleclass: Equal Opportunity Condition as Fairness Threshold in QBS Team Amendment
sourcetext: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
tensionresolution: The Board resolved the tension between amendment flexibility and procurement integrity by conditioning permissibility entirely on equal treatment — the equal opportunity condition simultaneously satisfies fairness to competitors and serves the client's interest in best-qualified firm selection
textreferences: The remaining issue, presumably, is whether it is fair to allow a competing firm to revise the elements making up the team of its joint venture in order to meet a higher level of qualification on the basis of public comments made by the screening committee.
textreferences: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.185206
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Equal Opportunity Fairness Condition Mid-Process Revision All Seven Competing Firms
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Public and city council objected to the utility authority's decision to allow Firm A to amend its qualification submission; the BER found no basis to question fairness when all competing firms were given the same opportunity
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Utility authority and Firm A in QBS procurement for power facility addition
constraintclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
constraintstatement: The fairness of allowing Firm A to revise its joint venture team composition mid-process was constrained on the condition that all competing firms were given the same opportunity to revise their qualifications — prohibiting any mid-process revision that conferred an exclusive informational or competitive advantage on Firm A not available to the other six competing firms.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:14.010395+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:14.010395+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics procurement fairness provisions; public procurement equal treatment norms
sourcetext: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
temporalscope: At the point when Firm A requested permission to amend its SOQ and the utility authority considered granting that permission
textreferences: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.188494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked by Equal Opportunity Extension
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Competing Engineering Firms Equal Amendment Opportunity Recipients
appliedto: Other Six Competing Engineering Firms
balancingwith: Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Obligation
balancingwith: Procurement Rule Strict Adherence Over Equitable Discretion
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm A conditioned its amendment request on all competing firms receiving the same opportunity to revise their qualification statements, and the utility authority honored this condition by extending equal amendment opportunity to all seven shortlisted firms
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Fairness in competition required that any procedural accommodation granted to one firm be equally available to all competitors; Firm A's proactive insistence on this condition reflects recognition of the fairness obligation
invokedby: Firm A Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead
invokedby: Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired
tensionresolution: The equal-treatment condition was treated as the primary mechanism for preserving competitive fairness, neutralizing the potential advantage that Firm A might otherwise have gained from its amendment
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.176491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked in QBS Amendment Objection Analysis
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm A's joint venture team revision
appliedto: Other competing firms' equal amendment opportunity
appliedto: Public objections to the utility authority's decision
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
balancingwith: Qualification Upgrade or Withdrawal Obligation Upon Client-Identified Deficiency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board's analysis of whether Firm A's team amendment was ethically permissible was framed as a fairness question — whether allowing one firm to revise its joint venture team gave it an unfair competitive advantage over the other six shortlisted firms — resolved by finding that equal treatment of all competitors satisfied the fairness requirement
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Fairness in professional competition in the QBS context requires not only that the initial process be open and equal, but that any mid-process accommodations be extended equally to all competitors — selective accommodation without equal treatment would violate competitive fairness
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
invokedby: Public and City Council Procurement Objectors
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
tensionresolution: Resolved by conditioning amendment permissibility on equal opportunity for all competitors, thereby satisfying both the fairness obligation and the client's interest in best-qualified firm selection
textreferences: The remaining issue, presumably, is whether it is fair to allow a competing firm to revise the elements making up the team of its joint venture in order to meet a higher level of qualification on the basis of public comments made by the screening committee.
textreferences: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.185403
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in SOQ Amendment Request
type: AppearanceofImproprietyAvoidanceinPublicProcurementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Public and city council objections raised the appearance of impropriety concern; Firm A's equal-access conditioning and transparent formal request were the primary mechanisms for avoiding this appearance
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Firm A
constraintclass: Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm A was constrained to avoid not only actual unfairness in its amendment request but also the appearance of favoritism or impropriety — which it addressed by conditioning the request on equal access for all competing firms and by making the request transparently through formal channels rather than through informal back-channel communications.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 82-2, 15-7, 16-3; public procurement appearance of impropriety norms
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
temporalscope: From the point Firm A decided to request an SOQ amendment through the authority's grant of the request
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
textreferences: some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal, alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.181334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Code Section 6 Joint Venture Specialist Engagement Ethical Equivalence Application
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Code Section 6 Prime-to-Joint-Venture Specialist Engagement Ethical Equivalence Application Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A applied the BER Case 71-2 and Code Section 6 specialist engagement principle to its joint venture context, recognizing that the same duty to retain experts and specialists applied to the joint venture as would apply to a single prime firm
casecontext: Upon receiving screening committee feedback that additional technical support was required, Firm A arranged for new joint venture partners to address the identified deficiencies
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Firm A's restructuring of its joint venture to add qualified partners with the technical expertise identified as deficient by the screening committee, fulfilling the Code Section 6 specialist engagement duty
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional is performing substantial services of a project.
textreferences: Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional is performing substantial services of a project.
textreferences: we see no real difference in the ethical obligation when instead of one 'prime' firm the legal entity is to be a joint venture in which all the involved firms are jointly responsible.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.189170
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Competence Gap Joint Venture Partner Engagement Planning
type: CompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementPlanningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A planned and executed the engagement of new joint venture partners to fill the technical experience and specialized personnel gaps identified by the screening committee
casecontext: Upon receiving screening committee feedback identifying deficiencies in technical experience and specialized personnel coverage, Firm A restructured its joint venture team by adding qualified partners
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Firm A's arrangement of new joint venture partners with the technical expertise required to address the deficiencies identified in the screening committee's public feedback
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade its qualifications through either internal or external revisions in its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration.
textreferences: Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade its qualifications through either internal or external revisions in its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.190749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Competitive Procurement Fairness Preservation Through Equal Treatment
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A demonstrated the capability to assess competitive procurement fairness by recognizing that its amendment request must not unfairly advantage itself over other competing firms, and by conditioning the request on equal treatment for all seven competing firms.
casecontext: Firm A's equal-treatment condition preserved competitive procurement fairness and distinguished its conduct as ethically permissible
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Conditioning amendment request on equal opportunity for all competing firms to modify their qualification statements
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A (QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.182271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Competitive Procurement Fairness Preservation Through Equal Treatment Condition
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: By conditioning its amendment request on equal treatment for all competitors, Firm A preserved the competitive fairness of the QBS process and avoided gaining an exclusive procedural advantage over the other six shortlisted firms.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm A (QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm)
obligationclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm A was obligated to ensure that its amendment request did not unfairly advantage itself over other competing firms, which it satisfied by conditioning the request on the utility authority extending the same amendment opportunity to all seven competing firms.
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
temporalscope: At the time of making the amendment request to the utility authority
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.179006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Evaluator Feedback Informational Advantage
type: EvaluatorFeedbackInformationalAdvantageinActiveProcurementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From screening committee's communication of deficiencies to Firm A through equal-access modification opportunity being extended to all firms
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Other six shortlisted firms
affectedparties: Public utility authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:04.438800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:04.438800+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the screening committee of the authority felt that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects, nor reflect a desirable backup of specialized technical personnel
stateclass: Evaluator Feedback Informational Advantage in Active Procurement State
subject: Firm A's possession of specific, individualized screening committee feedback identifying its qualification deficiencies before final selection
terminatedby: Authority's extension of equal modification opportunity to all competing firms
textreferences: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies
textreferences: the screening committee of the authority felt that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects, nor reflect a desirable backup of specialized technical personnel
textreferences: upon learning of this reaction from the screening committee at a public meeting and prior to a selection by the authority
triggeringevent: Screening committee's specific feedback to Firm A about insufficient experience and inadequate backup personnel in its joint venture proposal
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.172879
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Evaluator Feedback Informational Advantage Neutralization Requirement
type: EvaluatorFeedbackInformationalAdvantageEqual-AccessNeutralizationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm A learned at a public meeting that its joint venture lacked sufficient experience in certain technical aspects and specialized personnel backup, giving it specific knowledge of evaluation criteria weighting not available to other firms in the same form
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Firm A and Utility Authority
constraintclass: Evaluator Feedback Informational Advantage Equal-Access Neutralization Constraint
constraintstatement: The informational advantage Firm A gained from receiving specific screening committee feedback identifying its joint venture deficiencies had to be neutralized before any amendment was ethically permissible, requiring the utility authority to extend an equal amendment opportunity to all seven competing firms.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics procurement fairness provisions; public procurement equal treatment norms
sourcetext: Firm A, one of the seven, following an initial interview, was advised that the screening committee of the authority felt that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects, nor reflect a desirable backup of specialized technical personnel.
temporalscope: From the point Firm A received screening committee feedback until the amendment opportunity was formally extended to all competing firms
textreferences: Firm A, one of the seven, following an initial interview, was advised that the screening committee of the authority felt that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects, nor reflect a desirable backup of specialized technical personnel.
textreferences: Upon learning of this reaction from the screening committee at a public meeting and prior to a selection by the authority, Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.179938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Honorable Conduct in QBS Procurement Amendment Request
type: ProcurementCompetitionHonorableConductConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm A openly disclosed its team restructuring, formally requested authorization, and conditioned the request on equal access for all competing firms, satisfying the honorable conduct constraint
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Firm A
constraintclass: Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm A was constrained to conduct itself honorably, responsibly, and fairly in making its amendment request, including by openly disclosing its team restructuring to the utility authority and conditioning the request on equal access for all competing firms rather than seeking a unilateral advantage.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6, III.7; professional procurement conduct norms
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
temporalscope: From the point Firm A decided to restructure its joint venture team through submission of the revised qualification proposal
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.180717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Honorable Procurement Conduct in Amendment Request
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A demonstrated honorable procurement conduct by openly disclosing its team restructuring, conditioning its amendment request on equal treatment for all competitors, and seeking formal authorization rather than proceeding unilaterally.
casecontext: Firm A's transparent, equal-treatment-conditioned amendment request exemplified honorable procurement conduct under the NSPE Code
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Openly requesting amendment permission with equal-treatment condition rather than attempting to substitute team members covertly or without authority authorization
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A (QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.181900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Honorable Professional Conduct in QBS Procurement Amendment Request
type: HonorableProfessionalConductinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm A, after receiving public screening committee feedback, restructured its joint venture team and openly requested formal amendment authorization conditioned on equal treatment for all competing firms, reflecting honorable conduct in the procurement process.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm A (QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm)
obligationclass: Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm A was obligated to conduct itself honorably, responsibly, and fairly in making its amendment request, including by openly disclosing its team restructuring, conditioning the request on equal treatment for all competitors, and seeking formal authorization rather than attempting to circumvent the procurement process.
sourcetext: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed to be selected for negotiations.
temporalscope: From receipt of screening committee feedback through submission of the revised qualification proposal
textreferences: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed to be selected for negotiations.
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.178859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Joint Venture Code Section 6 Specialist Engagement Equivalence Compliance
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The NSPE Board analyzed whether Code Section 6's specialist engagement obligation applied differently to a joint venture than to a single prime firm, concluding there was 'no real difference in the ethical obligation' and that the joint venture structure did not alter the underlying competence and specialist engagement requirements.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:49:20.970426+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:49:20.970426+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm A (as joint venture lead) and all joint venture partner firms
obligationclass: Joint Venture Code Section 6 Specialist Engagement Ethical Equivalence to Prime Firm Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm A and its joint venture partners were obligated to fulfill the same Code Section 6 specialist engagement obligations that would apply to a single prime firm — ensuring the joint venture collectively possessed or engaged all necessary specialist expertise for the large power facility addition — without the joint venture structure diminishing that ethical obligation.
sourcetext: we see no real difference in the ethical obligation when instead of one 'prime' firm the legal entity is to be a joint venture in which all the involved firms are jointly responsible.
temporalscope: Throughout the QBS process and, if selected, throughout the project assignment
textreferences: Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional is performing substantial services of a project.
textreferences: we see no real difference in the ethical obligation when instead of one 'prime' firm the legal entity is to be a joint venture in which all the involved firms are jointly responsible.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.186218
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Joint Venture Legal Entity QBS Firm Equivalence Recognition
type: JointVentureLegalEntityQBSFirmEquivalenceRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Joint Venture Legal Entity QBS Firm Equivalence Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A recognized that its joint venture constituted the legal 'firm' for QBS purposes and that all Code Section 6 specialist engagement obligations applied to the joint venture as a whole
casecontext: Firm A competed in a QBS process for a large power facility addition, proposed a joint venture, received screening committee feedback identifying deficiencies, and restructured the joint venture team
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Firm A's decision to restructure its joint venture team to cure qualification deficiencies, treating the joint venture as the qualifying entity subject to the same obligations as a prime firm
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In the context of this case the 'firm' would include a joint venture, which is a legal entity for the one project.
textreferences: In the context of this case the 'firm' would include a joint venture, which is a legal entity for the one project.
textreferences: we see no real difference in the ethical obligation when instead of one 'prime' firm the legal entity is to be a joint venture in which all the involved firms are jointly responsible.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.188983
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Joint Venture Legal Entity Qualification Status
type: JointVentureUnifiedQualificationLegalEntityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From formation of the joint venture proposal through the conclusion of the procurement process
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Joint venture constituent firms
affectedparties: Other competing firms
affectedparties: Utility authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:29.060171+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:29.060171+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: In the context of this case the 'firm' would include a joint venture, which is a legal entity for the one project
stateclass: Joint Venture Unified Qualification Legal Entity State
subject: Firm A's joint venture proposed for the utility authority project
terminatedby: Conclusion of the procurement selection process
textreferences: In the context of this case the 'firm' would include a joint venture, which is a legal entity for the one project
textreferences: instead of one 'prime' firm the legal entity is to be a joint venture in which all the involved firms are jointly responsible
triggeringevent: Firm A's formation of a joint venture with other firms for the single project assignment
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.175741
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Joint Venture Qualification Upgrade Upon Screening Committee Deficiency Feedback
type: JointVentureQualificationUpgradeorWithdrawalUponScreeningDeficiencyIdentificationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm A submitted qualifications for a large power facility addition as a joint venture. The public screening committee identified deficiencies in the joint venture's technical support. Firm A restructured its team by adding a new joint venture partner to cure the deficiency, then requested a formal amendment to its qualification submission.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:49:20.970426+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:49:20.970426+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm A (Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead)
obligationclass: Joint Venture Qualification Upgrade or Withdrawal Upon Screening Deficiency Identification Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm A was obligated, upon receiving public screening committee feedback indicating that its joint venture lacked sufficient technical support for the large power facility addition, to either upgrade its joint venture qualifications by restructuring its team to include adequate specialist expertise, or withdraw from further consideration in the QBS process.
sourcetext: under the mandate of 6 of the code, Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture for the assignment once it was indicated that additional technical support was required by the client.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of public screening committee feedback identifying joint venture qualification deficiencies, before submission of amended qualifications
textreferences: When that aspect was indicated on behalf of the client by the screening committee Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade its qualifications through either internal or external revisions in its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration.
textreferences: under the mandate of 6 of the code, Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture for the assignment once it was indicated that additional technical support was required by the client.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.186043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Learns Of Deficiencies
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191163
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Learns Of Deficiencies (Event 4) → Reorganize Joint Venture Team (Action 2) and Request Permission to Revise Submission (Action 3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Mandatory Qualification Upgrade or Withdrawal Recognition
type: QBSMandatoryQualificationUpgradeorWithdrawalUponDeficiencyIdentificationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: QBS Mandatory Qualification Upgrade or Withdrawal Upon Deficiency Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A recognized that Code Section 6 created a mandatory ethical duty to upgrade its joint venture qualifications upon receiving screening committee feedback, and that failure to do so would constitute an ethical violation
casecontext: The screening committee publicly indicated that additional technical support was required; Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade or withdraw
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Firm A's proactive restructuring of its joint venture team rather than passively continuing in the competition with identified deficiencies or withdrawing without attempting remediation
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: under the mandate of 6 of the code, Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture for the assignment once it was indicated that additional technical support was required by the client.
textreferences: When that aspect was indicated on behalf of the client by the screening committee Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade its qualifications through either internal or external revisions in its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration.
textreferences: under the mandate of 6 of the code, Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture for the assignment once it was indicated that additional technical support was required by the client.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.189386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Mid-Process Qualification Modification After Screening Feedback
type: Mid-ProcessQualificationProposalModificationAfterEvaluatorFeedbackState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Firm A's receipt of screening committee feedback at public meeting through authority's grant of revision permission and submission of revised proposal
affectedparties: City council members
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Other six shortlisted firms
affectedparties: Public utility authority screening committee
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:04.438800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:04.438800+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability
stateclass: Mid-Process Qualification Proposal Modification After Evaluator Feedback State
subject: Firm A's restructuring of its joint venture team and request to revise qualification statement during active QBS procurement
terminatedby: Submission of revised qualification proposal by Firm A; subsequent public and council objection
textreferences: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team
textreferences: a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it
textreferences: with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired
triggeringevent: Screening committee's communication that Firm A's joint venture lacked sufficient experience in certain technical aspects and desirable backup of specialized technical personnel
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.172601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Mid-Process SOQ Amendment Equal-Access Conditioned Request
type: Mid-ProcessSOQAmendmentEqual-AccessConditionedPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm A received individualized screening committee feedback identifying joint venture competence deficiencies, restructured its team, and requested permission to amend its SOQ, conditioning the request on equal access for all competing firms
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Firm A
constraintclass: Mid-Process SOQ Amendment Equal-Access Conditioned Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm A could only ethically request permission to amend its qualification statement after receiving screening committee feedback if it explicitly conditioned the request on the utility authority extending the same amendment opportunity to all other six competing firms.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; QBS procurement fairness norms; state law and local ordinance governing the selection process
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
temporalscope: From the point Firm A received screening committee feedback until the authority made its final selection decision
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.179718
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Post-Feedback QBS Qualification Amendment Honest Disclosure to Utility Authority
type: Post-FeedbackQBSQualificationAmendmentHonestDisclosuretoProcuringAuthorityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm A openly informed the utility authority of its team restructuring and formally requested permission to amend its qualification submission, conditioning that request on all competing firms receiving the same opportunity. The Board found this open disclosure consistent with ethical requirements.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:49:20.970426+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:49:20.970426+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm A (QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm)
obligationclass: Post-Feedback QBS Qualification Amendment Honest Disclosure to Procuring Authority Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm A was obligated, upon restructuring its joint venture team in response to screening committee feedback, to openly and honestly disclose that restructuring to the utility authority and formally request authorization for the amendment through proper channels, rather than submitting an amended qualification statement without explanation.
sourcetext: Firm A openly informed the utility authority of its team restructuring and formally requested permission to amend its qualification submission
temporalscope: Upon deciding to restructure the joint venture team and before submitting the amended qualification statement
textreferences: Firm A openly informed the utility authority of its team restructuring and formally requested permission to amend its qualification submission
textreferences: Pre-Selection Process Openness and Responsiveness Permissibility Principle -- Rather than concealing its team restructuring or presenting an amended submission without disclosure, Firm A openly informed the utility authority
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.186745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Post-Feedback QBS Team Restructuring Honest Disclosure to Utility Authority
type: Post-FeedbackQBSQualificationAmendmentHonestDisclosuretoProcuringAuthorityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: After restructuring its joint venture team in response to screening committee feedback, Firm A openly informed the utility authority of the change and formally requested permission to submit a revised qualification proposal, rather than attempting to submit silently or without disclosure.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm A (QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm)
obligationclass: Post-Feedback QBS Qualification Amendment Honest Disclosure to Procuring Authority Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm A was obligated to openly disclose its joint venture team restructuring to the utility authority and formally request authorization to submit an amended qualification statement, rather than submitting an amended proposal without explanation or concealing the nature of the change.
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
temporalscope: Upon completing the joint venture team restructuring and prior to submitting any amended qualification statement
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
textreferences: Rather than concealing its team restructuring or presenting an amended submission without disclosure, Firm A openly informed the utility authority of the change.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.178305
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Procurement Process Challenge Vulnerability Self-Assessment
type: ProcurementProcessChallengeVulnerabilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Process Challenge Vulnerability Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A demonstrated awareness of the procurement process challenge vulnerability created by its amendment request, which it mitigated by conditioning the request on equal treatment for all competing firms and seeking formal authority authorization.
casecontext: Firm A's equal-treatment condition and formal authorization request were the key mechanisms by which it reduced the procurement's vulnerability to legal challenge
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Conditioning amendment request on equal treatment for all competitors and seeking formal utility authority authorization, thereby reducing the vulnerability of the procurement to legal challenge
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Firm A (QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.184376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A QBS Amendment Request Equal Treatment Conditioning
type: QBSAmendmentRequestEqualTreatmentConditioningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: QBS Amendment Request Equal Treatment Conditioning Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A demonstrated the capability to condition its amendment request on equal treatment for all competing firms, recognizing that fairness required all seven competing firms to have the same opportunity to modify their qualification statements.
casecontext: Firm A's self-imposed equal-treatment condition on its amendment request was the key ethical act that distinguished its conduct as honorable rather than opportunistic
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Requesting amendment permission 'with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired'
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A (Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead Engineer)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.181740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A QBS Competitive Procurement Fairness Preservation Through Equal Treatment Condition
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A assessed the competitive fairness implications of its amendment request and recognized that conditioning the request on equal treatment for all competing firms was necessary to preserve procurement integrity
casecontext: Firm A's amendment request was structured to preserve competitive fairness by requiring equal treatment as a condition
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Firm A's conditioning of its amendment request on the utility authority extending the same opportunity to all other competing firms, preventing the request from conferring an unfair competitive advantage
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
textreferences: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.190608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A QBS Joint Venture Competence Deficiency Cure Through Team Restructuring
type: QBSJointVentureCompetenceDeficiencyMid-ProcessCureEthicalPermissibilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm A restructured its joint venture team to add specialized technical personnel and experience, then formally requested authority permission to amend its SOQ, conditioned on equal access for all firms — satisfying the conditions for ethical permissibility
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Firm A
constraintclass: QBS Joint Venture Competence Deficiency Mid-Process Cure Ethical Permissibility Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm A was constrained, upon receiving screening committee feedback identifying joint venture competence deficiencies, to cure those deficiencies only through a process of open disclosure, formal authorization request, equal-access conditioning, and legal clearance — prohibiting unilateral team restructuring and submission amendment without procuring authority authorization.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics (former Section 6); consulting-context competence remediation norms; QBS procurement fairness requirements
sourcetext: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed to be selected for negotiations.
temporalscope: From receipt of screening committee feedback through submission of revised qualification proposal
textreferences: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed to be selected for negotiations.
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.180868
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A QBS Post-Feedback Team Restructuring Transparent Disclosure
type: QBSPost-FeedbackTeamRestructuringTransparentDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: QBS Post-Feedback Team Restructuring Transparent Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A demonstrated the capability to transparently disclose its joint venture team restructuring to the utility authority when requesting amendment permission, openly explaining the change made to the team as the basis for the amendment request.
casecontext: Firm A's transparent disclosure of its team restructuring to the utility authority enabled the authority to make an informed decision about whether to grant the amendment request
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Requesting amendment permission 'in light of the change it had made in the team' — openly disclosing the restructuring rather than concealing it
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A (Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead Engineer)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.182096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A QBS Procurement Honorable Conduct Self-Regulation in Amendment Request
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A conducted itself honorably in its amendment request by openly disclosing its team restructuring and conditioning its request on equal treatment being extended to all competing firms
casecontext: Firm A requested permission to amend its qualification submission and conditioned the request on equal treatment for all competing firms, satisfying the honorable conduct obligation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Firm A's transparent disclosure of its joint venture restructuring and its insistence that the amendment opportunity be extended equally to all other competing firms as a condition of its own request
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade its qualifications through either internal or external revisions in its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration.
textreferences: Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade its qualifications through either internal or external revisions in its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.190393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
type: QBSQualificationAmendmentRequestingEngineeringFirm
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'procurement_stage': 'Post-initial-interview, pre-selection', 'team_structure': 'Joint venture', 'amendment_basis': 'Cure of screening committee-identified deficiencies in technical experience and specialized personnel', 'transparency_measure': 'Requested equal amendment opportunity for all competing firms'}
caseinvolvement: Firm A submitted qualifications for a large power facility addition, proposed a joint venture, received screening committee feedback identifying deficiencies in technical experience and specialized personnel backup, then restructured its joint venture team and requested permission to amend its qualification statement — requesting equal amendment opportunity for all competing firms — which the authority granted after legal review.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:09.329393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:09.329393+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'joint_venture_with', 'target': 'New Joint Venture Partner Engineering Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_objection_by', 'target': 'Public and City Council Procurement Objectors'}
relationships: {'type': 'submits_qualifications_to', 'target': 'Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
sourcetext: Firm A, one of the seven, following an initial interview, was advised that the screening committee of the authority felt that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects
textreferences: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal
textreferences: Firm A, one of the seven, following an initial interview, was advised that the screening committee of the authority felt that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects
textreferences: with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.171939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A QBS Qualification Deficiency Proactive Cure Equal Treatment Amendment Request
type: QBSQualificationDeficiencyProactiveCureandEqualTreatmentConditionedAmendmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm A was one of seven shortlisted firms in a QBS process for a large and complex power facility addition. After an initial interview, the screening committee publicly indicated that Firm A's joint venture proposal lacked sufficient experience in certain technical areas and desirable backup of specialized technical personnel. Firm A restructured its team and requested amendment permission conditioned on equal treatment for all competitors.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm A (QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm)
obligationclass: QBS Qualification Deficiency Proactive Cure and Equal Treatment Conditioned Amendment Obligation
obligationstatement: Firm A was obligated, upon receiving public screening committee feedback identifying deficiencies in its joint venture proposal, to proactively cure those deficiencies by restructuring its joint venture team, and — when requesting permission to amend its qualification submission — to condition that request on the utility authority extending the same amendment opportunity to all other competing firms.
sourcetext: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed to be selected for negotiations.
temporalscope: After receiving screening committee feedback at a public meeting and prior to final selection by the authority
textreferences: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed to be selected for negotiations.
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.178111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A QBS Qualification Deficiency Self-Recognition Upon Screening Committee Feedback
type: QBSQualificationDeficiencySelf-RecognitionandProactiveCureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: QBS Qualification Deficiency Self-Recognition and Proactive Cure Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm A demonstrated the capability to recognize, upon receiving public screening committee feedback, that its joint venture proposal lacked sufficient experience in certain technical aspects and specialized personnel backup, and to proactively cure those deficiencies by arranging additional joint venture participation.
casecontext: Firm A received screening committee feedback identifying deficiencies in its joint venture proposal for a large power facility addition and proactively restructured its team before final selection
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Arranging additional joint venture partners to overcome identified deficiencies in technical experience and specialized personnel coverage after receiving screening committee feedback at a public meeting
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm A (QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Firm A, one of the seven, following an initial interview, was advised that the screening committee of the authority felt that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects, nor reflect a desirable backup of specialized technical personnel.
textreferences: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed to be selected for negotiations.
textreferences: Firm A, one of the seven, following an initial interview, was advised that the screening committee of the authority felt that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects, nor reflect a desirable backup of specialized technical personnel.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.181518
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead
type: Qualification-UpgradingJointVentureLeadEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Engineering firm (joint venture lead)', 'procurement_context': 'Qualifications-based selection for public utility engineering services', 'ethical_obligation_trigger': 'Screening committee feedback indicating technical deficiency', 'code_basis': 'NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (historical) — duty to undertake only qualified assignments and engage experts'}
caseinvolvement: Firm A served as the lead party in a joint venture competing in the QBS process. Upon receiving screening committee feedback indicating the need for additional technical support, Firm A had an ethical obligation under Code Section 6 to upgrade its joint venture team's qualifications — either through internal revisions or by adding external specialist partners — or to withdraw from further consideration. The discussion concludes Firm A acted ethically by upgrading its team.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:13.233673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:13.233673+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competes_with', 'target': 'Other Competing Engineering Firms'}
relationships: {'type': 'evaluated_by', 'target': 'QBS Screening Committee'}
relationships: {'type': 'joint_venture_with', 'target': 'Joint Venture Partner Firms'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead Engineer
sourcetext: Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture
textreferences: Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade its qualifications through either internal or external revisions in its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration
textreferences: Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.174942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A Screening Committee Qualification Deficiency Identification
type: Client-IdentifiedQualificationDeficiencyMandatoryUpgrade-or-WithdrawState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment the screening committee publicly indicated that additional technical support was required, through Firm A's decision to revise its joint venture composition
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Other competing firms
affectedparties: Screening committee
affectedparties: Utility authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:29.060171+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:29.060171+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture for the assignment once it was indicated that additional technical support was required by the client
stateclass: Client-Identified Qualification Deficiency Mandatory Upgrade-or-Withdraw State
subject: Firm A's proposed joint venture team in the active QBS procurement
terminatedby: Firm A's revision of its joint venture team to upgrade qualifications, followed by the authority permitting all firms to revise submissions equally
textreferences: Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture for the assignment once it was indicated that additional technical support was required by the client
textreferences: When that aspect was indicated on behalf of the client by the screening committee Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade its qualifications through either internal or external revisions in its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration
triggeringevent: Screening committee's public comments indicating that additional technical support was required by the client
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.175466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A reorganizing its joint venture team before Firm A requesting authority to allow modification of qualification statement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191789
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A reorganizing its joint venture team before authority's final selection decision
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A requesting modification before authority receiving legal advice on the request
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Firm A submitting revised qualification proposal before public and city council members objecting
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.192011
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Free and Open Competition Invoked by Equal Amendment Opportunity
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionasEngineeringEthicsBoundaryCondition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Competing Engineering Firms Equal Amendment Opportunity Recipients
appliedto: Other Six Competing Engineering Firms
balancingwith: Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The equal amendment opportunity extended to all seven competing firms preserved the free and open competitive character of the QBS process by ensuring that no single firm gained an exclusive procedural advantage — all firms operated within the same amended framework
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Free and open competition requires not only that all firms have equal initial access to the procurement but also that any mid-process accommodations be extended equally; the equal-treatment condition is the mechanism by which the amendment accommodation was kept within the bounds of free and open competition
invokedby: Firm A Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead
invokedby: Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
principleclass: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
sourcetext: with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired
tensionresolution: Equal extension of the amendment opportunity was treated as sufficient to maintain the free and open competitive character of the process, though objectors argued this did not cure the spirit-of-the-law violation
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.177920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked by Firm A Qualification Accuracy
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
balancingwith: Procurement Rule Strict Adherence Over Equitable Discretion
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm A's decision to openly disclose its team restructuring and seek formal amendment rather than submitting an unchanged qualification statement that no longer accurately reflected its proposed team reflects the professional honesty obligation to ensure that qualification representations are accurate and not misleading
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Had Firm A restructured its team without disclosing the change or seeking amendment authorization, it would have presented a qualification statement that misrepresented its actual proposed team; the amendment request was therefore also an honesty obligation, not merely a competitive strategy
invokedby: Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team
tensionresolution: The honesty obligation to accurately represent the proposed team actually supports the amendment request: submitting an outdated qualification statement would itself have been a form of misrepresentation
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.177692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Joint Venture Code Section 6 Equivalence Firm A Joint Venture Power Facility
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER extended the Code Section 6 specialist engagement obligation from the single-prime-firm context (BER Case 71-2) to the joint venture context, finding no real ethical difference
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Firm A and its joint venture partners in QBS procurement for power facility addition
constraintclass: Joint Venture Prime Firm Code Section 6 Specialist Obligation Ethical Equivalence Constraint
constraintstatement: Firm A and its joint venture partners were constrained by the same Code Section 6 specialist engagement obligations that apply to a single prime firm, notwithstanding the joint venture's distributed responsibility structure — prohibiting any interpretation that the joint venture arrangement reduced or altered the ethical obligation to engage specialists when required by the client's interests.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:14.010395+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:14.010395+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former); BER Case 71-2
sourcetext: The earlier case related to a single firm employing other firms as associates for part of the work, with the prime firm retaining full legal responsibility for the project assignment. But we see no real difference in the ethical obligation when instead of one 'prime' firm the legal entity is to be a joint venture in which all the involved firms are jointly responsible.
temporalscope: Throughout the QBS procurement and any resulting project engagement
textreferences: The earlier case related to a single firm employing other firms as associates for part of the work, with the prime firm retaining full legal responsibility for the project assignment. But we see no real difference in the ethical obligation when instead of one 'prime' firm the legal entity is to be a joint venture in which all the involved firms are jointly responsible.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.188030
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Joint Venture Ethical Equivalence Invoked in Firm A QBS Analysis
type: JointVentureEthicalEquivalencetoPrimeFirmResponsibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Application of Code Section 6 to joint venture context
appliedto: Firm A's joint venture structure in the QBS process
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The NSPE Board held that the ethical obligations applicable to a single prime firm — including the Code Section 6 specialist engagement obligation — apply equally to a joint venture, because the ethical substance of professional responsibility does not vary with the legal form of the professional entity undertaking the project
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The Board extended the prime-firm precedent from Case 71-2 to the joint venture context by reasoning that the ethical obligation is the same regardless of whether the legal entity is a single firm or a joint venture — the form of legal organization does not alter the substance of professional ethical duty
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Joint Venture Ethical Equivalence to Prime Firm Responsibility Principle
sourcetext: we see no real difference in the ethical obligation when instead of one 'prime' firm the legal entity is to be a joint venture in which all the involved firms are jointly responsible.
tensionresolution: No tension was identified; the Board treated the extension as a straightforward application of the same ethical principle to a different legal form
textreferences: In the context of this case the 'firm' would include a joint venture, which is a legal entity for the one project.
textreferences: The earlier case related to a single firm employing other firms as associates for part of the work, with the prime firm retaining full legal responsibility for the project assignment.
textreferences: we see no real difference in the ethical obligation when instead of one 'prime' firm the legal entity is to be a joint venture in which all the involved firms are jointly responsible.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.184931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Procurement-Fairness
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:36:20.464447+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:36:20.464447+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal, alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law, and that Firm A had acted unethically in making its request
textreferences: some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal, alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law, and that Firm A had acted unethically in making its request
usedby: Members of the public, city council members, ethics reviewers evaluating Firm A's conduct
usedincontext: Provides the professional ethics framework against which Firm A's conduct — requesting permission to amend its SOQ mid-process — is evaluated. The allegation that Firm A 'acted unethically' invokes professional code obligations regarding fairness, honesty, and equitable competition in procurement.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.171342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former)
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Former Section 6 (Specialist Engagement Provision)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:09.660808+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:09.660808+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section 6 of the code '...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: Note: The following Code section no longer exists: Code of Ethics – Section 6
textreferences: Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional is performing substantial services of a project.
textreferences: Section 6 of the code '...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: under the mandate of Section 6 of the code, Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Firm A's ethical obligations
usedincontext: Cited as the primary ethical authority establishing Firm A's affirmative obligation to upgrade joint venture qualifications when the screening committee indicated additional technical support was required; also cited to recognize the propriety of prime professionals retaining experts and specialists
version: Pre-revision (no longer exists in current code)
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.174173
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

New Joint Venture Partner Competence Gap Filling in QBS Context
type: CompetenceGapSubconsultantEngagementPlanningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Capability
capabilitystatement: The new joint venture partner(s) arranged by Firm A demonstrated the capability to fill identified competence gaps in technical experience and specialized personnel coverage, enabling the joint venture team to collectively possess the qualifications required for the large and complex power facility addition.
casecontext: The new joint venture partner's specialized expertise was the substantive cure for the qualification deficiencies identified by the screening committee
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Joining Firm A's joint venture team to provide the technical experience and specialized personnel backup identified as deficient by the screening committee
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: New Joint Venture Partner Engineering Firm
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed to be selected for negotiations.
textreferences: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed to be selected for negotiations.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.184031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

New Joint Venture Partner Engineering Firm
type: JointVenturePartnerEngineeringFirm
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'participation_trigger': 'Screening committee feedback identifying technical deficiencies', 'contribution': 'Specialized technical expertise and/or personnel backup previously lacking'}
caseinvolvement: A new engineering firm (or firms) arranged by Firm A to join its joint venture team after the screening committee identified deficiencies in technical experience and specialized personnel backup, contributing the missing specialized expertise to strengthen the amended qualification submission.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:09.329393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:09.329393+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'evaluated_by', 'target': 'Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator'}
relationships: {'type': 'joint_venture_with', 'target': 'Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Joint Venture Partner Engineering Firm
sourcetext: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed
textreferences: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed
textreferences: the change it had made in the team
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.173807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Other Six Competing Engineering Firms
type: PublicRFQSubmittingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'procurement_stage': 'Shortlisted among seven qualified firms', 'amendment_opportunity': "Offered equal right to amend qualification statements per Firm A's request"}
caseinvolvement: Six other engineering firms (besides Firm A) submitted qualifications and were shortlisted among the seven most qualified firms, participating in the same QBS process and offered the opportunity to likewise amend their qualification statements if desired.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:09.329393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:09.329393+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'competes_with', 'target': 'Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'evaluated_by', 'target': 'Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Public RFQ Submitting Engineer
sourcetext: The utility authority narrowed a large number of qualification submissions to seven qualified firms
textreferences: The utility authority narrowed a large number of qualification submissions to seven qualified firms
textreferences: with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.173640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Post-Feedback Qualification Amendment Permissibility Invoked by Firm A
type: Post-FeedbackQualificationAmendmentPermissibilityUnderEqualTreatmentCondition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: QBS Screening Committee Qualification Feedback Body
appliedto: Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Obligation
balancingwith: Procurement Rule Strict Adherence Over Equitable Discretion
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm A, upon receiving public screening committee feedback identifying deficiencies in its joint venture proposal, restructured its team and openly requested permission to amend its qualification statement, conditioning the request on equal treatment for all competitors — arguing that this transparent, equal-access approach was ethically permissible
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethical permissibility of Firm A's amendment request turned on the equal-treatment condition: by ensuring all competitors could also amend, Firm A avoided creating an improper competitive advantage and acted transparently with the procuring authority
invokedby: Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
principleclass: Post-Feedback Qualification Amendment Permissibility Under Equal Treatment Condition
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
tensionresolution: The equal-treatment condition and the procuring authority's legal clearance together resolved the tension in favor of permissibility, though the spirit-of-the-law objection remained contested
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.176707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Pre-Selection Process Openness Invoked by Firm A Disclosure to Authority
type: Pre-SelectionProcessOpennessandResponsivenessPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
balancingwith: Procurement Rule Strict Adherence Over Equitable Discretion
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Rather than concealing its team restructuring or presenting an amended submission without disclosure, Firm A openly informed the utility authority of the change and formally requested permission to submit a revised qualification statement — demonstrating transparency toward the procuring authority as the ethically appropriate response to mid-process team changes
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Firm A's open disclosure and formal authorization request reflects the professional obligation to be transparent with the procuring authority about material changes to the proposed team, rather than attempting to conceal changes or proceed without authorization
invokedby: Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
principleclass: Pre-Selection Process Openness and Responsiveness Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team
tensionresolution: The transparency of Firm A's approach — openly requesting authorization rather than acting unilaterally — is treated as a mitigating factor supporting ethical permissibility, even if the underlying amendment itself remained contested
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.177076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Procurement Integrity Invoked in QBS Best-Qualified Firm Selection Analysis
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: QBS process under state law and local ordinance
appliedto: Utility authority's decision to allow Firm A to amend its qualification statement
balancingwith: Equal Opportunity Condition as Fairness Threshold in QBS Team Amendment
balancingwith: Procurement Rule Strict Adherence Over Equitable Discretion
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board observed that QBS laws contemplate selecting the 'best qualified' firm, and that a procedure allowing firms to present themselves in their best light of technical qualifications — including through joint venture team revision — is consistent with rather than contrary to the purpose of QBS procurement law and ethics
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Procurement integrity in the QBS context is served by procedures that maximize the likelihood of selecting the genuinely best-qualified firm, not by rigid procedural rules that prevent firms from presenting their full qualifications — provided equal treatment is maintained
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
invokedby: Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: it would indeed be a peculiar result that a state or local law intended to have the client select the 'best qualified' firm be interpreted to preclude a procedure intended to present each 'firm' in its best light of technical and other professional qualifications.
tensionresolution: The Board resolved the tension between procedural rigidity and best-qualified selection by finding that the amendment procedure, when applied equally, serves rather than undermines procurement integrity
textreferences: it would indeed be a peculiar result that a state or local law intended to have the client select the 'best qualified' firm be interpreted to preclude a procedure intended to present each 'firm' in its best light of technical and other professional qualifications.
textreferences: the applicable laws are similar to the Federal A/E selection law (Brooks Act) and the laws of other states, which contemplate a procedure whereby the public body may select the 'best qualified' firm.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.185852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering Invoked by Utility Authority Legal Clearance
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
appliedto: Other Six Competing Engineering Firms
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The utility authority sought and received legal advice confirming no legal impediment before granting Firm A's amendment request, reflecting its obligation to ensure that the QBS process remained lawful, competitive, and qualification-based even when accommodating a mid-process amendment
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The utility authority's procurement integrity obligation required it to independently verify the legal permissibility of the amendment accommodation before granting it, rather than simply accepting Firm A's request at face value
invokedby: Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A
tensionresolution: Legal clearance combined with equal treatment extension was treated as sufficient to satisfy the procurement integrity obligation, though public objectors disputed whether this was adequate
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.177276
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Invoked by Public Objectors
type: ProcurementProcessSpiritandIntentComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
appliedto: Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Post-Feedback Qualification Amendment Permissibility Under Equal Treatment Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Members of the public and city council alleged that allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal violated the intent of the governing procurement law, arguing that the QBS process was designed to evaluate firms on their qualifications as originally submitted, not on post-feedback restructured teams
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The objectors interpreted the spirit of QBS procurement law as requiring that firms be evaluated on their genuine, pre-feedback qualifications, and that permitting post-feedback amendment undermines the competitive integrity of the process even if technically legal
invokedby: Public and City Council Procurement Objectors
principleclass: Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Obligation
sourcetext: some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal, alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law
tensionresolution: The utility authority resolved this tension by obtaining legal advice that no legal impediment existed and by extending equal amendment opportunity to all competing firms, treating the equal-treatment condition as sufficient to preserve process integrity
textreferences: some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal, alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law, and that Firm A had acted unethically in making its request.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.176311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Professional Competence Invoked in Firm A Qualification Upgrade Obligation
type: ProfessionalCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm A's joint venture technical qualifications
appliedto: Screening committee's identification of technical support deficiency
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board's holding that Firm A was obligated to upgrade its joint venture's qualifications reflects the professional competence principle: an engineer must not undertake assignments for which the team is not qualified, and must take affirmative steps to ensure adequate qualifications when deficiencies are identified
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional competence in the QBS context requires not only that an engineer be personally competent but that the professional entity (including joint venture) assembled for the project collectively possesses the competence required for the assignment
invokedby: Firm A Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Professional Competence
sourcetext: The Engineer will undertake engineering assignments for which he will be responsible only when qualified by training or experience; and he will engage, or advise engaging, experts and specialists whenever the client's or employer's interests are best served by such service.
tensionresolution: The competence obligation reinforces rather than conflicts with procurement integrity — ensuring the selected firm is genuinely qualified serves both professional competence and public interest goals
textreferences: The Engineer will undertake engineering assignments for which he will be responsible only when qualified by training or experience; and he will engage, or advise engaging, experts and specialists whenever the client's or employer's interests are best served by such service.
textreferences: under the mandate of 6 of the code, Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture for the assignment once it was indicated that additional technical support was required by the client.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.185623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Propose Joint Venture Structure
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.190792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Propose Joint Venture Structure (Action 1) → Deficiencies Publicly Disclosed (Event 3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Public-Procurement-Fairness-Equal-Treatment-Norm
type: PublicProcurementFairnessStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies and procurement regulatory frameworks
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Procurement Fairness and Equal Treatment Standard in QBS Processes
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:36:20.464447+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:36:20.464447+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Procurement Fairness Standard
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
usedby: Firm A (in framing its amendment request), utility authority (in evaluating the request), city council members (in objecting to the amendment)
usedincontext: Firm A explicitly conditioned its amendment request on the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their qualification statements, invoking the professional norm of equitable treatment of all competitors in public procurement. This standard is the ethical benchmark for evaluating whether Firm A's request was fair or gave it an improper competitive advantage.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.171539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Public Objections Raised
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191249
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by QBS Process Design for Complex Power Facility
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
appliedto: Other Six Competing Engineering Firms
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The QBS process itself — requiring selection of the 'most qualified' firm for a large and complex power facility addition — reflects the paramount public welfare obligation: the public has a vital interest in ensuring that complex, safety-critical infrastructure is designed by the most technically competent engineering team available, which is the underlying rationale for QBS law
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The public welfare obligation supports the QBS framework's emphasis on technical qualifications over price, and also supports the screening committee's identification of technical deficiencies — the public interest in a competent engineering team for a complex power facility is the foundational justification for the entire process
invokedby: QBS Screening Committee Qualification Feedback Body
invokedby: Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: A public utility authority announced plans to build a large and complex addition to its power facilities
tensionresolution: Public welfare considerations support both strict process integrity (to ensure public trust) and flexibility to obtain the most qualified team (to ensure technical competence); the tension is resolved differently by the authority (flexibility) and the objectors (strict process)
textreferences: A public utility authority announced plans to build a large and complex addition to its power facilities
textreferences: the agency is required to select the 'most qualified' firm for negotiation of a contract.
textreferences: the screening committee of the authority felt that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects, nor reflect a desirable backup of specialized technical personnel.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.177495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Public and City Council Objectors Equal Amendment Opportunity Fairness Sufficiency Recognition Deficit
type: EqualCompetitiveAmendmentOpportunityFairnessSufficiencyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Equal Competitive Amendment Opportunity Fairness Sufficiency Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The public and city council objectors lacked or failed to apply the capability to recognize that equal extension of amendment opportunity to all firms was the decisive fairness criterion, leading them to overstate the ethical significance of the procedural accommodation
casecontext: Members of the public and city council objected to the utility authority's decision to allow Firm A to amend its qualification statement, but the BER found no ethical basis for the objection given equal treatment
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: The objectors' protests against the utility authority's amendment decision, which the BER found did not identify a valid basis to question the fairness of the procedure given equal treatment of all firms
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Public and City Council Procurement Objectors
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
textreferences: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.190151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Public and City Council Objectors Procurement Spirit Intent Protest Proportionality
type: ProtestofNon-CompliantProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Members of the public and city council objected to the utility authority's grant of Firm A's amendment request, alleging violation of procurement law intent and unethical conduct by Firm A. The NSPE BER ultimately found that Firm A had not acted unethically.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.75
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Public and City Council Procurement Objectors
obligationclass: Protest of Non-Compliant Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: Members of the public and city council who objected to the utility authority's decision to allow Firm A to amend its qualification submission were obligated to ground their objection in a good-faith assessment of whether the decision actually violated the spirit and intent of the governing procurement law, recognizing that a legally cleared, equally extended procedural accommodation does not necessarily constitute an ethics violation.
sourcetext: Subsequently, some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal, alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law, and that Firm A had acted unethically in making its request.
temporalscope: After the utility authority granted Firm A's amendment request and accepted the revised qualification proposal
textreferences: Subsequently, some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal, alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law, and that Firm A had acted unethically in making its request.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.179182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Public and City Council Objectors Procurement Spirit Intent Protest Proportionality Calibration
type: ProcurementObjectorProtestProportionalityandSpirit-IntentCalibrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Objector Protest Proportionality and Spirit-Intent Calibration Capability
capabilitystatement: The public and city council objectors demonstrated a need for — but arguably lacked — the capability to calibrate their protest to the actual spirit and intent of the governing procurement law, as their objection overstated the ethical and legal significance of a procedural accommodation that was legally cleared, equally extended, and fairness-preserving.
casecontext: The public and city council objectors' protest illustrated the challenge of calibrating procurement objections to actual violations of procurement spirit and intent versus procedurally accommodated fairness-preserving adjustments
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Alleging that Firm A violated the intent of the governing procurement law and acted unethically, without adequately accounting for the equal-treatment condition, legal clearance, and fairness-preserving nature of the accommodation
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Public and City Council Procurement Objectors (Public Procurement Objector Stakeholder)
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Subsequently, some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal, alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law, and that Firm A had acted unethically in making its request.
textreferences: Subsequently, some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal, alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law, and that Firm A had acted unethically in making its request.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.183671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Public and City Council Procurement Objectors
type: PublicProcurementObjectorStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'objection_basis': 'Alleged violation of procurement law intent and unethical conduct by Firm A', 'forum': 'Public meeting and city council'}
caseinvolvement: Members of the public and city council members who objected to the utility authority's decision to allow Firm A to amend its qualification statement, alleging both a violation of the intent of the governing procurement law and unethical conduct by Firm A in making the request.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:09.329393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:09.329393+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'alleges_misconduct_by', 'target': 'Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'objects_to_decision_of', 'target': 'Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Procurement Objector Stakeholder
sourcetext: some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal
textreferences: alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law
textreferences: and that Firm A had acted unethically in making its request
textreferences: some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.173962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Public and City Council Procurement Objectors Good Faith Protest Proportionality Assessment
type: PublicProcurementObjectorProcurementSpiritandIntentProtestProportionalityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Members of the public and city council objected that allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal violated the intent of the governing procurement law. The NSPE Board found the procedure ethically permissible because equal opportunity was extended to all firms and legal clearance was obtained, suggesting the objections were not grounded in a violation of procurement spirit and intent.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:49:20.970426+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:49:20.970426+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Members of the public and city council members objecting to the utility authority's amendment decision
obligationclass: Public Procurement Objector Procurement Spirit and Intent Protest Proportionality Obligation
obligationstatement: Members of the public and city council members who objected to the utility authority's decision to allow Firm A to amend its qualification submission were obligated to ground their objection in a good-faith assessment of whether the decision actually violated the spirit and intent of the governing procurement law, recognizing that the equal amendment opportunity extended to all seven competing firms and the legal clearance obtained by the authority did not necessarily violate procurement integrity.
sourcetext: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
temporalscope: At the time the objections were raised, after the utility authority granted the amendment opportunity to all competing firms
textreferences: It is beyond our charter to pass judgment on the issue whether the utility authority violated the governing state law or the local ordinance on engineering services procurement.
textreferences: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.186933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QBS Joint Venture Unified Legal Entity Assessment Utility Authority Power Facility
type: QBSJointVentureLegalEntityUnifiedQualificationAssessmentConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm A proposed a joint venture for the power facility addition project; the utility authority needed to assess whether the joint venture as a whole met the 'best qualified' standard
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Utility authority and all parties assessing qualifications in QBS procurement for power facility addition
constraintclass: QBS Joint Venture Legal Entity Unified Qualification Assessment Constraint
constraintstatement: The utility authority was constrained to assess Firm A's joint venture as a unified legal entity for QBS qualification purposes, evaluating the collective qualifications of all joint venture partners and any engaged specialists as the relevant qualification baseline — prohibiting disaggregation of joint venture partners into separate firms for qualification assessment.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:14.010395+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:14.010395+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: State QBS law and local ordinance analogous to federal Brooks Act; NSPE BER analysis
sourcetext: In the context of this case the 'firm' would include a joint venture, which is a legal entity for the one project.
temporalscope: Throughout the QBS qualification assessment and selection process
textreferences: In the context of this case the 'firm' would include a joint venture, which is a legal entity for the one project.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.188301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QBS Law Best-Qualified Interpretation Utility Authority Power Facility Procurement
type: QBSLawBest-QualifiedFirmPresentationFacilitationInterpretiveConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Public utility authority administering QBS selection for large power facility addition; question arose whether allowing Firm A to amend its SOQ mid-process was consistent with governing law
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Utility authority administering QBS procurement for power facility addition
constraintclass: QBS Law Best-Qualified Firm Presentation Facilitation Interpretive Constraint
constraintstatement: The utility authority was constrained to interpret the applicable state law and local ordinance — analogous to the Brooks Act — in a manner consistent with the 'best qualified' firm selection mandate, prohibiting interpretations that would preclude procedures designed to present each competing firm in its best light of technical and professional qualifications.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:14.010395+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:14.010395+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State QBS law and local ordinance analogous to federal Brooks Act; NSPE BER analysis
sourcetext: it would indeed be a peculiar result that a state or local law intended to have the client select the 'best qualified' firm be interpreted to preclude a procedure intended to present each 'firm' in its best light of technical and other professional qualifications
temporalscope: Throughout the active QBS procurement process for the power facility addition
textreferences: it would indeed be a peculiar result that a state or local law intended to have the client select the 'best qualified' firm be interpreted to preclude a procedure intended to present each 'firm' in its best light of technical and other professional qualifications
textreferences: the applicable laws are similar to the Federal A/E selection law (Brooks Act) and the laws of other states, which contemplate a procedure whereby the public body may select the 'best qualified' firm
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.187136
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QBS Procurement Balance Best-Qualified vs Strict Procedural Adherence Utility Authority
type: QBSProcurementBalancePublicInterestvs.StrictRuleAdherenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Public and city council objected on procurement spirit grounds; BER found the procedure acceptable when equal opportunity was extended to all competing firms and legal clearance was obtained
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Utility authority administering QBS procurement and public objectors evaluating the amendment decision
constraintclass: QBS Procurement Balance Public Interest vs. Strict Rule Adherence Constraint
constraintstatement: The utility authority was constrained to balance the public interest in selecting the most qualified firm against strict procedural adherence requirements, with the 'best qualified' mandate and the equal-access condition together providing sufficient justification for the permissive amendment interpretation in this case.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:14.010395+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:14.010395+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State QBS law analogous to Brooks Act; NSPE Code of Ethics; BER analysis
sourcetext: it would indeed be a peculiar result that a state or local law intended to have the client select the 'best qualified' firm be interpreted to preclude a procedure intended to present each 'firm' in its best light of technical and other professional qualifications
temporalscope: At the decision point when the utility authority granted Firm A permission to amend its SOQ
textreferences: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
textreferences: it would indeed be a peculiar result that a state or local law intended to have the client select the 'best qualified' firm be interpreted to preclude a procedure intended to present each 'firm' in its best light of technical and other professional qualifications
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.188739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QBS Procurement Best-Qualified Firm Selection Framework Active
type: QBSLawApplicableState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the procurement process for the project
affectedparties: All competing firms
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: Public stakeholders
affectedparties: Utility authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:29.060171+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:29.060171+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the applicable laws are similar to the Federal A/E selection law (Brooks Act) and the laws of other states, which contemplate a procedure whereby the public body may select the 'best qualified' firm
stateclass: QBS Law Applicable State
subject: Utility authority's engineering services procurement governed by state law analogous to the Brooks Act
terminatedby: Conclusion of the selection process and contract award
textreferences: It is beyond our charter to pass judgment on the issue whether the utility authority violated the governing state law or the local ordinance on engineering services procurement
textreferences: the applicable laws are similar to the Federal A/E selection law (Brooks Act) and the laws of other states, which contemplate a procedure whereby the public body may select the 'best qualified' firm
triggeringevent: Utility authority initiating procurement under applicable state QBS law and local ordinance
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.175930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QBS Procurement Best-Qualified Firm Selection Public Interest Paramount Goal
type: QBSProcurementBalancePublicInterestvs.StrictRuleAdherenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The utility authority faced the question of whether to allow Firm A to amend its SOQ mid-process, balancing the public interest in selecting the most qualified firm against the procedural integrity of the QBS process
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Utility Authority
constraintclass: QBS Procurement Balance Public Interest vs. Strict Rule Adherence Constraint
constraintstatement: The utility authority was constrained to balance the paramount goal of selecting the most qualified firm for the large and complex power facility addition against strict adherence to procurement procedural rules, and to strike that balance in a manner that preserved procurement integrity while serving the public interest in obtaining the best-qualified engineering services.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State law and local ordinance QBS requirements; NSPE Code of Ethics; Brooks Act analog; BER Case 10-8 precedent
sourcetext: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered
temporalscope: Throughout the QBS procurement process, particularly when deciding whether to grant Firm A's amendment request
textreferences: Following these interviews, the agency is required to select the 'most qualified' firm for negotiation of a contract.
textreferences: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.181146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QBS Procurement Framework Active for Power Facility Addition
type: QBSLawApplicableState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From public announcement of qualification solicitation through final contract negotiation
affectedparties: All seven shortlisted firms
affectedparties: City council
affectedparties: Firm A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Public utility authority
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:04.438800+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:04.438800+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered
stateclass: QBS Law Applicable State
subject: Public utility authority's procurement of engineering services for power facility addition
terminatedby: Execution of contract with selected firm
textreferences: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered
textreferences: not less than three firms deemed most highly qualified be interviewed
textreferences: the agency is required to select the 'most qualified' firm for negotiation of a contract
triggeringevent: Public utility authority's announcement of plans and invitation for qualification statements under state law and local ordinance
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.172336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QBS Screening Committee Qualification Feedback Body
type: QBSScreeningCommitteeQualificationFeedbackAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Public evaluation committee', 'procurement_context': 'Qualifications-based selection for public utility engineering services', 'feedback_function': 'Identified technical deficiencies and communicated them publicly to competing firms', 'equal_treatment_action': 'Extended amendment opportunity to all competing firms equally'}
caseinvolvement: The screening committee evaluated competing firms' qualification statements and made public comments indicating that additional technical support was required for the project. These comments triggered Firm A's ethical obligation to upgrade its joint venture team. The committee's decision to allow all competing firms the same amendment opportunity is cited as the basis for finding the procedure fair.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:13.233673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:13.233673+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'acts_on_behalf_of', 'target': 'QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'evaluates', 'target': 'Firm A Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead'}
relationships: {'type': 'triggers_obligation_on', 'target': 'All Competing Engineering Firms'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: QBS Screening Committee Qualification Feedback Authority
sourcetext: on the basis of public comments made by the screening committee
textreferences: When that aspect was indicated on behalf of the client by the screening committee
textreferences: on the basis of public comments made by the screening committee
textreferences: we do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.175097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Qualification Statements Received
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Qualification Upgrade or Withdrawal Obligation Invoked Against Firm A
type: QualificationUpgradeorWithdrawalObligationUponClient-IdentifiedDeficiency
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm A's continued participation in QBS process after screening committee feedback
appliedto: Firm A's decision to add new joint venture partners
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Post-Feedback Qualification Amendment Permissibility Under Equal Treatment Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: When the screening committee publicly identified that Firm A's joint venture lacked sufficient technical support, Firm A faced a binary ethical obligation: upgrade its qualifications (through internal or external means) or eliminate itself from further consideration — remaining in the process without addressing the deficiency would have constituted an ethical violation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation is framed as a binary — upgrade or withdraw — with no ethical middle ground of passive continuation; the client's expressed need for additional technical support transforms what might otherwise be a permissive option (engaging specialists) into a mandatory ethical duty
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Qualification Upgrade or Withdrawal Obligation Upon Client-Identified Deficiency
sourcetext: Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade its qualifications through either internal or external revisions in its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration.
tensionresolution: The Board resolved that Firm A's decision to upgrade (rather than withdraw) was ethically correct, provided the equal treatment condition was satisfied for all competing firms
textreferences: Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade its qualifications through either internal or external revisions in its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration.
textreferences: When that aspect was indicated on behalf of the client by the screening committee Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade its qualifications through either internal or external revisions in its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.184765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717870
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717903
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718001
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717597
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717659
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.717719
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Firm A to seek to alter its qualification proposal in order to improve its position to secure the contract?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.714447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Firm A gain an unfair informational advantage by receiving specific, individualized deficiency feedback from the screening committee at a public meeting, and if so, does the equal-amendment-opportunity condition fully neutralize that advantage for the other six competing firms who had no comparable deficiencies identified?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.714511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Was the utility authority's decision to grant the amendment request procedurally sound, or did it effectively reopen the qualification competition in a way that undermined the integrity of the original procurement framework established by state law and local ordinance?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.714571
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Under NSPE Code Section 6, was Firm A ethically obligated to either withdraw from the competition or proactively upgrade its joint venture team upon recognizing its own qualification deficiencies before the screening committee identified them, rather than waiting for external feedback to trigger corrective action?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.714698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Should the fact that the screening committee's deficiency feedback was delivered at a public meeting, rather than in a private communication, be treated as ethically significant in assessing whether Firm A's use of that feedback to restructure its team was permissible or constituted exploitation of a procedural irregularity?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.714781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Public Welfare Paramount — which favors selecting the most technically qualified firm for a complex power facility — conflict with the principle of Procurement Process Spirit and Intent, which demands that procedural rules be followed consistently and not bent mid-process to accommodate a firm that initially submitted an inadequate proposal?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.714838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Free and Open Competition — served by extending equal amendment opportunity to all seven firms — genuinely resolve the tension with Fairness in Professional Competition, given that only Firm A had actionable deficiency feedback that made a targeted amendment strategically meaningful, while other firms had no comparable signal about how to improve their standing?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.714893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Qualification Upgrade or Withdrawal Obligation — which holds that a firm recognizing its own incompetence must either remedy it or step aside — conflict with the Screening Committee Public Feedback Non-Exploitation principle, in that acting on the obligation necessarily requires Firm A to exploit the specific deficiency intelligence it received from the screening committee before other firms had any equivalent opportunity to act on comparable feedback?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.714949
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of Honesty in Professional Representations — which requires that qualification statements accurately reflect a firm's actual capabilities — conflict with Post-Feedback Qualification Amendment Permissibility, in the sense that allowing Firm A to revise its submission implicitly acknowledges that its original representation was materially inaccurate, raising the question of whether the amendment cures or merely obscures that original misrepresentation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.715002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Firm A fulfill its duty of fairness to competing firms by conditioning its amendment request on equal access for all seven shortlisted firms, or did the informational advantage it already possessed from individualized screening committee feedback make that condition insufficient to discharge its duty of impartiality?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.715059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist standpoint, did the utility authority's decision to permit Firm A's mid-process qualification amendment ultimately serve the public interest better than strict procedural adherence would have, given that the goal of qualified-based selection is to secure the most competent firm for a large and complex power facility?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.715162
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Firm A demonstrate genuine professional integrity by proactively disclosing its team restructuring to the utility authority and insisting on equal amendment access for all competitors, or did the self-interested motivation underlying those actions undermine the character-based standard of honorable professional conduct?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.715225
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Firm A's ethical obligation under Code Section 6 to engage specialists when its own competence is insufficient create an affirmative duty to restructure its joint venture team upon receiving screening committee feedback identifying technical deficiencies, making the amendment request not merely permissible but morally required?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.715281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If the screening committee's deficiency feedback had been delivered privately to Firm A rather than disclosed at a public meeting, would the informational asymmetry between Firm A and the other six competing firms have been so pronounced that the amendment request would have been ethically impermissible, even with equal access extended to all firms?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.715338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If Firm A had chosen to withdraw from the procurement rather than restructure its joint venture team after learning of the screening committee's deficiency findings, would that withdrawal have better served the spirit and intent of the governing procurement law, and would it have represented a higher standard of professional conduct than seeking an amendment?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.715395
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the utility authority had denied Firm A's amendment request on grounds of preserving strict procedural integrity, and the ultimately selected firm later proved unable to handle the technical complexities of the power facility addition, would that outcome have retroactively validated Firm A's argument that the public interest in securing the most qualified firm outweighs rigid adherence to procurement process rules?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.715453
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If one or more of the other six competing firms had also taken advantage of the equal amendment opportunity to substantially restructure their own teams in response to Firm A's amendment, effectively resetting the competitive field, would the resulting process still have satisfied the legal and ethical requirements of the qualified-based selection framework, or would it have constituted an impermissible restart of the procurement?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.715508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Reorganize Joint Venture Team
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.190860
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Request Permission to Revise Submission
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.190904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Request Permission to Revise Submission (Action 3) → Revision Permission Granted (Event 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191401
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718101
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718163
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T03:08:16.718364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Revision Permission Granted
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Revision Permission Granted (Event 5) and Submit Revised Qualification Proposal (Action 4) → Public Objections Raised (Event 6)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

SOQ-Amendment-Modification-Procedure
type: SOQAmendmentandModificationProcedureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Procurement law, professional engineering ethics norms
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Standard for Post-Submission SOQ Amendment in Qualification-Based Selection Procurement
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:36:20.464447+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:36:20.464447+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: SOQ Amendment and Modification Procedure Standard
sourcetext: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed to be selected for negotiations.
textreferences: Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed to be selected for negotiations.
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
textreferences: some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal, alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law
usedby: Firm A, utility authority screening committee, city council, public objectors
usedincontext: The central procedural and ethical question of the case: whether Firm A was permitted to modify its qualification proposal after initial submission and after receiving informal feedback from the screening committee, and whether the utility authority acted properly in granting that request. This standard governs the permissibility and ethical implications of mid-process SOQ amendments.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.171699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

SOQ Amendment and Modification Procedure Standard (Joint Venture Team Revision)
type: SOQAmendmentandModificationProcedureStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / professional procurement ethics norms
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: SOQ Amendment and Modification Procedure Standard – Joint Venture Team Composition Revision
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:38:09.660808+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:38:09.660808+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: SOQ Amendment and Modification Procedure Standard
sourcetext: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
textreferences: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
textreferences: whether it is fair to allow a competing firm to revise the elements making up the team of its joint venture in order to meet a higher level of qualification on the basis of public comments made by the screening committee
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in assessing fairness of mid-process joint venture team revision
usedincontext: The ethical permissibility of Firm A revising its joint venture team composition in response to screening committee feedback, conditioned on all competing firms receiving the same opportunity to amend
version: Applied in this case context
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.174787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Screening Committee Actionable Qualification Feedback Delivery
type: QBSScreeningCommitteeActionableQualificationFeedbackDeliveryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: QBS Screening Committee Actionable Qualification Feedback Delivery Capability
capabilitystatement: The screening committee demonstrated the capability to identify specific technical deficiencies in Firm A's joint venture proposal — insufficient experience in certain technical aspects and inadequate backup of specialized technical personnel — and to communicate those deficiencies publicly and specifically.
casecontext: The screening committee's specific, public feedback enabled Firm A to understand and cure its qualification deficiencies, which was the triggering event for the entire amendment request sequence
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Advising Firm A that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects nor reflect a desirable backup of specialized technical personnel, at a public meeting
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: QBS Screening Committee Qualification Feedback Body
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Firm A, one of the seven, following an initial interview, was advised that the screening committee of the authority felt that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects, nor reflect a desirable backup of specialized technical personnel.
textreferences: Firm A, one of the seven, following an initial interview, was advised that the screening committee of the authority felt that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects, nor reflect a desirable backup of specialized technical personnel.
textreferences: Upon learning of this reaction from the screening committee at a public meeting
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.183834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Screening Committee Public Feedback Non-Exploitation Invoked by Firm A Team Restructuring
type: ScreeningCommitteePublicFeedbackNon-ExploitationBoundaryPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Other Six Competing Engineering Firms
appliedto: Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
balancingwith: Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm A learned of the screening committee's concerns at a public meeting and acted on that public feedback to restructure its joint venture team before final selection, raising the question of whether acting on publicly delivered evaluator feedback constitutes exploitation of an improper advantage or legitimate responsiveness to a transparent public process
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:40:30.628868+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Because the screening committee's feedback was delivered at a public meeting — not in a private communication — all competing firms theoretically had equal access to the same information; Firm A's responsiveness to publicly available feedback is therefore distinguishable from exploitation of privately communicated evaluator preferences
invokedby: Firm A Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead
invokedby: QBS Screening Committee Qualification Feedback Body
principleclass: Screening Committee Public Feedback Non-Exploitation Boundary Principle
sourcetext: Upon learning of this reaction from the screening committee at a public meeting and prior to a selection by the authority, Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture
tensionresolution: The public character of the feedback delivery is the critical ethical determinant: public feedback accessible to all competitors does not create the same impropriety as privately communicated evaluator preferences, though the objectors disputed whether all competitors had equal practical ability to respond
textreferences: Upon learning of this reaction from the screening committee at a public meeting and prior to a selection by the authority, Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed to be selected for negotiations.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.176931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Seven Firms Shortlisted
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Specialist Engagement Obligation Invoked by NSPE Board in Firm A QBS Context
type: SpecialistEngagementObligationWhenClientInterestsRequireIt
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm A's QBS joint venture qualification amendment
appliedto: Screening committee feedback on technical support deficiency
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The NSPE Board invoked Code Section 6's specialist engagement obligation to establish that Firm A was ethically required — not merely permitted — to upgrade its joint venture's technical qualifications by engaging additional specialists once the screening committee indicated that additional technical support was required by the client
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:47:46.005014+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the specialist engagement obligation operates not merely as a permissive authorization but as an affirmative ethical duty: when the client's representative identifies a technical gap, the engineer must act to fill it or withdraw — passive continuation without response is ethically impermissible
invokedby: Firm A Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead
invokedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
principleclass: Specialist Engagement Obligation When Client Interests Require It
sourcetext: under the mandate of 6 of the code, Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture for the assignment once it was indicated that additional technical support was required by the client.
tensionresolution: The Board resolved that the specialist engagement obligation reinforces rather than conflicts with procurement fairness, because the obligation to upgrade or withdraw serves the client's interest in selecting the best-qualified firm
textreferences: Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional is performing substantial services of a project.
textreferences: under the mandate of 6 of the code, Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture for the assignment once it was indicated that additional technical support was required by the client.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.184568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

State-Law-Local-Ordinance-QBS-Procurement
type: Qualification-BasedSelectionProcurementLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: State legislature and local municipal authority
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Law and Local Ordinance Governing Qualification-Based Selection for Public Engineering Contracts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:36:20.464447+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:36:20.464447+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
sourcetext: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered, that not less than three firms deemed most highly qualified be interviewed to consider in more detail the ability of the professional personnel; past performance; ability to meet time and budget requirements; location of the firms; recent, current, and projected workloads of the firms; and other qualification factors determined by the agency.
textreferences: Following these interviews, the agency is required to select the 'most qualified' firm for negotiation of a contract.
textreferences: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered, that not less than three firms deemed most highly qualified be interviewed to consider in more detail the ability of the professional personnel; past performance; ability to meet time and budget requirements; location of the firms; recent, current, and projected workloads of the firms; and other qualification factors determined by the agency.
textreferences: some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal, alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law
usedby: Utility authority, Firm A, competing firms, city council members
usedincontext: Establishes the mandatory QBS procedure: all SOQ submitters must be considered, at least three most-qualified firms must be interviewed on detailed criteria, the most qualified firm is selected for negotiation, and if negotiations fail the second-ranked firm is approached. This law is the legal framework within which Firm A's amendment request and the authority's response must be evaluated.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.171193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Submit Revised Qualification Proposal
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.190962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority Equal Amendment Opportunity Extension to All Seven Competing Firms
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The utility authority granted Firm A's amendment request conditioned on equal access for all competing firms, consistent with Firm A's own condition, satisfying this constraint
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Utility Authority
constraintclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
constraintstatement: The utility authority was constrained, upon granting Firm A permission to amend its qualification statement, to extend the same amendment opportunity to all other six competing firms on equal terms, prohibiting selective permission that would advantage Firm A alone.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; state law and local ordinance QBS requirements; public procurement equal treatment norms
sourcetext: with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired
temporalscope: Concurrent with or immediately following the grant of Firm A's amendment request
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
textreferences: with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.180281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority Equal Competitive Amendment Opportunity Fairness Sufficiency Recognition
type: EqualCompetitiveAmendmentOpportunityFairnessSufficiencyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Equal Competitive Amendment Opportunity Fairness Sufficiency Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The utility authority recognized that extending the same amendment opportunity to all seven competing firms was the decisive criterion establishing the fairness of the amendment procedure
casecontext: The utility authority granted Firm A's amendment request and extended the same opportunity to all other competing firms, which the BER found resolved the fairness question
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The utility authority's extension of equal amendment opportunity to all competing firms as a condition of granting Firm A's request, thereby satisfying the equal treatment requirement
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
textreferences: We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.189977
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority Legal Clearance Before Granting Firm A SOQ Amendment Permission
type: QBSProcurementAuthorityLegalClearanceBeforeMid-ProcessExceptionGrantingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The utility authority received Firm A's request to amend its SOQ mid-process and obtained legal advice before granting the request, satisfying this constraint
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Utility Authority
constraintclass: QBS Procurement Authority Legal Clearance Before Mid-Process Exception Granting Constraint
constraintstatement: The utility authority was constrained from granting Firm A's request to amend its qualification statement without first obtaining legal advice confirming that no legal impediment existed to the proposed procedural exception.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State law and local ordinance governing QBS procurement; public agency procedural due diligence obligations
sourcetext: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
temporalscope: Before granting Firm A's amendment request
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.180109
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority Procurement Fairness Appearance Management in Amendment Grant
type: ProcurementFairnessAppearanceManagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Fairness Appearance Management Capability
capabilitystatement: The utility authority demonstrated the capability to manage the appearance of fairness when granting Firm A's amendment request by obtaining legal clearance and extending equal opportunity to all competing firms, thereby structuring the accommodation to withstand scrutiny for fairness.
casecontext: Despite the utility authority's procedural safeguards, public and city council objectors still raised appearance-of-impropriety concerns, illustrating the challenge of managing procurement fairness appearance
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Obtaining legal advice and extending equal amendment opportunity to all competitors before granting Firm A's request, thereby managing the appearance of favoritism
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Utility Authority (QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
textreferences: Subsequently, some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.183458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority Procurement Integrity Balance Judgment in Amendment Grant
type: ProcurementIntegrityBalanceJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Integrity Balance Judgment Capability
capabilitystatement: The utility authority demonstrated the capability to balance the tension between strict procedural adherence and the paramount goal of selecting the most qualified firm, resolving that tension by obtaining legal clearance and extending equal opportunity to all competitors before granting the amendment.
casecontext: The utility authority's balanced judgment in granting the amendment with legal clearance and equal treatment was the central ethical decision in the case
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Resolving the tension between strict deadline enforcement and most-qualified-firm selection by obtaining legal advice and extending equal amendment opportunity to all competing firms
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Utility Authority (QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.183149
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority Public Procurement Integrity Public Interest Articulation
type: PublicProcurementIntegrityPublicInterestArticulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Procurement Integrity Public Interest Articulation Capability
capabilitystatement: The utility authority demonstrated the capability to understand and apply the public interest rationale underlying QBS procurement rules, recognizing that the process serves the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services for a large and complex power facility addition.
casecontext: The utility authority's administration of the QBS process reflected understanding of the public interest rationale underlying QBS procurement law
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Administering the QBS process with the goal of selecting the most qualified firm, including granting procedural accommodations that preserved rather than undermined the public interest purpose of QBS
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Utility Authority (QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered
textreferences: Following these interviews, the agency is required to select the 'most qualified' firm for negotiation of a contract.
textreferences: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.183299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority QBS Best-Qualified Firm Law Permissive Amendment Interpretation
type: QBSBest-QualifiedFirmSelectionLawPermissiveAmendmentInterpretationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The utility authority sought and received legal advice confirming no legal impediment before granting Firm A's amendment request, and extended the same opportunity to all seven competing firms. The NSPE Board observed that interpreting QBS law to preclude such procedures would produce a 'peculiar result' contrary to the law's purpose.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:49:20.970426+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:49:20.970426+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Public Utility Authority (QBS Procurement Administrator)
obligationclass: QBS Best-Qualified Firm Selection Law Permissive Amendment Interpretation Obligation
obligationstatement: The utility authority was obligated to interpret the governing QBS law — which contemplates selection of the 'best qualified' firm — as permitting the procedural accommodation of allowing firms to amend qualification submissions in response to screening feedback, rather than reading the law to preclude a procedure designed to achieve the very goal of identifying the most qualified firm, provided legal clearance was obtained and equal opportunity was extended to all competing firms.
sourcetext: it would indeed be a peculiar result that a state or local law intended to have the client select the 'best qualified' firm be interpreted to preclude a procedure intended to present each 'firm' in its best light of technical and other professional qualifications.
temporalscope: At the time the amendment request was evaluated and the procedural decision was made
textreferences: it would indeed be a peculiar result that a state or local law intended to have the client select the 'best qualified' firm be interpreted to preclude a procedure intended to present each 'firm' in its best light of technical and other professional qualifications.
textreferences: the applicable laws are similar to the Federal A/E selection law (Brooks Act) and the laws of other states, which contemplate a procedure whereby the public body may select the 'best qualified' firm.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.186591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority QBS Equal Amendment Opportunity Extension to All Seven Competing Firms
type: QBSEqualAmendmentOpportunityExtensiontoAllCompetingFirmsObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The utility authority administered a QBS process with seven shortlisted firms. Firm A's amendment request was conditioned on equal treatment for all competitors. The authority's grant of the request implicitly or explicitly extended the same opportunity to all seven firms.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Utility Authority (QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority)
obligationclass: QBS Equal Amendment Opportunity Extension to All Competing Firms Obligation
obligationstatement: The utility authority was obligated, when granting Firm A permission to amend its qualification submission, to extend the same amendment opportunity to all other competing firms on equal terms, ensuring no single firm gained a competitive advantage through exclusive access to the procedural accommodation.
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
temporalscope: Concurrent with or immediately following the grant of Firm A's amendment request
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.186387
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority QBS Equal Amendment Opportunity Extension to All Seven Firms
type: QBSEqualAmendmentOpportunityExtensionAdministrationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: QBS Equal Amendment Opportunity Extension Administration Capability
capabilitystatement: The utility authority demonstrated the capability to extend the same amendment opportunity to all seven competing firms when granting Firm A's amendment request, ensuring no firm gained an unfair competitive advantage from the procedural accommodation.
casecontext: The utility authority's equal extension of amendment opportunity to all competing firms was the key administrative act that preserved procurement fairness
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Granting Firm A's amendment request on the condition that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their qualification statements
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Utility Authority (QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
textreferences: Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.182607
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority QBS Law Best-Qualified Firm Permissive Procedure Interpretation
type: QBSLawBest-QualifiedFirmPermissiveProcedureInterpretationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: QBS Law Best-Qualified Firm Permissive Procedure Interpretation Capability
capabilitystatement: The utility authority interpreted the governing QBS law as permitting the amendment procedure because a law designed to select the 'best qualified' firm should not be construed to preclude procedures that enable firms to present their highest qualification level
casecontext: The utility authority administered a QBS process under state law and local ordinance, and granted Firm A permission to amend its qualification submission after obtaining legal advice
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The utility authority's decision to grant Firm A's amendment request after obtaining legal clearance, grounded in the purposive interpretation that QBS law supports rather than prohibits qualification-enhancing procedures
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:51:35.868490+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the applicable laws are similar to the Federal A/E selection law (Brooks Act) and the laws of other states, which contemplate a procedure whereby the public body may select the 'best qualified' firm.
textreferences: it would indeed be a peculiar result that a state or local law intended to have the client select the 'best qualified' firm be interpreted to preclude a procedure intended to present each 'firm' in its best light of technical and other professional qualifications.
textreferences: the applicable laws are similar to the Federal A/E selection law (Brooks Act) and the laws of other states, which contemplate a procedure whereby the public body may select the 'best qualified' firm.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.189586
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority QBS Legal Clearance Before Granting Amendment Exception
type: QBSProcurementLegalClearanceBeforeExceptionGrantingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: QBS Procurement Legal Clearance Before Exception Granting Capability
capabilitystatement: The utility authority demonstrated the capability to recognize that granting Firm A's amendment request required legal clearance, and to obtain legal advice confirming no legal impediment existed before granting the exception.
casecontext: The utility authority's legal clearance step was a critical procedural safeguard that made the amendment grant legally defensible
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Seeking and receiving legal advice confirming no legal impediment before granting Firm A's request to amend its qualification submission
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Utility Authority (QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.182432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority QBS Legal Clearance Before Granting Firm A Amendment Request
type: QBSProcurementAuthorityLegalClearanceBeforeProceduralExceptionGrantingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The utility authority administered a QBS process governed by state law and local ordinance. When Firm A requested permission to amend its qualification submission after restructuring its joint venture team, the authority sought legal advice before granting the request.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Utility Authority (QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority)
obligationclass: QBS Procurement Authority Legal Clearance Before Procedural Exception Granting Obligation
obligationstatement: The utility authority was obligated to seek and obtain legal advice confirming no legal impediment existed before granting Firm A's request to amend its qualification submission, ensuring the procedural accommodation was legally defensible under the governing state law and local ordinance.
sourcetext: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
temporalscope: Before granting Firm A's amendment request and before accepting the revised qualification proposal
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.178497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority QBS Most-Qualified Firm Selection Paramount Goal Maintenance
type: QBSMost-QualifiedFirmSelectionParamountGoalMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: QBS Most-Qualified Firm Selection Paramount Goal Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: The utility authority demonstrated the capability to maintain the paramount goal of selecting the most qualified firm throughout its procedural decisions, including when granting the amendment accommodation that enabled Firm A to cure its qualification deficiencies.
casecontext: The utility authority's procedural accommodation served the fundamental QBS purpose of selecting the most qualified firm for a large and complex power facility addition
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Granting amendment permission after legal clearance and with equal-treatment extension, thereby enabling the most qualified firm to emerge from the process rather than excluding a potentially qualified firm on procedural grounds
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Utility Authority (QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Following these interviews, the agency is required to select the 'most qualified' firm for negotiation of a contract.
textreferences: Following these interviews, the agency is required to select the 'most qualified' firm for negotiation of a contract.
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.182969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority QBS Procurement Administrator
type: QBSProcurementAdministeringPublicUtilityAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'governing_framework': 'State law and local ordinance requiring QBS procedures', 'selection_criteria': 'Professional personnel ability, past performance, time/budget capability, location, workload, other qualification factors', 'procedural_decision': 'Granted amendment request after legal review'}
caseinvolvement: The public utility authority administered the QBS process under state law and local ordinance, narrowed submissions to seven qualified firms, conducted interviews via a screening committee, and granted Firm A's request to amend its qualification statement after receiving legal advice that no legal impediment existed.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:37:09.329393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:37:09.329393+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'evaluates', 'target': 'Firm A QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm'}
relationships: {'type': 'evaluates', 'target': 'Other Six Competing Engineering Firms'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_objection_by', 'target': 'Public and City Council Procurement Objectors'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority
sourcetext: A public utility authority announced plans to build a large and complex addition to its power facilities
textreferences: A public utility authority announced plans to build a large and complex addition to its power facilities
textreferences: The utility authority narrowed a large number of qualification submissions to seven qualified firms
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.172134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority QBS Procurement Law Conformance Administration
type: ProcurementLawKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Law Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: The utility authority demonstrated knowledge of applicable state law and local ordinance QBS requirements, including the obligation to consider all submitting firms, interview at least three most highly qualified firms, and select the most qualified firm for negotiation.
casecontext: The utility authority's administration of the QBS process under state law and local ordinance provided the legal framework within which the amendment request arose
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Administering the QBS process in conformance with state law and local ordinance requirements, narrowing submissions to seven qualified firms and conducting interviews
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:26.673021+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Utility Authority (QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered, that not less than three firms deemed most highly qualified be interviewed
textreferences: Following these interviews, the agency is required to select the 'most qualified' firm for negotiation of a contract.
textreferences: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered, that not less than three firms deemed most highly qualified be interviewed
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.182785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority QBS Procurement Law Conformance in Administering Selection
type: PublicProcurementProceduralComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The utility authority narrowed submissions to seven qualified firms, conducted interviews, and administered the selection process under state law and local ordinance QBS requirements
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Utility Authority
constraintclass: Public Procurement Procedural Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: The utility authority was constrained to administer the QBS selection process in conformance with the applicable state law and local ordinance, including the requirements that all submitting firms be considered, at least three most-qualified firms be interviewed, and the most qualified firm be selected for negotiation.
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:45:00.965493+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State law and local ordinance governing QBS procurement (analogous to Brooks Act)
sourcetext: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered, that not less than three firms deemed most highly qualified be interviewed
temporalscope: Throughout the entire QBS procurement process
textreferences: Following these interviews, the agency is required to select the 'most qualified' firm for negotiation of a contract.
textreferences: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered, that not less than three firms deemed most highly qualified be interviewed
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.180520
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority QBS Procurement Law Conformance in Administering Selection Process
type: ProcurementLawConformanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State law and a local ordinance required the authority to consider all firms submitting statements of interest, interview at least three most highly qualified firms on specified criteria, and select the most qualified firm for negotiation. The authority narrowed submissions to seven qualified firms and conducted interviews.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Utility Authority (QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority)
obligationclass: Procurement Law Conformance Obligation
obligationstatement: The utility authority was obligated to administer the QBS selection process in conformance with the applicable state law and local ordinance, including considering all submitting firms, interviewing not fewer than three most highly qualified firms, and selecting the most qualified firm for contract negotiation.
sourcetext: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered, that not less than three firms deemed most highly qualified be interviewed to consider in more detail the ability of the professional personnel; past performance; ability to meet time and budget requirements; location of the firms; recent, current, and projected workloads of the firms; and other qualification factors determined by the agency.
temporalscope: Throughout the entire QBS procurement process from initial solicitation through final selection
textreferences: Following these interviews, the agency is required to select the 'most qualified' firm for negotiation of a contract.
textreferences: The state law and a local ordinance, which applied to the authority, required that all firms submitting statements of interest be considered, that not less than three firms deemed most highly qualified be interviewed to consider in more detail the ability of the professional personnel; past performance; ability to meet time and budget requirements; location of the firms; recent, current, and projected workloads of the firms; and other qualification factors determined by the agency.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.178655
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

Utility Authority QBS Public Welfare Paramount Most Qualified Firm Selection
type: ProcurementLawComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The QBS process was designed to select the most qualified firm for a large and complex power facility addition. The authority's decision to allow amendment of qualification submissions, after legal clearance and with equal treatment for all competitors, served the public welfare objective of ensuring the most qualified firm was ultimately selected.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 162
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 162
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T02:42:35.118506+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Utility Authority (QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority)
obligationclass: Procurement Law Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: The utility authority was obligated to administer the QBS process with the paramount goal of selecting the most qualified firm for the large and complex power facility addition, ensuring that procedural decisions — including the grant of the equal amendment opportunity — served the public welfare objective of obtaining the highest quality engineering services for the project.
sourcetext: A public utility authority announced plans to build a large and complex addition to its power facilities, and publicly invited qualification statements from interested engineering firms.
temporalscope: Throughout the QBS procurement process
textreferences: A public utility authority announced plans to build a large and complex addition to its power facilities, and publicly invited qualification statements from interested engineering firms.
textreferences: Following these interviews, the agency is required to select the 'most qualified' firm for negotiation of a contract.
textreferences: The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
wasattributedto: Case 162 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.179534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

authority announcement of plans and invitation for qualification statements before firms submitting qualification statements
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

authority granting Firm A's request before Firm A submitting revised qualification proposal
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

authority narrowing to seven qualified firms before initial interview of Firm A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191638
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

authority receiving legal advice before authority granting Firm A's request
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191946
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

failed negotiation with top-ranked firm before negotiations with second-ranked firm
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.192094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

firms submitting qualification statements before authority narrowing submissions to seven qualified firms
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

initial interview of Firm A before screening committee advising Firm A of deficiencies
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

screening committee advising Firm A of deficiencies at public meeting before Firm A reorganizing its joint venture team
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.191751
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction

state law and local ordinance requirements (interviews) before agency selecting most qualified firm for negotiation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T02:57:21.192043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 162 Extraction