ProEthica Case 20 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.852725
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Active Contract Incumbent Review Prohibition Recognition Capability Engineer C Review of Engineer B
type: ActiveContractIncumbentReviewProhibitionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Active Contract Incumbent Review Prohibition Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C failed to exercise the capability to recognize that Engineer B's active contract with the City — still in its final year — prohibited Engineer C from evaluating and criticizing Engineer B's professional decisions without Engineer B's knowledge.
casecontext: Engineer B's contract with the City was active and had not been terminated when Engineer C conducted the evaluation and critique at the City Administrator's request.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B was in the final year of an active 3-year contract with the City when Engineer C agreed to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's decisions for the City Administrator, without any indication that Engineer B was notified or consented to this review.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.479997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Administrator Contacts Engineer C Directly
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Client A Representative
foreseen unintended effects: Denying Engineer B the opportunity to explain or defend his professional decisions
foreseen unintended effects: Providing Engineer C with competitive intelligence about Engineer B's work
foreseen unintended effects: Tainting the competitive selection process with information asymmetry
guided by principle text: Fairness to incumbent contractor
guided by principle text: Procedural integrity in public selection processes
guided by principle text: Transparency
has agent: City Administrator
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Obtain an external evaluation of Engineer B's decisions on specific project issues, potentially to justify preference for Engineer C in the upcoming selection
requires capability text: Conflict-of-interest recognition
requires capability text: Contract administration judgment
temporal marker: Final year of contract, during selection preparation
temporal sequence: 7
violates obligation text: Duty of fair dealing to Engineer B as current contractor
violates obligation text: Duty of impartiality in procurement
violates obligation text: Duty to avoid actions that undermine the integrity of the competitive selection process
violates obligation text: Obligation to address performance concerns directly with Engineer B before seeking external criticism
within competence: true
comment: The City Administrator makes a deliberate decision to contact Engineer C, a competitor of Engineer B with whom the Administrator has a prior professional relationship, to discuss specific issues Engineer B handled, bypassing any direct engagement with Engineer B and without Engineer B's knowledge.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485022
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Administrator Contacts Engineer C Directly → Procurement Integrity Compromised
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The upcoming contract selection process is rendered structurally unfair as a result of the covert communications
cause: Administrator Contacts Engineer C Directly
counterfactual: If the Administrator had not contacted Engineer C directly, or had conducted any such discussion through formal, disclosed procurement channels, the selection process would have retained structural integrity
effect: Procurement Integrity Compromised
necessary factors: Active contract still in force with Engineer B during contact
necessary factors: Administrator's deliberate decision to contact a competitor of Engineer B
necessary factors: Covert nature of the communication (outside formal procurement channels)
necessary factors: Engineer C's willingness to participate in the exchange
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: City Administrator
sufficient factors: Covert competitor contact + ongoing contract relationship + Administrator's role as selection leader = structurally compromised procurement
sufficient factors: The combination of Administrator's positional authority over selection and private engagement with a competing firm was alone sufficient to taint the process
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Administrator Initiates Competitor Contact
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Administrator Initiates Competitor Contact (Action 3) → Competitive Advantage Condition Created (Event 4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Administrator Leads Next Contract Selection
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Client A Representative
foreseen unintended effects: Conflict of interest between role as current contract overseer and role as future contract selector
foreseen unintended effects: Prior dissatisfaction with Engineer B could improperly bias the selection process
fulfills obligation text: Administrative duty to plan for service continuity
guided by principle text: Fairness in public procurement
guided by principle text: Impartiality in competitive selection
guided by principle text: Separation of performance evaluation from future selection authority
has agent: City Administrator
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Initiate and control the procurement process for the successor engineering contract
requires capability text: Conflict-of-interest identification and recusal judgment
requires capability text: Procurement management
temporal marker: Final year of current contract
temporal sequence: 6
violates obligation text: Duty of impartiality when prior dissatisfaction with incumbent could improperly influence the process
violates obligation text: Duty to avoid conflicts of interest in procurement
violates obligation text: Obligation to ensure fair and unbiased competitive selection
within competence: true
comment: The City Administrator makes the decision to take an active role in preparing and leading the selection process for the next 3-year consulting contract while simultaneously overseeing Engineer B's performance under the current active contract, creating a structural conflict of interest.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.484979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Administrator Repeatedly Questions Engineer B's Judgment
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Client A Representative
foreseen unintended effects: Creation of a documented record of dissatisfaction that could influence future contract selection
foreseen unintended effects: Erosion of professional trust with Engineer B
fulfills obligation text: Client's right to raise concerns about contracted services
guided by principle text: Fair treatment of contracted professionals
guided by principle text: Transparency in client-engineer relationship
has agent: City Administrator
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Express dissatisfaction with Engineer B's professional decisions and assert administrative oversight
requires capability text: Contract administration
requires capability text: Performance evaluation
temporal marker: During the contract period, recurring
temporal sequence: 3
violates obligation text: Good faith engagement with contracted engineer
violates obligation text: Obligation to resolve disputes through direct communication rather than accumulating grievances for future competitive use
within competence: true
comment: The City Administrator makes a pattern of volitional decisions to challenge and question Engineer B's professional judgment on multiple occasions during the active contract period, rather than resolving concerns through formal channels or direct professional dialogue.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867044
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Administrator Repeatedly Questions Engineer B's Judgment (Action 2) → Engineer B's Judgment Questioned (Event 2)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867547
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Administrator Repeatedly Questions Engineer B's Judgment → Administrator Leads Next Contract Selection
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: The City Administrator makes a pattern of volitional decisions to challenge and question Engineer B's judgment... [and subsequently] makes the decision to take an active role in preparing and leading the selection
cause: Administrator Repeatedly Questions Engineer B's Judgment
counterfactual: If the Administrator had not developed a pattern of repeatedly questioning Engineer B's judgment, there would be no basis to infer bias-motivated assumption of the selection role; alternatively, if recusal policies had been enforced, the Administrator's bias would not have infected the selection leadership
effect: Administrator Leads Next Contract Selection
necessary factors: Absence of recusal requirement or conflict-of-interest review triggered by the prior pattern
necessary factors: Administrator's institutional authority to assume the selection leadership role
necessary factors: Established pattern of adversarial skepticism toward Engineer B creating a pre-existing bias
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: City Administrator
sufficient factors: Repeated adversarial conduct toward incumbent + unchecked institutional authority + no recusal mechanism = Administrator positioned to lead a selection process with pre-formed negative bias against the incumbent
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485434
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint City Administrator Engineer C Informal Solicitation
type: AppearanceofImproprietyAvoidanceinPublicProcurementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The City Administrator held procurement influence over the upcoming contract selection and had a prior relationship with Engineer C. By informally soliciting Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work outside any formal procurement or peer review process, the City Administrator created an appearance of impropriety and preferential treatment that compromised the integrity of the upcoming competitive selection process.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: City Administrator
constraintclass: Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint
constraintstatement: The City Administrator was constrained from informally soliciting Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B's specific professional decisions while simultaneously holding procurement influence over the next 3-year contract selection, as this informal mechanism created a reasonable appearance of preferential treatment toward Engineer C and improper disadvantaging of Engineer B in the upcoming competitive procurement process.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics public procurement integrity provisions; BER Cases 82-2, 15-7, and 16-3
sourcetext: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: During the pre-procurement period for the next 3-year consulting contract, while Engineer B remained under active contract
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.478280
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

BER-Case-Precedents-Competitor-Conduct
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedents on Competitor Conduct and Procurement Ethics
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:06.072641+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:06.072641+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
usedby: Ethical analysis of Engineer C's conduct when responding to City Administrator inquiries
usedincontext: Provides analogical reasoning patterns from prior BER cases involving engineers who criticized competitors' work during procurement processes, grounding the ethical analysis of Engineer C's conduct in documented precedential decisions
version: Accumulated BER case decisions
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.470932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

BER_Case_01-1
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 01-1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:21:16.303584+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:21:16.303584+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 01-1, the BER reviewed a situation where Engineer A left Firm X to start a new Firm Y.
textreferences: For this reason, in the present case, using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
textreferences: In BER Case 01-1, the BER reviewed a situation where Engineer A left Firm X to start a new Firm Y.
textreferences: The BER found that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make such representations as these methods were questionable and improper.
usedby: BER analysis
usedincontext: Precedent finding it unethical for an engineer to make representations to clients that a prior firm would be 'hard-pressed' to continue services, characterizing such conduct as questionable and improper methods of obtaining work; applied analogically to Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B
version: 2001
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.855954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

BER_Case_93-3
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 93-3
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:21:16.303584+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:21:16.303584+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 93-3, Engineer A was retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services for a chain of stores throughout the United States.
textreferences: Case 93-3 differs from the current case as Engineer C in the present case is not under contract with Client A.
textreferences: In BER Case 93-3, Engineer A was retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services for a chain of stores throughout the United States.
textreferences: The BER in this case determined that Engineer B's act of notifying Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser was not consistent with the Code stating that Engineer B had an obligation as 'faithful agent and trustee' to not to tell Engineer A of his relationship with the client.
usedby: BER analysis
usedincontext: Precedent addressing an engineer's obligation as faithful agent and trustee not to disclose a relationship with a client to a prior engineer; distinguished from the current case because Engineer C is not under contract with Client A
version: 1993
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.855821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

BER Precedent Application Capability Engineer C City A Competitive Critique
type: BERPrecedentApplicationtoCompetitiveCritiqueEthicsCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Precedent Application to Competitive Critique Ethics Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C was required to exercise the capability to identify and apply BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 — establishing that solicited competitor critique in a competitive procurement context violates NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7 — to correctly classify the City Administrator's solicitation as ethically impermissible and decline accordingly.
casecontext: The factual pattern of Engineer C's situation — a competitor solicited to critique an incumbent's work by a decision-maker controlling the upcoming contract — maps directly onto the BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 precedents.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's failure to decline the City Administrator's solicitation and subsequent critical evaluation of Engineer B's decisions reflects a failure to apply the BER precedent establishing that such conduct constitutes an ethical violation under NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.480601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Case 20 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 6
event count: 6
total elements: 12
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867938
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

CausalLink_Administrator Contacts Enginee
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:40:01.555504
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

CausalLink_Administrator Initiates Compet
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

CausalLink_Administrator Leads Next Contr
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:40:01.555466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

CausalLink_Administrator Repeatedly Quest
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

CausalLink_City Selects Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer C Answers Administrat
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440247
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer C Answers Questions A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:40:01.555540
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer C Criticizes Engineer
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client
type: MunicipalConsultingEngineeringClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'contract_structure': '3-year term consulting contract', 'contract_status': 'Final year of active contract'}
caseinvolvement: City retaining Engineer B under a 3-year consulting contract in its final year, with concurrent contract renewal selection process underway; the City Administrator coordinates Engineer B's work and will heavily influence the next contract award.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:54.803959+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:54.803959+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'procurement_authority_over', 'target': 'Engineer C Competing Engineer Improperly Solicited for Incumbent Critique'}
relationships: {'type': 'represented_by', 'target': 'City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Municipal Consulting Engineering Client
sourcetext: Client A is a city which receives consulting engineering services from a selected private firm
textreferences: Client A is a city which receives consulting engineering services from a selected private firm
textreferences: The contract runs for 3 years
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.855095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator Competitive Procurement Fairness Capability Instance
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The City Administrator lacked or failed to exercise the capability to assess whether soliciting a competitor to critique the incumbent engineer's work provided fair and open competitive opportunity consistent with QBS procurement principles and professional ethics obligations
casecontext: The City Administrator coordinated both Engineer B's ongoing work and the upcoming contract renewal selection, and used the incumbent period to gather competitive intelligence from a competing firm with prior relationship
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C — a firm with prior relationship to the Administrator — to evaluate Engineer B's work during the contract renewal period demonstrates failure to assess competitive procurement fairness
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City Administrator
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.861989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint Instance
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The City Administrator, who would be heavily involved in selecting the next consulting firm, informally contacted Engineer C — a competitor — to solicit critical opinions about Engineer B's work, thereby creating an informal channel that advantaged Engineer C and disadvantaged Engineer B outside any formal procurement process.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: City Administrator
constraintclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
constraintstatement: The City Administrator was constrained from soliciting informal technical opinions from a competing firm about the incumbent engineer's work during the active contract period and in advance of the formal procurement process — prohibiting conduct that structurally advantaged Engineer C by providing an informal channel to influence the City Administrator's assessment of Engineer B outside any formal, documented, or competitive-process-compliant review mechanism.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law; NSPE Code of Ethics Public Official Conflict of Interest Provisions; Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
sourcetext: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: During the final year of Engineer B's 3-year contract and in advance of the formal procurement process for the next contract
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.861008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator Procurement Integrity Solicitation Constraint Instance
type: ProcurementCompetitionHonorableConductConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The City Administrator informally solicited Engineer C's technical opinions about Engineer B's work outside any formal review process, while holding significant procurement influence over the upcoming contract renewal for which Engineer C was competing.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: City Administrator
constraintclass: Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
constraintstatement: The City Administrator was constrained from soliciting Engineer C — a direct competitor for the upcoming contract renewal — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's engineering decisions while Engineer B remained under active contract, as such solicitation compromised the integrity of the procurement process and placed Engineer C in an ethically untenable position.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:29:47.576049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:29:47.576049+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Public Official Conflict of Interest Provisions; Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
sourcetext: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A.
temporalscope: During the final year of Engineer B's active contract with Client A and the period preceding the contract renewal procurement
textreferences: Competition for engineering work by private consulting firms can be quite intense. Selection of a winning proposal may be made on razor-thin margins.
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.865269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator Procurement Process Integrity Capability Instance
type: ProcurementProcessIntegrityPreservationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Capability
capabilitystatement: The City Administrator possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that soliciting Engineer C to critique Engineer B's work compromised the integrity of the upcoming contract renewal procurement process
casecontext: The City Administrator, who would be heavily involved in the next contract selection, contacted a competing firm with prior relationship to evaluate the incumbent engineer's work, creating a compromised procurement process
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C — a competitor with prior relationship to the Administrator — to evaluate Engineer B's work while simultaneously coordinating the contract renewal selection process demonstrates failure to preserve procurement process integrity
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City Administrator
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.866590
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Capability Instance
type: ProcurementProcessIntegrityPreservationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Capability
capabilitystatement: The City Administrator required the capability to recognize that soliciting a competitor to evaluate and criticize the incumbent engineer's work compromised the integrity and fairness of the consulting engineering contract renewal process
casecontext: The City Administrator contacted Engineer C — who had a prior relationship with the Administrator and was competing for the upcoming contract — to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under active contract
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Failure to preserve integrity — the City Administrator solicited Engineer C, a competitor with a prior personal relationship, to evaluate incumbent Engineer B's professional decisions
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:21:15.483423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:21:15.483423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City Administrator
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A.
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A.
textreferences: the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.482574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator contacting Engineer C during Engineer B's active contract
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A
from entity text: City Administrator contacting Engineer C
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer B's active contract
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer B s active contract
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485530
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator contacting Engineer C during final year of Engineer B's contract
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867730
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator preparing for next contract selection overlaps Engineer B's final contract year
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: overlaps
evidence: As the contract enters its final year, the City Administrator begins preparing for the next 3-year contract selection process.
from entity text: City Administrator preparing for next contract selection
owl time property: time:intervalOverlaps
to entity text: Engineer B's final contract year
comment: Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
interval overlaps: Engineer B s final contract year
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator questioning Engineer B's judgment before City Administrator contacting Engineer C
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator questioning Engineer B's judgment during 3-year contract period
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
from entity text: City Administrator questioning Engineer B's judgment
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: 3-year contract period
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: 3-year contract period
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Selects Engineer B
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Client A Representative
foreseen unintended effects: Potential dissatisfaction with Engineer B's judgment over contract duration
fulfills obligation text: Competitive selection of qualified engineer
fulfills obligation text: Establishment of formal contractual relationship
guided by principle text: Fair and open competition
guided by principle text: Public interest in securing competent services
has agent: City Administrator
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Secure qualified engineering consulting services for a defined 3-year period
requires capability text: Contract administration authority
requires capability text: Procurement evaluation
temporal marker: Start of contract period
temporal sequence: 1
within competence: true
comment: The City (Client A) makes a deliberate decision to enter into a 3-year consulting contract with Engineer B, establishing a formal professional relationship and attendant obligations of good faith engagement.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Selects Engineer B (Action 1) → Consulting Contract Established (Event 1) → cascading to Selection Process Integrity Compromised (Event 6)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867579
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Client A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client
type: MunicipalConsultingEngineeringClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'representative': 'City Administrator', 'procurement_status': 'Upcoming contract renewal competition'}
caseinvolvement: Client A (a municipality) retains Engineer B under an active contract and simultaneously contacts competitor Engineer C to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's work decisions, creating an improper procurement situation that places Engineer C in an ethically compromised position.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:23.717774+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:23.717774+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicits', 'target': 'Engineer C Competing Engineer Solicited for Incumbent Critique'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Municipal Consulting Engineering Client
sourcetext: Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A
textreferences: Client A's conversation with Engineer C
textreferences: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A
textreferences: Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.471465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Client A Municipal Engineering Client
type: MunicipalConsultingEngineeringClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Municipal government client', 'procurement_action': 'Solicited competitor critique of incumbent engineer while contract was active'}
caseinvolvement: Client A is the city government client that holds an active contract with Engineer B and simultaneously solicited Engineer C (a competitor) to evaluate Engineer B's work, placing Engineer C in an ethically compromised position and potentially violating fair procurement obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:21:25.232840+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:21:25.232840+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'contracting_authority_over', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'represented_by', 'target': 'City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited', 'target': 'Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Municipal Consulting Engineering Client
sourcetext: Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work
textreferences: Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.856427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Collegial Non-Harm Capability Engineer C Engineer B Competitive Context
type: CollegialNon-HarminCompetitiveContextCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Non-Harm in Competitive Context Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C failed to exercise the capability to recognize and fulfill collegial obligations toward Engineer B by refraining from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's professional work in a context where those opinions would harm Engineer B's professional reputation and competitive position, particularly given that Engineer C stood to benefit competitively from the harm caused.
casecontext: Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's specific professional decisions was delivered to the decision-maker controlling the upcoming contract renewal, creating direct professional and competitive harm to Engineer B.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C provided specific critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions to the City Administrator — who controlled the upcoming contract selection — while recognizing that doing so would provide a competitive pretext, directly harming Engineer B's professional standing and competitive position.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.480455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitive Advantage Condition Created
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867337
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitive Advantage Gained by Engineer C
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Conflict_of_Interest_Disclosure_Constraint
activates constraint: Incumbent_Engineer_Protection_Constraint
activates constraint: NSPE_Fair_Competition_Constraint
activates constraint: Prohibition_on_Competitive_Injury_Through_False_Statements
causes state change: Selection process integrity compromised; Engineer C holds asymmetric informational advantage; Engineer B's professional reputation has been damaged in the eyes of the decision-maker without opportunity for response or rebuttal; fair competition conditions no longer exist
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Administrator_Obligation_to_Recuse_from_Selection_or_Disclose_Contact
creates obligation: City_Obligation_to_Investigate_Procurement_Integrity_if_Informed
creates obligation: Engineer_C_Obligation_to_Disclose_Prior_Contact_to_Selection_Committee
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During final contract year, concurrent with and immediately following Administrator's contact with Engineer C
temporal sequence: 11
urgency level: high
comment: As a direct result of Engineer C answering the Administrator's questions and criticizing Engineer B's decisions, Engineer C obtains privileged insider knowledge about the City's engineering issues, Engineer B's specific decisions, and the Administrator's apparent dissatisfaction, constituting a concrete informational competitive advantage in the upcoming selection process.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Capability Engineer C City Administrator
type: CompetitiveConflictofInterestDisclosureinAdvisoryContextCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Context Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize and disclose to the City Administrator that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting contract before providing any evaluative opinions about Engineer B's decisions.
casecontext: The City Administrator, who would be heavily involved in selecting the next consulting firm, solicited Engineer C — a competitor with a prior relationship with the Administrator — to evaluate Engineer B's specific professional decisions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's awareness that responding would constitute a competitive pretext demonstrates the underlying recognition capability, but Engineer C failed to disclose the conflict before proceeding to criticize Engineer B.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.478732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Constraint Engineer C City Administrator Pre-Critique
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was a competing firm with a prior relationship with the City Administrator and was aware of the competitive conflict of interest at the time of the solicitation. Engineer C proceeded to provide specific critical opinions about Engineer B without disclosing this competitive conflict to the City Administrator.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Before responding to the City Administrator's solicitation regarding Engineer B's work, Engineer C was constrained to affirmatively disclose the competitive conflict of interest — specifically that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting contract over which the City Administrator held procurement influence — prohibiting Engineer C from proceeding with any substantive response without first making this disclosure.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest provisions
sourcetext: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
temporalscope: At the initiation of the City Administrator's informal solicitation
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.477804
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitive Context Critique Scope Limitation Capability Engineer C City Administrator Solicitation
type: CompetitiveContextCritiqueScopeLimitationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Context Critique Scope Limitation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C failed to exercise the capability to limit any response to the City Administrator's solicitation to general engineering observations, instead providing specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular professional decisions.
casecontext: Having chosen to respond rather than decline, Engineer C was obligated to limit any response to general observations about engineering practice rather than specific criticisms of Engineer B's decisions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Rather than limiting any response to general engineering practice observations, Engineer C answered questions about specific issues Engineer B had worked on and was critical of Engineer B's specific decisions.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.479635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitive Context Incomplete Knowledge Critique Prohibition Engineer C Engineer B City A
type: CompetitiveContextSpecificCritiqueProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was informally solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's professional decisions while Engineer C was competing for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract and lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made those decisions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Competitive Context Specific Critique Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator while competing for the same contract and lacking full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made those decisions, as Engineer C's belief in the truthfulness of the criticism was insufficient to render it ethically permissible.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case 93-3; BER Case 01-1
sourcetext: Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
temporalscope: During the period when Engineer C was competing for the City A consulting engineering contract and Engineer B remained under active contract with City A
textreferences: Engineer C should have refrained from any criticism.
textreferences: Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
textreferences: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful.
textreferences: While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.483472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitive Context Specific Critique Prohibition Constraint Engineer C Procurement Context
type: CompetitiveContextSpecificCritiqueProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming contract and was informally solicited by the City Administrator — who held procurement influence — to evaluate Engineer B's specific professional decisions. Engineer C's subjective belief in the accuracy of critical opinions did not render those opinions ethically permissible given the competitive context and incomplete circumstantial knowledge.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Competitive Context Specific Critique Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions in the context of competing for the next 3-year contract, even if Engineer C believed those opinions to be truthful, because Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances and constraints that informed Engineer B's decisions and because the competitive procurement context rendered specific critique ethically impermissible regardless of subjective truthfulness belief.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6 and III.7; BER Case 93-3
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: During the pre-procurement period for the next 3-year consulting contract
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.476995
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitive Self Interest Critique Prohibition Engineer C City A Contract Renewal
type: CompetitiveSelf-InterestCritiqueProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming City A consulting engineering contract when the City Administrator informally solicited Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions, creating a fundamental competitive conflict of interest that prohibited substantive critical participation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Competitive Self-Interest Critique Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from providing critical evaluative opinions about Engineer B's specific professional decisions to the City Administrator — who held procurement influence over the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract — given that Engineer C was a direct competitor for that contract and was fully aware that answering in a critical perspective would serve as a pretext to gaining competitive advantage.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case 93-3; BER Case 01-1
sourcetext: Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B.
temporalscope: During the period of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and the upcoming contract renewal process
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B.
textreferences: Engineer C should have refrained from any criticism.
textreferences: Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.484698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitor-Conduct-Procurement-Standard-Instance
type: CompetitorConductinProcurementStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE and professional engineering community through collective practice norms
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Conduct in Competitive Procurement Contexts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:06.072641+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:06.072641+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Competitor Conduct in Procurement Standard
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
usedby: Engineer C when deciding how to respond to City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's professional judgments
usedincontext: Governs the ethical limits of Engineer C's responses to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work during the contract renewal period, establishing that using such inquiries as a pretext for competitive disparagement is ethically impermissible
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.470654
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitor Critique Declination Capability Engineer C City A Contract
type: CompetitorCritiqueDeclinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitor Critique Declination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that the City Administrator's solicitation to critique Engineer B's decisions constituted an improper competitive advantage opportunity requiring declination, given that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting contract.
casecontext: Engineer C was solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate specific decisions of incumbent Engineer B during the final year of Engineer B's 3-year contract, while Engineer C was competing for the next contract.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's explicit recognition that answering questions 'in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition' demonstrates awareness of the declination obligation, but Engineer C proceeded to answer and criticize Engineer B anyway, failing to exercise the capability.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.478584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitor Critique Declination Constraint Engineer C City Administrator Solicitation
type: CompetitorCritiqueDeclinationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was informally contacted by the City Administrator — who held procurement influence over the next 3-year contract — and asked to evaluate specific decisions made by Engineer B, the incumbent consultant in the final year of an active contract. Engineer C recognized that answering critically would serve as a competitive pretext but proceeded to provide specific critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Competitor Critique Declination Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from providing specific critical evaluative opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator, given that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting contract and the City Administrator held procurement influence over that award.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6 and III.7; BER Case 93-3; BER Case 01-1
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation, during Engineer B's final year of the active 3-year contract and the pre-procurement period for the next contract
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.476536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitor Reputation Injury Prohibition Engineer C Engineer B Procurement Context
type: CovertCompetitorDisparagementProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C's critical commentary on Engineer B's professional decisions, delivered to the City Administrator who held procurement authority over the upcoming contract, created a direct risk of injuring Engineer B's professional reputation and employment prospects while simultaneously benefiting Engineer C competitively.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Covert Competitor Disparagement Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's professional work to the City Administrator in a manner that could injure Engineer B's professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment — particularly given that Engineer C stood to benefit competitively from any reputational damage caused to Engineer B — as established by NSPE Code Section III.7 and BER Case 01-1 precedent.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case 01-1
sourcetext: Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
temporalscope: During the period when Engineer C was competing for the City A consulting engineering contract and the City Administrator held procurement influence
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
textreferences: using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.484000
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: In answering the City Administrator’s specific questions and by criticizing the work of Engineer B, Engineer C’s action were unethical.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.438344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: III.6.
cited provision2: III.7.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B was unethical, the case reveals a compounding ethical violation rooted in Engineer C's conscious awareness of the competitive dynamic. The facts explicitly state that Engineer C 'fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.' This awareness transforms Engineer C's conduct from a mere procedural misstep into a deliberate ethical choice. Engineer C possessed the conflict-of-interest recognition capability and the competitor critique declination capability, yet exercised neither. The Board's conclusion that the conduct was unethical is therefore understated in one respect: Engineer C did not stumble into an ethical violation through ignorance or ambiguity — he consciously chose competitive self-interest over professional obligation. This deliberateness aggravates the violation beyond what the Board's language alone conveys and suggests that Engineer C's conduct implicates not only the prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique but also the non-self-serving advisory obligation and the prohibition on obtaining professional engagements through improper means.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.438418
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion focuses exclusively on Engineer C's conduct, but the case facts implicate the City Administrator as an independent ethical actor whose conduct materially enabled Engineer C's violation. The City Administrator, who holds procurement authority and will be 'heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract,' initiated the informal consultation with Engineer C — a known competitor — about Engineer B's active work. This solicitation bypassed any formal peer review process, denied Engineer B notice or opportunity to respond, and created the competitive advantage condition that the Board found objectionable. The City Administrator's conduct violated the client procurement process integrity obligation and the competitive procurement fairness constraint. By not addressing the Administrator's role, the Board left unresolved whether the solicitation itself — independent of Engineer C's response — constituted a breach of the procurement process integrity that municipal engineering clients owe to incumbent contractors. A complete ethical analysis would recognize that Engineer C's violation was made possible by, and in part attributable to, the City Administrator's structurally improper initiation of the informal review.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.438486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer C's conduct was unethical leaves open a critical boundary question: whether Engineer C could have ethically answered any portion of the City Administrator's inquiry. A more granular analysis suggests that the ethical violation was not triggered merely by Engineer C's engagement with the City Administrator, but specifically by two compounding elements — the specificity of the critique directed at Engineer B's identified decisions, and Engineer C's failure to disclose his competitive conflict of interest before responding. Had Engineer C declined to address Engineer B's specific decisions, confined his responses to general technical principles without reference to Engineer B's particular choices, and proactively disclosed his status as a competing firm, his conduct would have been substantially more defensible under the applicable code provisions. The incomplete circumstantial knowledge critique prohibition reinforces this boundary: Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the constraints, client directives, and technical context Engineer B faced, making specific criticism not only competitively improper but epistemically unjustified. The ethical line therefore runs between general technical commentary offered with conflict disclosure on one side, and specific incumbent critique offered without disclosure on the other — and Engineer C crossed that line on both dimensions simultaneously.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.438562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
cited provision3: III.6.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, the Board's conclusion can be extended to identify a categorical duty that Engineer C violated independent of the accuracy of his criticism: the duty to refrain from reviewing or criticizing a fellow engineer's work for the same client without proper authorization, as codified in the peer review provision. This duty is categorical in the sense that it does not yield to the factual accuracy of the criticism, the sincerity of Engineer C's technical opinions, or the legitimacy of the City Administrator's authority to ask questions. Even if every critical observation Engineer C offered about Engineer B's decisions was technically correct, the ethical violation was complete at the moment Engineer C chose to deliver specific criticism in a context where he lacked authorization, lacked complete situational knowledge, and held an undisclosed competitive interest. The honesty principle, while a genuine professional obligation, is insufficient alone to justify Engineer C's critique — truthfulness does not override the structural prohibition on competitor-driven incumbent review. This analysis also implies a separate deontological violation: Engineer C's failure to disclose his conflict of interest before responding constitutes an independent breach of the conflict of interest disclosure obligation, distinct from and in addition to the act of criticism itself.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.438683
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion has important implications for Engineer B's professional dignity and procedural rights that the Board did not explicitly address. Engineer B was in the final year of an active contract, performing under a professional relationship with Client A, when a competitor was informally consulted about the quality of his specific decisions — without his knowledge, without notice, and without any opportunity to provide context or respond to the critique. The professional dignity of Engineer B was implicated by this covert competitive review in a manner that the applicable code provisions were designed to prevent. Beyond the reputational harm that resulted, the case implies that Engineer B had a legitimate expectation that any review of his work for the same client would occur through a formal, authorized process with appropriate procedural safeguards. The case further implies — though the Board did not state it — that both Engineer C and the City Administrator bore some obligation to notify Engineer B that such an informal review had occurred, particularly given that the review's findings could influence the upcoming contract selection process in which Engineer B presumably intended to compete. The absence of any such notification mechanism in the informal consultation process is itself a structural feature that rendered the entire proceeding ethically deficient.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.438764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion would have been strengthened by explicit recognition that Engineer B suffered a distinct and serious professional harm that the ethical framework is designed to prevent: he was subjected to a covert competitive evaluation of his active contract work, conducted without his knowledge, without any opportunity to provide context for his decisions, and by a party with a direct financial interest in undermining confidence in his performance. This structural exclusion of Engineer B from the evaluation process — what the case facts describe as Engineer B being excluded from defense — is not merely an incidental consequence of Engineer C's conduct but is itself a violation of the professional dignity and fairness norms that underpin the prohibition on competitor critique in procurement contexts. The ethical harm to Engineer B is not contingent on whether Engineer C's criticism was accurate or whether it ultimately influenced the contract award; the harm lies in the covert, adversarial, and procedurally unfair nature of the evaluation itself. A formal peer review process with notice and opportunity to respond would have been the only ethically permissible mechanism for raising concerns about Engineer B's professional judgments.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:40:01.555095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: III.6.
cited provision2: III.7.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: The City Administrator bears independent ethical responsibility for initiating the informal solicitation of Engineer C's critique of Engineer B outside any formal review process. By leveraging a prior professional relationship with Engineer C to obtain informal technical opinions about the incumbent engineer during the final year of an active contract — and while simultaneously holding authority over the next selection process — the City Administrator compromised the integrity of the procurement process. The Board's analysis focused exclusively on Engineer C's conduct, but the Administrator's action of creating the very conditions that enabled Engineer C's ethical violation represents a separate and cognizable breach of procurement process integrity. The Board should have addressed the Administrator's conduct as a parallel ethical failure, because the solicitation itself — not merely the response — corrupted the competitive fairness of the upcoming selection.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.438839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: Engineer C's conduct would likely have been ethical — or at least substantially less problematic — had he confined his responses to general technical principles without referencing Engineer B's specific decisions, and had he proactively disclosed his status as a competing firm to the City Administrator before answering any questions. The ethical line between permissible general commentary and impermissible specific critique is crossed when the commentary is sufficiently particularized to Engineer B's identifiable professional judgments that it functions as an informal peer review of a competitor's active work. General statements about engineering best practices, applicable standards, or common approaches to the type of problem at issue would not constitute a review of Engineer B's work within the meaning of Code Section III.7.a. However, once Engineer C answered questions about the specific issues Engineer B had worked on and rendered critical judgments about Engineer B's decisions, he crossed into prohibited territory regardless of the accuracy of those judgments. Disclosure of competitive status alone would not have been sufficient to render the specific critique ethical, because the prohibition in III.7.a. is structural — it bars the review itself, not merely undisclosed reviews.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.438921
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: III.6.
cited provision2: III.7.
cited provision3: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: Engineer C was obligated to proactively disclose his conflict of interest as a competing firm to the City Administrator before answering any questions about Engineer B's work. This disclosure obligation arises independently from — and in addition to — the obligation to decline the specific critique. The failure to disclose the competitive conflict before engaging with the Administrator's questions constitutes a separate ethical violation from the act of criticism itself, because it denied the City Administrator the information necessary to evaluate the reliability and motivation of Engineer C's responses. However, disclosure alone would not have been sufficient to render Engineer C's participation ethical. Even a fully disclosed, conflict-acknowledged critique of Engineer B's specific decisions would still violate Code Section III.7.a., which prohibits the review of another engineer's work for the same client without proper authorization, irrespective of whether the reviewing engineer's competitive interest is known to the client. The disclosure obligation and the declination obligation are cumulative, not alternative.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.439006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: Engineer B has a legitimate professional grievance upon learning that a competitor was informally consulted about his active work during the final year of his contract. While the NSPE Code does not explicitly enumerate a formal recourse mechanism for Engineer B in this scenario, the case implies at minimum a moral obligation on the part of the City Administrator to notify Engineer B that such an informal review occurred, particularly given that the Administrator holds authority over the upcoming selection process and the informal consultation directly bears on Engineer B's competitive standing. Engineer C's obligation to notify Engineer B is less direct but flows from the collegial non-harm principle: having participated in a process that foreseeably harmed Engineer B's professional reputation and competitive position, Engineer C bears some responsibility for the consequences of that participation. The absence of a formal notification requirement in the Code does not eliminate the ethical weight of the transparency deficit created by the covert nature of the consultation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.439076
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: When Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B are factually accurate, a genuine tension arises between the Honesty Principle — which generally obligates engineers to be truthful — and the Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique. However, this tension is resolved in favor of the prohibition, because the Honesty Principle does not create an affirmative duty to volunteer accurate critical opinions about a competitor's work in a context that confers improper competitive advantage. Honesty is a constraint on how engineers communicate, not a license to communicate in any manner or context. The ethical wrong in Engineer C's conduct is not that he was dishonest, but that he deployed truthful technical opinions in a structurally corrupted context — one in which the delivery of those opinions served his competitive self-interest and bypassed the procedural protections that formal peer review processes are designed to provide. Accuracy of content does not sanitize impropriety of context.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.439148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: III.6.
cited provision2: III.7.
cited provision3: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: The solicited nature of Engineer C's critique does not mitigate or eliminate his ethical responsibility to decline. The Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition operates independently of whether the critique was volunteered or requested. Code Section III.7.a. bars the review of another engineer's work for the same client without proper authorization; it does not carve out an exception for solicited reviews. The City Administrator's invitation to Engineer C to share his professional opinion does not constitute the 'proper authorization' contemplated by the Code, because proper authorization in this context requires a formal, structured process with notice to Engineer B and transparent competitive safeguards — not an informal contact initiated by a procurement official with a prior relationship with the competing firm. The Fairness in Professional Competition principle reinforces rather than undermines this conclusion: a competitive process is only fair if all participants are subject to the same procedural constraints, and those constraints cannot be waived unilaterally by a procurement official through informal solicitation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.439227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: The tension between Engineer C's Objectivity Obligation and his Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation is irresolvable in the circumstances presented. Even if Engineer C were capable of providing a genuinely objective technical assessment of Engineer B's decisions, the structural conflict of interest created by his status as a competing firm means that the very act of providing that assessment — however objectively rendered — simultaneously advances his competitive self-interest. This creates an ethical paradox: the more objectively accurate Engineer C's critique, the more damaging it is to Engineer B's competitive standing and the more it benefits Engineer C in the upcoming selection. The Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation therefore functions not merely as a constraint on the content of Engineer C's opinions but as a constraint on his participation in the advisory role itself. The only way to honor both obligations simultaneously was for Engineer C to decline to participate in the informal consultation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.439299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer C violated a categorical duty to refrain from reviewing or criticizing a fellow engineer's work for the same client without proper authorization, regardless of the factual accuracy of his criticism. Code Section III.7.a. establishes this duty as a rule-based prohibition, not a balancing test. The deontological analysis is therefore straightforward: the duty exists, Engineer C was aware of the circumstances that triggered it, he had the capability to decline, and he chose not to. The accuracy of his technical opinions is irrelevant to the deontological assessment because the prohibition is not contingent on whether the critique is correct — it is contingent on the structural relationship between the reviewing engineer, the incumbent engineer, and the client. A categorical duty violated with accurate information is still a violated categorical duty.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.439372
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, the harms generated by Engineer C's conduct substantially outweigh any benefit Client A may have received from his informal technical opinions. The identifiable harms include: injury to Engineer B's professional reputation through a covert competitive critique; compromise of the integrity of the municipal procurement process by introducing a competitor's self-interested opinions into the pre-selection evaluation; erosion of public trust in the fairness of qualification-based selection processes; and harm to the broader engineering profession by normalizing informal competitor disparagement as a procurement tactic. The putative benefit — that Client A received additional technical perspective on Engineer B's decisions — is undermined by the fact that Engineer C's opinions were delivered from a position of incomplete circumstantial knowledge of Engineer B's constraints and client directives, and were motivated by competitive self-interest, making them an unreliable basis for procurement decisions. A consequentialist calculus therefore supports the Board's conclusion of unethical conduct.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.439444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: III.6.
cited provision2: III.7.
cited provision3: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer C failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and collegial character expected of an honorable engineer. A virtuous engineer in Engineer C's position would have recognized that the City Administrator's informal solicitation placed him in a structurally compromised position, would have disclosed his competitive conflict of interest immediately, and would have declined to offer specific criticism of Engineer B's decisions — not because a rule required it, but because a person of professional integrity would recognize that participating in such a process is incompatible with the character of an honorable competitor. The fact that Engineer C 'fully realized' that answering the questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining competitive advantage — and answered them anyway — is particularly damning from a virtue ethics standpoint. It demonstrates not a failure of knowledge but a failure of character: Engineer C understood the ethical stakes and chose competitive advantage over collegial integrity.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.439536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: Engineer C's conduct would very likely have been ethical if he had declined to offer specific criticism of Engineer B's decisions, responded only in general technical terms without reference to Engineer B's particular choices, and proactively disclosed his status as a competing firm to the City Administrator before answering any questions. This combination of actions would have honored the Competitor Critique Declination Obligation, the Competitive Conflict Disclosure Obligation, and the General Only Response Limitation simultaneously. The critical distinction is between Engineer C serving as a general technical resource — which a knowledgeable engineer may permissibly do — and Engineer C serving as an informal peer reviewer of a specific competitor's active work — which Code Section III.7.a. prohibits. The ethical path was available to Engineer C; he chose not to take it.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.439615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: Complete and accurate knowledge of all the circumstances surrounding Engineer B's decisions — including the constraints, client directives, and technical context Engineer B faced — would not have rendered Engineer C's conduct ethical, though it would have altered the epistemic character of the violation. The Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint adds an additional layer of ethical concern to Engineer C's conduct, because he rendered specific critical judgments without access to the full context of Engineer B's decision-making. However, even if Engineer C had possessed complete knowledge, the structural prohibition in Code Section III.7.a. would still apply: the bar on reviewing another engineer's work for the same client without proper authorization is not contingent on the reviewer's epistemic completeness. Full knowledge would have made Engineer C's critique more reliable as a technical matter, but it would not have eliminated the conflict of interest, the absence of proper authorization, or the competitive advantage conferred by the informal consultation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.439740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: Engineer C's participation in a formal, structured peer review process — with proper notice to Engineer B, transparent competitive safeguards, and explicit authorization from Client A — would have been ethically permissible under Code Section III.7.a., which expressly contemplates authorized reviews as an exception to the general prohibition. The ethical problem in the present case is not that Engineer C reviewed Engineer B's work per se, but that he did so informally, without authorization, without notice to Engineer B, and in a context that directly served his competitive self-interest in the upcoming selection. A properly constituted peer review process would have neutralized the conflict of interest concern by making the review transparent and subject to procedural safeguards, would have satisfied the authorization requirement of III.7.a., and would have given Engineer B the opportunity to provide context for his decisions. The case therefore implies that the ethical wrong is procedural and contextual, not categorical.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.439856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: III.6.
cited provision2: III.7.
cited provision3: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: Engineer C's ethical obligations would have been meaningfully different — though not entirely eliminated — if the City Administrator had approached him after Engineer B's contract had already expired and the formal competitive selection process for the new contract had officially commenced. Once Engineer B's active contract relationship with Client A had ended, the primary rationale for Code Section III.7.a.'s prohibition — protecting the incumbent engineer's professional relationship and reputation during an active engagement — would have diminished substantially. However, the conflict of interest concern would persist into the formal selection period: Engineer C would still be a competing firm offering opinions about a former competitor's work in a process where those opinions could influence the selection outcome. The ethical obligations in that scenario would shift from a categorical prohibition on review to a heightened disclosure obligation and a duty to ensure that any technical commentary was confined to matters of objective professional standards rather than competitive disparagement. The timing of the contract expiration is therefore ethically relevant but not dispositive.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.439964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The Honesty Principle and the Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique are not genuinely in conflict in this case — they operate on different planes. Honesty governs the content of Engineer C's statements, while the Prohibition on Reputation Injury governs the context and competitive purpose of those statements. The Board's implicit resolution is that factual accuracy does not sanitize an ethically impermissible act: a technically truthful critique delivered in a self-serving competitive context, without full knowledge of the incumbent's circumstances, remains an ethical violation. This case teaches that honesty is a necessary but insufficient condition for ethical conduct — it cannot override structural prohibitions against using truthful criticism as a competitive weapon. The Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique therefore prevails not because honesty is unimportant, but because the competitive context transforms an otherwise permissible professional opinion into an instrument of improper advantage.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: III.6.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The Fairness in Professional Competition principle and the Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition interact in a way that firmly rejects the 'solicited critique' defense. Engineer C's awareness that answering the City Administrator's questions would confer a competitive advantage is the decisive ethical fact. The solicited nature of the critique — the fact that the City Administrator initiated the contact — does not transfer or dilute Engineer C's independent ethical obligation to decline. This case establishes that the ethical duty to refuse an improper competitive critique is not contingent on who initiates the conversation; it is triggered by Engineer C's own recognition of the conflict of interest and the competitive advantage at stake. Fairness in Professional Competition is therefore not merely a passive principle that prohibits Engineer C from initiating disparagement — it is an active obligation requiring Engineer C to decline participation even when invited. The solicited nature of the critique mitigates nothing.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 6
cites provision: III 7 a
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: III.7.a.
cited provision2: III.6.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The Objectivity Obligation and the Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation are structurally irreconcilable in this case, and the Board's conclusion implicitly acknowledges that irreconcilability by finding Engineer C's conduct unethical without requiring proof of bad faith or factual inaccuracy. Even if Engineer C had strived for maximum objectivity, the very act of providing a technical critique of a competitor's active work — in a context where that critique directly serves Engineer C's competitive self-interest — makes genuine non-self-serving objectivity impossible to achieve or verify. The Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint compounds this irreconcilability: Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the constraints, client directives, and technical context Engineer B faced, meaning that even a sincerely objective critique would be structurally compromised by epistemic incompleteness. This case teaches that when objectivity and self-interest are structurally entangled, the ethical resolution is not to attempt objectivity anyway — it is to withdraw from the advisory role entirely. The Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation reinforces this conclusion by establishing that the integrity of the municipal selection process is a value that supersedes any individual engineer's capacity to self-certify objectivity in a conflicted context.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440213
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Avoidance Constraint Engineer C Competitive Advisory Role
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidance
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C held a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the City Administrator's evaluation of Engineer B's performance, as the City Administrator would be heavily involved in selecting the next consulting firm. Engineer C's participation in informal critique of Engineer B while competing for the same contract created an unmitigated conflict of interest.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained by the obligation to avoid conflicts of interest — including the conflict between Engineer C's personal competitive interest in securing the next 3-year contract and the professional obligation to provide honest, unbiased technical evaluation — prohibiting Engineer C from serving in an informal advisory capacity to the City Administrator regarding Engineer B's work while simultaneously competing for the contract that Engineer B's performance would influence.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest provisions
sourcetext: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and throughout the pre-procurement period
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.477642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Consulting Contract Established
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Confidentiality_Obligation_Constraint
activates constraint: Conflict_of_Interest_Prohibition
activates constraint: Faithful_Service_to_Client_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Loyalty_Constraint
causes state change: Professional relationship formally active; Engineer B assumes full ethical and contractual obligations to the City; City assumes obligations to Engineer B including fair dealing and transparency
concept category: Event
creates obligation: City_Obligation_to_Deal_Fairly_with_Engineer_B
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Confidentiality_of_Client_Information
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Duty_of_Competent_Service
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Loyalty_to_Client_During_Contract
creates obligation: Non_Solicitation_of_Competing_Advice_Without_Disclosure
emergency status: routine
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Contract start date (Year 1, beginning of 3-year period)
temporal sequence: 2
urgency level: low
comment: A formal 3-year consulting contract between City (Client A) and Engineer B comes into legal effect, creating binding professional obligations and ethical duties for all parties. This contract establishes the baseline professional relationship from which all subsequent events flow.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Contract Final Year Reached
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Fair_Competition_Constraint
activates constraint: Incumbent_Engineer_Protection_During_Active_Contract
activates constraint: Procurement_Integrity_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer B enters a period of professional vulnerability as an incumbent whose continuation is uncertain; competitive landscape opens; Engineer C and other firms become legitimate prospective competitors; Administrator's role shifts to include selection process management
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Administrator_Obligation_to_Maintain_Impartiality_in_Selection
creates obligation: City_Obligation_to_Run_Fair_Selection_Process
creates obligation: Competing_Engineers_Obligation_Not_to_Exploit_Incumbent_Vulnerability
emergency status: low
event type: automatic_trigger
temporal marker: Year 3 of 3-year contract (final contract year begins)
temporal sequence: 5
urgency level: low
comment: The consulting engagement between the City and Engineer B enters its third and final year, automatically triggering the procurement conditions under which a new contract selection process becomes institutionally appropriate. This temporal threshold transforms the professional landscape and creates the conditions for competitive vulnerability.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485216
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Covert Competitor Disparagement Prohibition Constraint Engineer C Engineer B Reputation
type: CovertCompetitorDisparagementProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C's critical responses to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's specific decisions occurred in a context where the City Administrator had already questioned Engineer B's judgment on multiple occasions and held authority over the upcoming contract selection. Engineer C's critique, delivered with awareness of its pretextual competitive purpose, was structured to disadvantage Engineer B in the procurement process.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Covert Competitor Disparagement Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's specific professional decisions to the City Administrator in a manner structured — whether explicitly or implicitly — to damage Engineer B's professional reputation and competitive prospects for contract renewal, particularly given that Engineer C stood to benefit directly from any damage caused to Engineer B's standing with the City Administrator.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case 01-1
sourcetext: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
temporalscope: During the informal solicitation by the City Administrator in the pre-procurement period for the next 3-year contract
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.476690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Covert Peer Review Prohibition Constraint Engineer C Review of Engineer B Without Notification
type: CovertPeerReviewProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was in the final year of an active 3-year consulting contract with City A and was unaware that the City Administrator had solicited Engineer C to evaluate and critique Engineer B's specific professional decisions. Engineer C proceeded with the evaluation without notifying Engineer B, violating the prohibition on covert peer review of an engineer under active contract.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Covert Peer Review Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from evaluating and criticizing Engineer B's professional decisions for the City Administrator without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active contract with City A and had not been formally notified that a review of their work was being conducted.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7.a; NSPE Code of Ethics Private Practice Peer Review Provision; BER Case 93-3
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
temporalscope: During Engineer B's final year of the active 3-year contract
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.477154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer C answer the City Administrator's specific questions about Engineer B's work and render critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions, given that Engineer C is a direct competitor for the upcoming contract renewal and lacks full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made those decisions?
focus: Engineer C, a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal with Client A, is solicited by the City Administrator to answer specific questions about Engineer B's engineering decisions during Engineer B's active contract period. Engineer C fully realizes that answering in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining a competitive advantage. The core question is whether Engineer C should answer the Administrator's specific questions and criticize Engineer B's decisions.
option1: Answer the City Administrator's specific questions about Engineer B's work and render critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions
option2: Decline to answer specific questions about Engineer B's decisions and refrain from rendering critical opinions about Engineer B's work as a competitor for the same contract
role label: Engineer C
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.436657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Was Engineer C obligated to proactively disclose his competitive conflict of interest to the City Administrator before answering any questions about Engineer B's work, and would such disclosure alone have been sufficient to render his participation in the critique ethical?
focus: Before answering any of the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work, Engineer C faces an independent obligation to affirmatively disclose his direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the Client A contract renewal. This disclosure obligation is analytically distinct from — and cumulative with — the obligation to decline specific critique. The question is whether Engineer C should disclose his conflict of interest, and whether such disclosure alone would render his subsequent participation ethical.
option1: Disclose competitive conflict of interest to the City Administrator before answering any questions, then decline to provide specific critique of Engineer B's decisions
option2: Disclose competitive conflict of interest to the City Administrator and then proceed to answer specific questions and criticize Engineer B's decisions
option3: Answer the City Administrator's questions and criticize Engineer B's decisions without disclosing competitive conflict of interest
role label: Engineer C
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.436736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer C limit any response to the City Administrator to general technical observations only, refraining from specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular decisions, methods, and professional judgment — and where exactly does the ethical line between permissible general commentary and impermissible specific critique fall?
focus: Engineer C faces a choice between providing specific critical opinions about Engineer B's identified professional decisions versus limiting any response to general technical observations only. This decision point addresses the precise ethical boundary between permissible general commentary — which a knowledgeable engineer may offer — and impermissible specific incumbent critique, which Code Section III.7.a. prohibits. The Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint compounds this boundary by establishing that Engineer C lacks the full contextual knowledge necessary to render accurate specific judgments.
option1: Limit response to general technical observations about engineering principles applicable to the type of work at issue, without referencing Engineer B's specific decisions or professional judgment
option2: Answer the City Administrator's specific questions and render critical opinions about Engineer B's particular engineering decisions and professional judgment
role label: Engineer C
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.436828
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Did the City Administrator bear independent ethical responsibility for soliciting Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's active work outside any formal review process, and does the solicitation itself — independent of Engineer C's response — constitute a breach of procurement process integrity?
focus: The City Administrator, who holds procurement authority and will be heavily involved in selecting the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract, initiates informal contact with Engineer C — a known competitor — to obtain critical opinions about Engineer B's active work, bypassing any formal peer review process and denying Engineer B notice or opportunity to respond. This decision point addresses whether the City Administrator's solicitation itself constitutes an independent ethical violation separate from Engineer C's response, and whether the Board should have addressed the Administrator's conduct.
option1: Initiate informal contact with Engineer C to solicit critical opinions about Engineer B's specific work outside any formal review process and without notice to Engineer B
option2: Refrain from soliciting a competitor to evaluate the incumbent engineer's work and instead initiate a formal, structured peer review process with proper notice to Engineer B and transparent competitive safeguards
role label: City Administrator
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.436897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Did Engineer C's participation in the covert informal review of Engineer B's active work violate Engineer C's collegial non-harm obligation toward Engineer B as a professional peer, and do Engineer C and the City Administrator bear any obligation to notify Engineer B that such a review occurred?
focus: Engineer B remains under an active, non-terminated contract with Client A while a competitor is informally consulted about the quality of his specific engineering decisions — without his knowledge, without notice, and without any opportunity to provide context or respond to the critique. This decision point addresses Engineer B's professional dignity and procedural rights, the collegial non-harm obligations owed to him by Engineer C, and whether Engineer C or the City Administrator bore any obligation to notify Engineer B that such an informal review occurred.
option1: Participate in the covert informal review of Engineer B's active work without notifying Engineer B and without disclosing to the City Administrator that Engineer B should be given notice and opportunity to respond
option2: Decline to participate in the informal review and advise the City Administrator that Engineer B should be notified of any review of his work and given an opportunity to provide context for his professional decisions
role label: Engineer C
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.436990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: When Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B are factually accurate but delivered in a context that confers an improper competitive advantage, does the Honesty Principle override the Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique — and can Engineer C simultaneously satisfy both the Objectivity Obligation and the Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation in this structurally conflicted context?
focus: Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B may be factually accurate as far as Engineer C is aware, creating an apparent tension between the Honesty Principle — which generally obligates engineers to be truthful — and the Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique. Simultaneously, even if Engineer C strived for maximum objectivity, the structural conflict of interest created by his status as a competing firm means that the very act of providing an objective technical critique simultaneously advances his competitive self-interest, rendering the Objectivity Obligation and the Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation structurally irreconcilable.
option1: Provide technically accurate and objective critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions, relying on the Honesty Principle to justify participation in the informal review despite the competitive conflict of interest
option2: Withdraw from the advisory role entirely, recognizing that the structural entanglement of objectivity and competitive self-interest makes genuine non-self-serving participation impossible and that truthfulness alone does not override the prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique
role label: Engineer C
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer-Solicitation-Competition-Ethics-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerSolicitationandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: NSPE and state licensing boards through codified professional conduct rules
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Standards Governing Engineer Solicitation and Competitive Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:06.072641+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:06.072641+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
usedby: Engineer C and the City Administrator in the context of the contract renewal procurement process
usedincontext: Establishes the prohibition on injuring the professional reputation of Engineer B through critical commentary made in the context of competing for the successor contract, grounding the ethical analysis of Engineer C's conduct
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.470797
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer A contacting Engineer C (BER 01-1) before Engineer A contacting clients of Firm X (BER 01-1)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer A leaving Firm X (Case 01-1) before Engineer A contacting Firm X clients (Case 01-1)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer A left Firm X to start a new Firm Y... Thereafter, Engineer A contacted clients of Firm X to convince them to contract with the new firm
from entity text: Engineer A leaving Firm X (Case 01-1)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A contacting Firm X clients (Case 01-1)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A contacting Firm X clients Case 01-1
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485834
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer A leaving Firm X and starting Firm Y (BER 01-1) before Engineer A contacting Engineer C to join Firm Y (BER 01-1)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B Excluded from Defense
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Due_Process_in_Professional_Evaluation_Constraint
activates constraint: NSPE_Fairness_in_Professional_Competition_Constraint
activates constraint: Prohibition_on_Injuring_Engineer_Reputation_Without_Due_Process
causes state change: Engineer B's professional standing is damaged in a one-sided, non-transparent proceeding; the integrity of any subsequent evaluation of Engineer B's work is compromised; Engineer B's ability to compete fairly for contract renewal is structurally undermined
concept category: Event
creates obligation: City_Obligation_to_Ensure_Fair_Evaluation_Process
creates obligation: Engineer_C_Obligation_to_Acknowledge_Conduct_if_Challenged
creates obligation: Retroactive_Obligation_on_Administrator_to_Disclose_Contact_to_Engineer_B
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Concurrent with and following Administrator's contact with Engineer C (final contract year)
temporal sequence: 10
urgency level: high
comment: By virtue of the covert nature of the Administrator-Engineer C communications, Engineer B is denied any knowledge of, or opportunity to respond to, criticisms of their professional decisions made to the very decision-maker who controls their contract renewal. This exclusion is an outcome of the secrecy surrounding the communications.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B Faithful Performance Under Competitive Scrutiny Capability Instance
type: IncumbentEngineerFaithfulPerformanceUnderCompetitiveScrutinyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Under Competitive Scrutiny Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B was required to maintain faithful, competent performance of all consulting engineering services for City A throughout the final year of the contract, despite repeated questioning of professional judgment by the City Administrator and the improper solicitation of competitor critique
casecontext: Engineer B served as incumbent consulting engineer in the final year of a 3-year contract, with the City Administrator repeatedly questioning professional judgment and simultaneously soliciting a competitor to critique Engineer B's work
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's continued service as incumbent consulting engineer during the final contract year while subject to repeated professional judgment challenges from the City Administrator
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.861703
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B Incumbent Faithful Performance Capability Instance
type: IncumbentEngineerFaithfulPerformanceUnderCompetitiveScrutinyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Under Competitive Scrutiny Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B possessed and was required to exercise the capability to continue performing all contracted services faithfully, competently, and in City A's best interest throughout the final year of the contract, even while being subjected to repeated questioning of professional judgment and covert competitive scrutiny
casecontext: Engineer B was in the final year of a 3-year consulting contract with City A, subject to repeated questioning by the City Administrator, while unaware that the City Administrator was simultaneously soliciting a competitor to evaluate Engineer B's work
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's continued performance of consulting engineering services for City A during the final year of the 3-year contract despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of professional judgment and the covert solicitation of Engineer C to evaluate Engineer B's work
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A
textreferences: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.
textreferences: Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
textreferences: Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.866747
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B Reputation Harmed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867372
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B's Judgment Questioned
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B's Judgment Questioned Repeatedly
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Client_Communication_Obligation
activates constraint: Engineer_Integrity_Under_Pressure_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Independence_Constraint
causes state change: Professional relationship becomes strained; trust between Engineer B and City Administrator erodes; groundwork laid for Administrator's later decision to seek outside opinion; Engineer B's professional standing with the client is implicitly undermined
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Administrator_Obligation_to_Raise_Concerns_Through_Proper_Channels
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Obligation_to_Communicate_Basis_for_Judgments
creates obligation: Engineer_B_Obligation_to_Document_Disagreements
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: During active contract period (Years 1–3, recurring)
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: medium
comment: A pattern of professional skepticism emerges as the City Administrator repeatedly challenges Engineer B's technical and professional decisions across multiple occasions during the contract period. This recurring friction creates a deteriorating professional relationship and signals institutional distrust.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B's contract with Client A overlaps City Administrator's contact with Engineer C
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867611
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B's contract (years 1–2) before final year of Engineer B's contract
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B's current contract before next 3-year contract selection process
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867701
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Review Prohibition Recognition Capability Instance
type: PeerReviewNotificationProtocolCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Notification Protocol Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that Engineer B's active contract with City A triggered the professional ethics prohibition on reviewing Engineer B's work without Engineer B's knowledge
casecontext: Engineer C evaluated Engineer B's work for City A without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B was still under an active contract with City A that had not been terminated
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's failure to recognize that Engineer B's active contract status and lack of knowledge of the conversation with the City Administrator rendered Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work a violation of professional ethics codes
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
textreferences: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.
textreferences: Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
textreferences: the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.865866
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Answers Administrator's Questions
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Answers Questions About Engineer B
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Competing Consulting Firm
foreseen unintended effects: Potential damage to Engineer B's professional reputation based on incomplete information
foreseen unintended effects: Unfair competitive advantage over Engineer B
foreseen unintended effects: Violation of NSPE Code of Ethics obligations regarding criticism of fellow engineers
guided by principle text: Accuracy over subjective truthfulness
guided by principle text: Avoidance of conflicts of interest in client engagement
guided by principle text: Integrity in competitive conduct
guided by principle text: Professional loyalty to fellow engineers
has agent: Engineer C
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Respond to a prospective client's questions in a manner that demonstrates Engineer C's competence and positions Engineer C favorably for the upcoming contract competition
raises obligation text: Duty to ensure statements about another engineer's work are accurate and contextually informed
raises obligation text: NSPE Code of Ethics obligation not to maliciously or falsely injure the professional reputation of a fellow engineer
raises obligation text: Obligation to avoid actions that constitute improper competitive conduct
raises obligation text: Obligation to refrain from improperly soliciting or accepting work by criticizing other engineers
requires capability text: Ethical reasoning
requires capability text: Recognition of improper solicitation scenarios
requires capability text: Technical engineering judgment
temporal marker: Final year of Engineer B's contract, during contact from City Administrator
temporal sequence: 8
within competence: true
comment: Engineer C makes a deliberate decision to respond to the City Administrator's questions about specific issues Engineer B handled, despite recognizing that doing so would provide a competitive advantage in the upcoming contract selection and constitute criticism of a fellow engineer without full contextual knowledge.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Answers Questions About Engineer B → Engineer B Excluded from Defense
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: By virtue of the covert nature of the Administrator-Engineer C communications, Engineer B is denied [the opportunity to defend]
cause: Engineer C Answers Questions About Engineer B
counterfactual: If Engineer C had declined to participate, or had insisted the conversation be disclosed and conducted formally, Engineer B would not have been excluded, the exclusion is entirely a product of the covert character of the exchange
effect: Engineer B Excluded from Defense
necessary factors: Engineer B's lack of independent knowledge that the exchange was occurring
necessary factors: Engineer C's decision to participate in the covert exchange rather than redirect to formal channels
necessary factors: The exchange remaining undisclosed to Engineer B
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer C (primary); City Administrator (shared)
sufficient factors: Covert participation by Engineer C + non-disclosure to Engineer B = Engineer B structurally excluded from any opportunity to contextualize, rebut, or even know about the characterizations being made
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C BER Precedent Application Capability Instance
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to identify and apply BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 to recognize that engaging with the City Administrator's solicitation to critique Engineer B's work constituted improper conduct under NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7
casecontext: The BER applied BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 as precedents to analyze Engineer C's conduct, finding that Engineer C's behavior was analogous to the conduct found improper in BER Case 01-1
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's failure to apply the reasoning from BER Case 01-1 — which found that making representations about a competitor's inability to perform services was improper and questionable — to the analogous situation of providing critical opinions about an incumbent engineer's work while competing for the same contract
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: In BER Case 01-1, the BER reviewed a situation where Engineer A left Firm X to start a new Firm Y... The BER found that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make such representations as these methods were questionable and improper.
textreferences: Case 93-3 differs from the current case as Engineer C in the present case is not under contract with Client A.
textreferences: In BER Case 01-1, the BER reviewed a situation where Engineer A left Firm X to start a new Firm Y... The BER found that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make such representations as these methods were questionable and improper.
textreferences: using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.866955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C BER Precedent Application Competitive Critique Capability Instance
type: BERPrecedentApplicationtoCompetitiveCritiqueEthicsCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Precedent Application to Competitive Critique Ethics Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C required the capability to identify and apply BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 to recognize that criticizing a competitor's work in a competitive procurement context constitutes an ethical violation under NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7
casecontext: BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 provided directly applicable precedent for the ethical obligations arising when an engineer is solicited to critique a competitor's work in a competitive procurement context
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Failure to apply relevant precedent — Engineer C did not recognize or apply the ethical guidance from BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 before engaging in the critique of Engineer B's work
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:21:15.483423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:21:15.483423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In BER Case 93-3, Engineer A was retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services...
textreferences: For this reason, in the present case, using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
textreferences: In BER Case 01-1, the BER reviewed a situation where Engineer A left Firm X to start a new Firm Y... The BER found that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make such representations as these methods were questionable and improper.
textreferences: In BER Case 93-3, Engineer A was retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services...
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.483143
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Collegial Non-Harm Capability Instance
type: CollegialNon-HarminCompetitiveContextCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Non-Harm in Competitive Context Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize and fulfill collegial obligations toward Engineer B by refraining from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's professional work in a context where those opinions would harm Engineer B's competitive position and benefit Engineer C's own competitive standing
casecontext: Engineer C provided critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions to the City Administrator — who controlled the upcoming contract renewal — while competing for that same contract, causing potential collegial harm to Engineer B's professional reputation and competitive position
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's decision to be 'critical of Engineer B's decisions' in response to the City Administrator's solicitation, despite awareness of the competitive pretext, demonstrates failure to fulfill collegial non-harm obligations
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.866271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Collegial Non-Harm Competitive Context Capability Instance
type: CollegialNon-HarminCompetitiveContextCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Non-Harm in Competitive Context Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C required the capability to recognize and fulfill collegial obligations toward Engineer B by refraining from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's professional work in a context where those opinions would harm Engineer B's professional reputation and competitive position, particularly given that Engineer C stood to benefit competitively from the harm caused
casecontext: Engineer C criticized Engineer B's specific professional decisions to the City Administrator who held significant authority over the upcoming contract selection, while Engineer C was competing for that same contract
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Failure to fulfill collegial obligations — Engineer C provided specific criticisms of Engineer B's work to the City Administrator, potentially harming Engineer B's professional reputation and prospects for contract renewal
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:21:15.483423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:21:15.483423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
textreferences: Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B.
textreferences: Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
textreferences: using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.482967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competitive Conflict Disclosure Before Critique Constraint Instance
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidance
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C held a direct competitive conflict of interest — being a competitor for the contract Engineer B currently held — which required disclosure before any evaluative opinions were offered to the procurement-influencing City Administrator.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained, prior to providing any critical opinions about Engineer B's work, to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming contract renewal — and that this competitive relationship created a conflict of interest that precluded objective evaluation — prohibiting Engineer C from providing critique without first making this disclosure and ideally declining the solicitation entirely on conflict grounds.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4; NSPE Code Section III.6; Conflict of Interest Avoidance provisions
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: At the moment of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and before any substantive response was provided
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.860242
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competitive Conflict Disclosure Capability Instance
type: AdvisorySelf-InterestConflictIdentificationandDisclosureCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Advisory Self-Interest Conflict Identification and Disclosure Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to identify and disclose the competitive conflict of interest to the City Administrator before providing any critical opinions about Engineer B's work
casecontext: Engineer C, a competitor for the upcoming contract renewal, was solicited by the City Administrator who would be heavily involved in the selection process, creating a direct competitive conflict of interest in the advisory context
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's recognition that answering questions would provide competitive advantage demonstrates awareness of the conflict, but no disclosure of this conflict to the City Administrator is indicated before providing critical opinions
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.861567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Capability Instance
type: CompetitiveConflictofInterestDisclosureinAdvisoryContextCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Context Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to proactively disclose to the City Administrator his direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the City A contract renewal before providing any critical opinions about Engineer B's work
casecontext: Engineer C engaged in evaluative conversation about Engineer B's work with the City Administrator who held significant authority over the upcoming contract renewal, without disclosing Engineer C's competitive interest in that renewal
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's failure to disclose the competitive conflict of interest before engaging in conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's engineering decisions
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A
textreferences: Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.866003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competitive Context Critique Scope Limitation Capability Instance
type: CompetitiveContextCritiqueScopeLimitationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Context Critique Scope Limitation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to limit any response to the City Administrator's questions to general engineering observations, refraining from specific criticism of Engineer B's decisions given incomplete knowledge and competitive conflict
casecontext: Engineer C engaged in conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's specific engineering decisions while competing for the same contract and lacking full knowledge of Engineer B's circumstances
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's failure to limit responses to general observations, instead providing specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work that the BER found to be improper and potentially inaccurate
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues.
textreferences: Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B.
textreferences: Engineer C should have refrained from any criticism.
textreferences: While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.865546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Capability Instance
type: CompetitorCritiqueDeclinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitor Critique Declination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that the City Administrator's solicitation to critique Engineer B's work constituted an improper competitive advantage opportunity requiring declination
casecontext: Engineer C was contacted by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work during the final year of Engineer B's contract, while Engineer C was competing for the next contract renewal
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's awareness that answering questions 'in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition' demonstrates recognition of the impropriety, but Engineer C proceeded to answer and criticize Engineer B despite this awareness
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.861417
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Constraint Instance
type: CompetitorCritiqueDeclinationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was contacted informally by the City Administrator — who would be heavily involved in selecting the next consulting firm — to provide opinions on specific issues Engineer B had worked on, while Engineer C was simultaneously competing for the contract Engineer B currently held.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Competitor Critique Declination Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from providing evaluative or critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions to the City Administrator, given that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal and the City Administrator held significant procurement influence over that award — the competitive conflict of interest precluded Engineer C from serving in any informal advisory or evaluative role regarding the incumbent's work.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; NSPE Code Section III.7; BER Case 01-1
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of competition for the next 3-year consulting engineering contract, and specifically at the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.860099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Conflict of Interest Recognition Capability Instance
type: ConflictofInterestRecognitionandRecusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Conflict of Interest Recognition and Recusal Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C demonstrated awareness of the conflict of interest embedded in the City Administrator's solicitation but failed to act on that recognition by recusing from the critique or disclosing the conflict
casecontext: Engineer C recognized the competitive conflict of interest created by being solicited to critique an incumbent competitor's work by the administrator controlling the upcoming contract renewal, but proceeded to provide critical opinions without recusal or disclosure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's recognition that answering questions 'in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage' demonstrates conflict of interest awareness, but no recusal or disclosure action followed
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.861831
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Covert Competitor Disparagement Prohibition Instance
type: CovertCompetitorDisparagementProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B were provided to the City Administrator — who held significant procurement influence — during the final year of Engineer B's contract, in the context of active competition for the next contract award, creating a situation where the critique was structured to serve Engineer C's competitive self-interest at Engineer B's professional expense.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Covert Competitor Disparagement Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator in a manner structured to damage Engineer B's professional reputation and contract prospects, particularly given that Engineer C stood to benefit competitively from any diminishment of the City Administrator's confidence in Engineer B — establishing that Engineer C's critique, offered in the context of active procurement competition, constituted an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional prospects through means other than legitimate merit-based competition.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case 01-1; NSPE Code Section III.6
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and Engineer C's critical response
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.860565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Covert Peer Review Prohibition Constraint Instance
type: CovertPeerReviewProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C provided critical technical opinions about Engineer B's work to City A (the shared client) without Engineer B's knowledge, in a manner functionally equivalent to an undisclosed peer review — violating the professional norm that engineers may not review another engineer's work for the same client without that engineer's knowledge.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Covert Peer Review Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained from reviewing and critiquing Engineer B's work for the same client (City A) without Engineer B's knowledge — establishing that the informal solicitation by the City Administrator did not constitute a legitimate peer review process and that Engineer C's participation in covert evaluation of Engineer B's work for the client violated the professional norm requiring that an engineer not review another engineer's work for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.7.a (Peer Review Provision); NSPE_Code_Peer_Review_Provision
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and Engineer C's response
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.861146
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Criticizes Engineer B's Decisions
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Competing Consulting Firm
foreseen unintended effects: Corruption of the competitive selection process through information asymmetry
foreseen unintended effects: Reputational harm to Engineer B based on potentially incomplete or decontextualized information
foreseen unintended effects: Violation of the professional norm that engineers should not exploit a fellow engineer's inability to respond or defend their decisions
guided by principle text: Avoidance of conduct that brings discredit to the engineering profession
guided by principle text: Integrity and honesty requiring contextual accuracy not merely subjective sincerity
guided by principle text: Professional solidarity and fair treatment of fellow engineers
has agent: Engineer C
has mental state: deliberate
intended outcome: Undermine confidence in Engineer B's professional judgment to improve Engineer C's competitive position in the upcoming contract selection
requires capability text: Ethical self-regulation
requires capability text: Recognition of improper competitive conduct
requires capability text: Technical engineering evaluation
temporal marker: During conversation with City Administrator, final year of Engineer B's contract
temporal sequence: 9
violates obligation text: Duty of accuracy, criticism rendered without full contextual knowledge of Engineer B's decisions may be factually misleading even if subjectively sincere
violates obligation text: NSPE Code of Ethics, prohibition on malicious or injurious criticism of fellow engineers
violates obligation text: Obligation to avoid improper competitive conduct that exploits a fellow engineer's absence from the conversation
violates obligation text: Professional duty to protect the integrity of the engineering profession's competitive processes
within competence: true
comment: Beyond merely answering questions, Engineer C makes the distinct volitional decision to affirmatively criticize Engineer B's specific professional decisions, going further than general technical commentary and directing negative professional judgment at Engineer B without Engineer B's knowledge, without full context, and for competitive gain.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867163
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Criticizes Engineer B's Decisions (Action 5) → Engineer B Reputation Harmed (Event 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Criticizes Engineer B's Decisions → Competitive Advantage Gained by Engineer C
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: As a direct result of Engineer C answering the Administrator's questions and criticizing Engineer B, Engineer C gains a competitive advantage
cause: Engineer C Criticizes Engineer B's Decisions
counterfactual: If Engineer C had refused to criticize Engineer B, or if Engineer B had been present to provide context, the informational asymmetry would not have arisen and no improper competitive advantage would have been conferred
effect: Competitive Advantage Gained by Engineer C
necessary factors: Administrator's receptivity and positional authority over the selection outcome
necessary factors: Engineer B's exclusion from the conversation, preventing rebuttal or context
necessary factors: Engineer C's affirmative decision to criticize, not merely describe, Engineer B's professional decisions
necessary factors: The covert nature of the exchange shielding it from scrutiny
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer C
sufficient factors: Affirmative criticism of competitor + selection authority as audience + no opportunity for incumbent to respond = sufficient to generate unfair competitive advantage
sufficient factors: Even without explicit favoritism by the Administrator, the informational asymmetry created by the criticism alone was sufficient to distort comparative evaluation
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint Instance
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C offered critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions based on the City Administrator's informal characterization of specific issues, without access to the complete technical documentation, client directives, and professional context that would be necessary to form a factually grounded professional opinion.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained from expressing critical technical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions without those opinions being founded upon established facts and completed analysis — prohibiting Engineer C from characterizing Engineer B's decisions as deficient based solely on the City Administrator's informal description of specific issues, without access to the complete technical record, project documentation, and professional context underlying those decisions.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint; NSPE Code Section III.7
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and Engineer C's critical response
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.861281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C General Only Response Boundary Constraint Instance
type: CompetitorCritiqueDeclinationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER analysis concluded that while Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, Engineer C should have avoided commenting on specific issues and should have refrained from any criticism.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Competitor Critique Declination Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C, having been solicited by the City Administrator to comment on Engineer B's work while competing for future work with Client A, was constrained to limit any response to general engineering observations and was prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular decisions, methods, or professional judgment.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:29:47.576049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:29:47.576049+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6 and III.7; BER Case analysis in present case
sourcetext: While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues.
temporalscope: At the time of and following the City Administrator's informal consultation with Engineer C
textreferences: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A. Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: Engineer C should have refrained from any criticism.
textreferences: While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.864510
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Honorable Procurement Conduct Capability Instance
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to self-regulate competitive procurement conduct in accordance with professional ethics obligations, recognizing that participating in the critique solicitation violated the spirit of honorable competitive conduct
casecontext: Engineer C, competing for the City A contract renewal, was solicited to critique the incumbent engineer's work and proceeded to do so despite recognizing the competitive advantage pretext
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's awareness of the competitive pretext combined with proceeding to provide critical opinions demonstrates failure to apply honorable procurement conduct self-regulation despite recognizing the ethical problem
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.866404
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability Instance
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C required the capability to recognize and fulfill the obligation to conduct themselves honorably and fairly in the procurement process — including refraining from exploiting the City Administrator's improper solicitation as a competitive intelligence opportunity
casecontext: Engineer C was presented with an opportunity to gain competitive advantage through the City Administrator's improper solicitation and failed to decline on ethical grounds
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.94
demonstratedthrough: Failure to self-regulate — Engineer C participated in the critique of Engineer B's work rather than declining the improper solicitation and competing solely on the basis of demonstrated qualifications
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:21:15.483423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:21:15.483423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration.
textreferences: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A.
textreferences: Engineer C should have refrained from any criticism.
textreferences: Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.
textreferences: The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.483299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Improper Competitive Advantage Prohibition Constraint Instance
type: CovertCompetitorDisparagementProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B's work was provided to the City Administrator — who held significant procurement influence — while Engineer C was competing for the contract Engineer B currently held, creating a structural incentive for Engineer C's critique to serve competitive rather than objective professional purposes.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Covert Competitor Disparagement Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's professional work to the City Administrator in a manner structured — whether explicitly or implicitly — to damage Engineer B's professional reputation and prospects with Client A, particularly given that Engineer C stood to benefit competitively from any damage caused to Engineer B's standing with Client A.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:29:47.576049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:29:47.576049+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case 01-1 precedent
sourcetext: using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
temporalscope: Throughout the contract renewal procurement period for Client A's consulting engineering contract
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A
textreferences: Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
textreferences: using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.864968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition Capability Instance
type: ImproperCompetitiveAdvantageRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that the City Administrator's solicitation created an improper competitive advantage opportunity and that engaging with it constituted improper or questionable conduct under NSPE Code III.6
casecontext: Engineer C was solicited by the City Administrator — who held significant authority over the upcoming contract renewal — to evaluate Engineer B's work, creating a direct competitive advantage opportunity
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's failure to recognize that providing critical opinions about Engineer B's work while competing for the same contract constituted an attempt to obtain professional engagements by improper or questionable methods, analogous to BER Case 01-1
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable
textreferences: The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration.
textreferences: using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.865725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Instance
type: IncompleteCircumstantialKnowledgeCritiqueProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was asked to opine on specific issues Engineer B had worked on, but Engineer C had access only to the City Administrator's characterization of those issues — not to Engineer B's full project documentation, client directives, technical analyses, or the complete professional context in which Engineer B's decisions were made.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained from offering critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions without full knowledge of the circumstances, client directives, technical constraints, and professional judgment factors that informed those decisions — prohibiting Engineer C from characterizing Engineer B's decisions as deficient based solely on the City Administrator's informal description of specific issues, without access to complete project documentation and context.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint; NSPE Code Section II.3
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and Engineer C's response
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.860399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Capability Instance
type: IncompleteKnowledgeRestraintinCompetitorCritiqueCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Incomplete Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to adequately exercise — the capability to recognize that his incomplete knowledge of Engineer B's decision-making circumstances rendered his specific critical opinions potentially inaccurate, and to restrain from offering those opinions on that basis
casecontext: Engineer C was solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's engineering decisions while Engineer B was still under active contract with City A and Engineer C was competing for the same contract
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's failure to recognize that not having been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process meant his critique could be inaccurate even if subjectively truthful — as identified in the BER's analysis that Engineer C 'was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation'
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:30:31.493060+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process.
textreferences: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process.
textreferences: Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
textreferences: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.865411
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Before Review Constraint Instance
type: CovertPeerReviewProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was informally consulted by the City Administrator about Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under a 3-year consulting contract with Client A in its final year, without Engineer B's knowledge.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Covert Peer Review Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from reviewing or evaluating Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under active contract with Client A and had not been notified of the City Administrator's consultation with Engineer C.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:29:47.576049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:29:47.576049+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Peer Review Provision (Section III.7.a); BER Case analysis in present case
sourcetext: the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Engineer B's active contract with Client A
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
textreferences: In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.
textreferences: the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.864222
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Informal Solicitation by Client A
type: InformalSolicitationwithFormalServiceObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Client A's conversation with Engineer C through Engineer C's response
affectedparties: Client A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:27.767190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:27.767190+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
stateclass: Informal Solicitation with Formal Service Obligation State
subject: Engineer C's receipt of informal request from Client A to evaluate Engineer B's work
terminatedby: Engineer C's decision to respond or decline
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
textreferences: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A
triggeringevent: Client A (City Administrator) informally asked Engineer C to evaluate Engineer B's work decisions
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.471792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Non-Deception in Competitive Context Constraint Instance
type: Non-Deception
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C's provision of critical opinions about Engineer B without disclosing the competitive conflict of interest created a misleading impression that the critique was objective professional evaluation rather than competitively motivated commentary.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Non-Deception
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's work to the City Administrator in a manner that created a false or misleading impression of objectivity — prohibiting Engineer C from presenting competitive self-interest-motivated critique as if it were disinterested professional evaluation, and requiring that any opinions offered be accompanied by full disclosure of the competitive conflict that colored their formation.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Non-Deception provisions; NSPE Code Section II.5.a; Non-Deception (Constraint) ethics code provisions
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and Engineer C's response
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.860867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint Instance
type: ProcurementCompetitionHonorableConductConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C's response to the City Administrator's informal solicitation — providing critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions while competing for the same contract — constituted a departure from honorable competitive conduct by exploiting an informal procurement-influencing relationship rather than competing on merit.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained to conduct all activities related to the City A contract renewal procurement honorably, responsibly, and fairly — prohibiting Engineer C from exploiting the informal relationship with the City Administrator to gain competitive advantage through critique of Engineer B's work, and requiring that Engineer C compete solely on the basis of demonstrated qualifications and merit through legitimate procurement channels.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:47.320516+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6, III.7; Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of competition for the next 3-year consulting engineering contract
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.860711
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Capability Instance
type: SolicitedCompetitorCritiqueObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C required the capability to provide only objective, technically grounded, and factually accurate assessments if responding at all to the City Administrator's solicitation — refraining from criticism motivated by competitive advantage
casecontext: Engineer C agreed to evaluate Engineer B's work for the City Administrator while holding a competitive conflict of interest and lacking full knowledge of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Failure to maintain objectivity — Engineer C provided specific criticisms of Engineer B's decisions without full knowledge of the circumstances, in a context where competitive motivations were present
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:21:15.483423+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:21:15.483423+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
textreferences: Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
textreferences: Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
textreferences: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.482820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Capability Instance
type: SolicitedCompetitorCritiqueObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to maintain objectivity in evaluating Engineer B's work, instead providing criticism motivated by competitive advantage rather than objective technical assessment
casecontext: Engineer C provided critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions to the City Administrator while competing for Engineer B's contract, with awareness that the criticism would serve competitive rather than purely technical purposes
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C's awareness that answering 'in a certain perspective' would serve as competitive pretext, combined with proceeding to be 'critical of Engineer B's decisions,' demonstrates failure to maintain competitive-bias-free objectivity
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:25:52.753689+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.866138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Specific Critique Prohibition Under Incomplete Knowledge Constraint Instance
type: IncompleteCircumstantialKnowledgeCritiqueProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B performed work for Client A, yet provided critical opinions about Engineer B's specific engineering decisions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions because Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances, client directives, technical constraints, and professional judgment factors that informed Engineer B's decisions — establishing that Engineer C's subjective belief in the truthfulness of the critique was insufficient to render specific criticism ethically permissible.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:29:47.576049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:29:47.576049+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6 and III.7; BER Case 01-1 precedent
sourcetext: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's informal consultation with Engineer C
textreferences: Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
textreferences: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process.
textreferences: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.864367
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition Constraint Instance
type: IncompleteCircumstantialKnowledgeCritiqueProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER analysis specifically noted that Engineer C could be truthful as far as C is aware, but that Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances — establishing that subjective truthfulness belief is insufficient to render the critique ethically permissible.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained from treating subjective belief in the truthfulness of critique as a sufficient ethical justification for providing specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work in a competitive procurement context, establishing that truthfulness as perceived by the critiquing engineer does not render criticism ethically permissible when the critiquing engineer lacks full circumstantial knowledge.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:29:47.576049+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:29:47.576049+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; BER Case analysis in present case
sourcetext: Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's informal consultation with Engineer C
textreferences: As such, Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.
textreferences: Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
textreferences: Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.865125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C answering and criticizing Engineer B during Engineer B's active contract with Client A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867762
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C answering questions and criticizing Engineer B during Engineer B's active contract
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: during
evidence: Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
from entity text: Engineer C answering questions and criticizing Engineer B
owl time property: time:intervalDuring
to entity text: Engineer B's active contract
comment: Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
interval during: Engineer B s active contract
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C's conversation with City Administrator before next 3-year contract award
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
from entity text: Engineer C's conversation with City Administrator
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: next 3-year contract award
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: next 3-year contract award
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B before Engineer B's knowledge of the conversation
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.
from entity text: Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer B's knowledge of the conversation
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer B s knowledge of the conversation
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485718
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Distinguished in Engineer C Context
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's relationship with Client A and obligations regarding the review of Engineer B's work
balancingwith: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition
balancingwith: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer Review
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Unlike NSPE BER Case 93-3 where Engineer B was under contract with the franchiser and owed a faithful agent obligation, Engineer C in the present case was not under contract with Client A and therefore did not owe the same faithful agent obligation that would have required confidentiality about the review
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: In this context, the absence of a contractual relationship between Engineer C and Client A meant that Engineer C's obligations were governed by the Code's competitive critique prohibitions rather than the faithful agent obligation that applied in Case 93-3
invokedby: Engineer C
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Case 93-3 differs from the current case as Engineer C in the present case is not under contract with Client A.
tensionresolution: Without a contractual relationship, Engineer C's obligations ran to the Code's competitive critique prohibitions rather than to a faithful agent duty of confidentiality
textreferences: Case 93-3 differs from the current case as Engineer C in the present case is not under contract with Client A.
textreferences: the BER in this case determined that Engineer B's act of notifying Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser was not consistent with the Code stating that Engineer B had an obligation as 'faithful agent and trustee' to not to tell Engineer A of his relationship with the client.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.481400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Final Contract Year Begins
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

General Only Competitor Response Boundary Constraint Engineer C City Administrator Response
type: General-OnlyCompetitorResponseBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C, having been solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's specific professional decisions, was constrained to respond only in general terms if responding at all. Instead, Engineer C provided specific critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions, exceeding the permissible scope of any response given the competitive conflict of interest.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: General-Only Competitor Response Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: If Engineer C chose to respond at all to the City Administrator's solicitation regarding Engineer B's work, Engineer C was strictly constrained to limit any response to general engineering principles, general observations about the type of work involved, or general professional standards — and was affirmatively prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular decisions, methods, or professional judgment.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6 and III.7; BER case precedent on competitor conduct in procurement
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
temporalscope: At the time of and throughout the City Administrator's informal solicitation
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.477957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

General Only Response Boundary Constraint Engineer C City Administrator
type: General-OnlyCompetitorResponseBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The City Administrator solicited Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's specific professional decisions. Engineer C was constrained to respond only in general terms — if at all — and was prohibited from providing the specific critique that was solicited.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: General-Only Competitor Response Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: To the extent Engineer C chose to respond at all to the City Administrator's solicitation, Engineer C was constrained to limit any response strictly to general engineering principles and general observations, and was prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular professional decisions, methods, or judgment.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7
sourcetext: While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues.
temporalscope: At the time of and following the City Administrator's informal solicitation of Engineer C's opinions on Engineer B's work
textreferences: Engineer C should have refrained from any criticism.
textreferences: While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.484312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability Engineer C City Administrator Procurement
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C failed to exercise the capability to conduct himself honorably in the procurement competition by refraining from exploiting the improper competitive intelligence opportunity created by the City Administrator's solicitation, instead choosing to provide critical opinions that Engineer C recognized would serve as a competitive pretext.
casecontext: Engineer C was competing for the next 3-year consulting contract with the City when the City Administrator — who would be heavily involved in the selection — solicited Engineer C to evaluate the incumbent's work.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Despite recognizing that answering the City Administrator's questions 'in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage,' Engineer C proceeded to answer and criticize Engineer B — demonstrating a failure of honorable procurement conduct self-regulation.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.480745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

III.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.436500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

III.7.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.436548
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

III.7.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.436582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition Capability Engineer C Critique of Engineer B
type: ImproperCompetitiveAdvantageRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C demonstrated partial exercise of the capability to recognize that responding to the City Administrator's solicitation would create an improper competitive advantage, but failed to act on that recognition by declining or disclosing the conflict.
casecontext: Engineer C recognized the improper competitive advantage opportunity created by the City Administrator's solicitation but chose to exploit it rather than decline or disclose.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C explicitly recognized that answering questions 'in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition' — demonstrating awareness — but proceeded to answer and criticize Engineer B anyway, failing to translate recognition into appropriate action.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.479018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Improper Competitive Method Prohibition Engineer C City Administrator Solicitation
type: ProcurementCompetitionHonorableConductConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was approached by the City Administrator — who held procurement influence over the upcoming contract — and provided critical commentary on Engineer B's professional decisions, creating an improper competitive advantage through means other than merit-based competition.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from exploiting the City Administrator's informal solicitation to critique Engineer B's work as a means of obtaining competitive advantage in the upcoming contract renewal, as such conduct constituted an improper and questionable method of seeking professional engagements in violation of NSPE Code Section III.6.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; BER Case 01-1
sourcetext: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 states that Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.
temporalscope: During the period of informal solicitation by the City Administrator and the upcoming contract renewal process for City A consulting engineering services
textreferences: Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.
textreferences: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 states that Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.
textreferences: The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.483843
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint Engineer C Engineer B Decisions
type: IncompleteCircumstantialKnowledgeCritiqueProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's work for City A and had no access to the full circumstances under which Engineer B made the specific professional decisions being questioned. Despite this lack of complete contextual knowledge, Engineer C provided specific critical opinions about those decisions to the City Administrator.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from offering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions because Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances, constraints, client directives, technical context, and professional judgment factors that informed those decisions — rendering Engineer C's critique inherently unreliable and potentially misleading regardless of Engineer C's subjective belief in its accuracy.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.476843
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Engineer C Engineer B Decisions
type: IncompleteCircumstantialKnowledgeCritiqueProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B performed work for City A, yet provided specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from offering critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions because Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances, constraints, client directives, and professional judgment factors that informed those decisions — establishing that Engineer C's subjective belief in the truthfulness of the criticism was insufficient to render it ethically permissible when the underlying factual basis was incomplete.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7
sourcetext: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process.
temporalscope: At the time of Engineer C's critical commentary to the City Administrator, when Engineer C had not been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
textreferences: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process.
textreferences: Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
textreferences: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.484855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Capability Engineer C Engineer B Decisions
type: IncompleteKnowledgeRestraintinCompetitorCritiqueCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Incomplete Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer C possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that, lacking full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made specific professional decisions, Engineer C was not in a position to render fair specific critical opinions about those decisions.
casecontext: Engineer C was asked to evaluate specific professional decisions made by Engineer B in the context of Engineer B's active consulting contract with the City, without having been party to the circumstances, constraints, or reasoning underlying those decisions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C had not been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and lacked access to the full project record, yet proceeded to offer specific critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions to the City Administrator.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.478874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incumbent Engineer Active Contract Covert Review Prohibition Engineer C Engineer B City A
type: IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementBeforePeerReviewConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The City Administrator solicited Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B was still under active contract with City A. Engineer C proceeded to criticize Engineer B's decisions without notifying Engineer B, in violation of the peer review notification requirement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Before Peer Review Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from reviewing or evaluating Engineer B's work for City A without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active, non-terminated contract with City A at the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Private Practice Peer Review Provision (Section III.7.a); BER Case 93-3
sourcetext: The Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
temporalscope: Throughout the period when Engineer B's contract with City A remained active and unterminated
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
textreferences: In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.
textreferences: The Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.483669
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Capability Engineer B City A Final Year
type: IncumbentEngineerFaithfulPerformanceUnderCompetitiveScrutinyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Under Competitive Scrutiny Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B was required to exercise the capability to continue performing all contracted engineering services faithfully and competently for the City through the final year of the contract, despite repeated questioning of professional judgment by the City Administrator and the improper competitive scrutiny being conducted by Engineer C.
casecontext: Engineer B served as incumbent consulting engineer in the final year of a 3-year contract while the City Administrator repeatedly questioned Engineer B's judgment and simultaneously solicited a competitor to evaluate Engineer B's work.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's obligation to maintain faithful performance persisted through the final contract year despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of Engineer B's judgment and the improper solicitation of competitor Engineer C to critique Engineer B's decisions.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.480154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Before Review Constraint Engineer C Engineer B Active Contract
type: IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementBeforeReviewConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B held an active consulting contract with City A and was in the final year of that contract. Engineer C evaluated and criticized Engineer B's specific professional decisions for the City Administrator without Engineer B's knowledge or notification, violating the requirement that an engineer not review another engineer's work for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer while the incumbent remains under active contract.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Before Review Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was prohibited from reviewing and evaluating Engineer B's work for City A without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active contract with City A and Engineer B's connection with the work had not been formally terminated.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7.a; BER Case 93-3
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
temporalscope: During Engineer B's final year of the active 3-year contract with City A
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.477446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Primary
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:06.072641+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:06.072641+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
usedby: Engineer C in evaluating ethical obligations when responding to City Administrator inquiries about Engineer B's work
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer C's obligations when approached by the City Administrator during an active procurement process, particularly provisions prohibiting injury to the professional reputation of other engineers and prohibiting use of procurement contacts for self-interested disparagement
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.470512
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

NSPE BER Precedents on Competitor Disparagement in Procurement
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Cases on Engineer Conduct in Competitive Procurement Contexts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:32.545681+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:32.545681+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
usedby: Ethical analysis of Engineer C's conduct
usedincontext: Provides analogical reasoning patterns for evaluating whether Engineer C's conduct — criticizing Engineer B's decisions when approached by a prospective client during a contract renewal — constitutes an ethical violation under professional norms governing fair competition and professional reputation
version: Various
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.853302
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Peer_Review_Provision
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Provision on Review of Another Engineer's Work
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:21:16.303584+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:21:16.303584+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Further, the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
textreferences: Further, the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
textreferences: In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C. Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
usedby: Engineer C, BER analysis
usedincontext: Establishes that engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client except with the knowledge of such engineer or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated; applied to Engineer C's review of Engineer B's work without Engineer B's knowledge while Engineer B remained under contract
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.856083
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Section_III_6
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section III.6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:21:16.303584+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:21:16.303584+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 states that Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.
textreferences: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 states that Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.
usedby: Engineer C, BER analysis
usedincontext: Prohibits engineers from attempting to obtain employment or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers or by improper or questionable methods; applied to Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B during an active contract
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.853024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

NSPE_Code_Section_III_7
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section III.7
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:21:16.303584+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:21:16.303584+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
textreferences: Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
usedby: Engineer C, BER analysis
usedincontext: Prohibits engineers from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers; applied to Engineer C's conduct toward Engineer B
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.855660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Private Practice Peer Review Provision
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Provision on Review of Another Engineer's Work
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:30.033855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:30.033855+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated
textreferences: the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated
usedby: BER in determining that Engineer C should not have reviewed Engineer B's work while Engineer B was still under contract and without Engineer B's knowledge
usedincontext: Cited as the specific prohibition on engineers in private practice reviewing the work of another engineer for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer or unless the prior engineer's connection has been terminated
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.473060
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Professional Obligations on Competitor Conduct
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:32.545681+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:32.545681+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
usedby: Engineer C in evaluating whether to answer the City Administrator's questions critically about Engineer B's work
usedincontext: Governs Engineer C's ethical obligations when approached by the City Administrator during the contract renewal process, particularly regarding the prohibition on injuring the professional reputation of Engineer B and the duty to avoid exploiting procurement contexts for competitive advantage
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.853169
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Public Official Conflict of Interest Provisions
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:32.545681+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:32.545681+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
usedby: Analysis of the City Administrator's role in the procurement process and Engineer C's decision to engage
usedincontext: Provides normative grounding for evaluating the City Administrator's conduct in contacting a competing firm during the contract period of Engineer B, and the ethical implications of the procurement process integrity
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.853593
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section III.6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:30.033855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:30.033855+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 states that Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods
textreferences: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 states that Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer C's conduct toward Engineer B during conversation with Client A
usedincontext: Cited as the primary normative prohibition against obtaining employment or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers or by improper or questionable methods
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.472770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section III.7
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:30.033855+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:30.033855+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers
textreferences: Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers
usedby: BER in evaluating whether Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B constituted an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional practice
usedincontext: Cited as the normative prohibition against maliciously or falsely injuring the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.472925
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Non-Deception Constraint Engineer C Pretextual Critique City Administrator
type: Non-Deception
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was aware that answering the City Administrator's questions critically would serve as a pretext for competitive advantage. By proceeding with specific critical opinions without disclosing this pretextual purpose or the competitive conflict of interest, Engineer C's conduct created a misleading impression that the critique was disinterested professional evaluation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Non-Deception
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained by the non-deception obligation from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions in a manner that functioned as a pretext for competitive advantage while presenting those opinions as objective professional evaluation — prohibiting Engineer C from using the guise of technical advisory response to advance competitive self-interest in a manner that deceived the City Administrator about the true nature and motivation of the critique.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's informal solicitation and Engineer C's response
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.478106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Pretext Aware Competitive Critique Self Restraint Engineer C City Administrator
type: Pretext-AwareCompetitiveCritiqueSelf-RestraintConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C was aware that the City Administrator's solicitation placed Engineer C in a position where critical responses would serve as a pretext for competitive advantage, creating an independent constraint on substantive participation beyond the general prohibition on competitor disparagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Pretext-Aware Competitive Critique Self-Restraint Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C, being aware that providing critical answers to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work would function as a pretext for competitive advantage in the upcoming contract renewal, was independently and additionally constrained from proceeding with substantive critique — beyond the general prohibition on competitor disparagement — by the self-awareness of the pretextual competitive purpose of the solicitation.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:21:35.393822+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; BER Case 01-1
sourcetext: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer C recognized the competitive implications of the City Administrator's solicitation
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration.
textreferences: using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.484508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint Engineer C City A Contract Competition
type: ProcurementCompetitionHonorableConductConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer C leveraged a prior relationship with the City Administrator and responded to an informal solicitation with specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work, using the informal advisory interaction as a mechanism to gain competitive advantage in the upcoming procurement rather than competing solely on the basis of demonstrated merit and qualifications.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer C
constraintclass: Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer C was constrained to conduct all competitive activities for the next 3-year contract honorably, responsibly, and fairly — prohibiting the use of informal client relationships with the City Administrator, unsolicited or solicited critique of Engineer B's specific decisions, or exploitation of the City Administrator's procurement-influencing authority to gain competitive advantage through means other than demonstrated merit and qualifications.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:08.274962+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6, and III.7
sourcetext: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
temporalscope: Throughout the pre-procurement period for the next 3-year consulting contract
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.478436
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Procurement Integrity Compromised
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Conflict_of_Interest_Prohibition
activates constraint: NSPE_Fair_Competition_Constraint
activates constraint: Procurement_Integrity_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Trust_in_Government_Contracting_Constraint
causes state change: The selection process loses its integrity as a fair competition; any outcome, whether Engineer B is retained or Engineer C is selected, is tainted by the improper pre-process communications; public interest in merit-based procurement is harmed regardless of ultimate selection outcome
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Administrator_Obligation_to_Disclose_Conflict_or_Recuse
creates obligation: City_Obligation_to_Investigate_if_Informed_of_Contact
creates obligation: Engineer_C_Obligation_to_Disclose_Prior_Contact_if_Selected
creates obligation: Oversight_Body_Obligation_to_Ensure_Fair_Process
emergency status: high
event type: outcome
temporal marker: Final contract year: before formal selection process launches, as a consequence of Administrator-Engineer C contact
temporal sequence: 12
urgency level: high
comment: The upcoming contract selection process is rendered structurally unfair as a result of the covert communications between the Administrator and Engineer C, creating conditions under which the selection outcome cannot be considered a genuine merit-based evaluation. The process is corrupted before it formally begins.
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Capability City Administrator City A
type: ProcurementProcessIntegrityPreservationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Capability
capabilitystatement: The City Administrator failed to exercise the capability to recognize that soliciting Engineer C — a competitor with a prior relationship with the Administrator — to evaluate and criticize incumbent Engineer B's work during the final year of Engineer B's contract compromised the integrity of the upcoming contract renewal process.
casecontext: The City Administrator coordinated Engineer B's work and would be heavily involved in selecting the next consulting firm, yet solicited a competitor to evaluate the incumbent's specific professional decisions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: The City Administrator contacted Engineer C to question specific issues Engineer B had worked on, despite being heavily involved in the upcoming contract selection process and having a prior relationship with Engineer C — creating an improper competitive dynamic that undermined procurement integrity.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City Administrator
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.479811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Public-Procurement-Fairness-Standard-Instance
type: PublicProcurementFairnessStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Professional engineering community and public procurement regulatory frameworks
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Equitable Treatment in Public Engineering Procurement
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:06.072641+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:06.072641+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Public Procurement Fairness Standard
sourcetext: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
usedby: City Administrator in coordinating the contract renewal selection process
usedincontext: Governs the City Administrator's conduct in the procurement process, establishing obligations of impartiality and equitable treatment of competing firms, and constraining the use of one competitor's critical commentary about another as a basis for procurement decisions
version: Current professional consensus
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.471078
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law - Municipal Contract Renewal
type: Qualification-BasedSelectionProcurementLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.75
createdby: State legislature and municipal government
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State and Municipal Qualification-Based Selection Statutes for Engineering Services
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:32.545681+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:32.545681+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
sourcetext: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
usedby: City Administrator and Engineer C in the context of the contract renewal process
usedincontext: Establishes the legal framework governing the procurement process for the next 3-year consulting engineering contract, within which Engineer C's conduct must be evaluated for compliance with both legal and ethical standards
version: Current applicable state/municipal law
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.853725
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440410
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440545
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440576
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Is Engineer C’s answering of the City Administrator’s questions and his criticism of Engineer B ethical?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does the City Administrator bear independent ethical or legal responsibility for soliciting Engineer C's critique of Engineer B outside any formal review process, and should the Board have addressed the Administrator's conduct separately from Engineer C's?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Would Engineer C's conduct have been ethical if he had declined to criticize Engineer B's specific decisions but still answered the City Administrator's general technical questions, and where exactly is the ethical line between permissible general commentary and impermissible specific critique?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Was Engineer C obligated to proactively disclose his competitive conflict of interest to the City Administrator before answering any questions, and would such disclosure alone have been sufficient to render his participation ethical?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: What recourse, if any, does Engineer B have upon learning that a competitor was informally consulted about his work during an active contract period, and does the case imply any obligation on Engineer C or the City Administrator to notify Engineer B that such a review occurred?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Honesty Principle conflict with the Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique when Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B are factually accurate but are delivered in a context that confers an improper competitive advantage — and if so, which principle should prevail?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: How does the Fairness in Professional Competition principle conflict with the Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition when Engineer C is directly invited by the client's authorized representative to share his professional opinion — does the solicited nature of the critique mitigate or eliminate Engineer C's ethical responsibility to decline?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Objectivity Obligation imposed on Engineer C conflict with the Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation when the very act of providing an objective technical critique — however accurate — simultaneously serves Engineer C's competitive self-interest in winning the next contract?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint conflict with the Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation when the City Administrator — who has legitimate authority over the procurement — specifically requests Engineer C's technical input, creating a tension between Engineer C's epistemic duty to withhold judgment and the client's apparent right to seek outside technical perspectives?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437799
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer C violate a categorical duty to refrain from reviewing or criticizing a fellow engineer's work for the same client without proper authorization, regardless of whether the criticism was factually accurate?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437873
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the harm caused to Engineer B's professional reputation, the integrity of the municipal procurement process, and the broader engineering profession outweigh any potential benefit to Client A from receiving Engineer C's informal technical opinions?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer C demonstrate the professional integrity and collegial character expected of an honorable engineer by participating in an informal critique of a competitor's active work, knowing full well that doing so served his own competitive self-interest?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.437986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer C have an independent duty to disclose his conflict of interest as a competing firm to the City Administrator before answering any questions about Engineer B's work, and does the failure to make that disclosure constitute a separate ethical violation from the act of criticism itself?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.438037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would Engineer C's conduct have been ethical if he had declined to offer specific criticism of Engineer B's decisions and instead responded only in general technical terms, without reference to Engineer B's particular choices, while also disclosing his status as a competing firm to the City Administrator?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.438088
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: Would the ethical outcome have changed if Engineer C had possessed full and complete knowledge of all the circumstances surrounding Engineer B's decisions, including the constraints, client directives, and technical context Engineer B faced, rather than operating from incomplete circumstantial knowledge?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.438139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: What if the City Administrator had initiated a formal, structured peer review process with proper notice to Engineer B and transparent competitive safeguards — would Engineer C's participation in that process have been ethically permissible under the same code provisions?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.438193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: Would Engineer C's ethical obligations have differed if the City Administrator had approached him after Engineer B's contract had already expired and the formal competitive selection process for the new contract had officially commenced, rather than during the final year of Engineer B's active contract?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.438273
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440836
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441123
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441153
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441299
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441328
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441402
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441490
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440951
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.440981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441009
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:48:17.441067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Selection Process Integrity Compromised
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Maintenance Capability Engineer C Critical Evaluation
type: SolicitedCompetitorCritiqueObjectivityMaintenanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Maintenance Capability
capabilitystatement: Having chosen to respond to the City Administrator's solicitation, Engineer C was obligated to exercise the capability to provide only objective, technically grounded assessments of Engineer B's decisions — but instead provided criticism that Engineer C recognized could serve as a competitive pretext.
casecontext: Engineer C provided critical opinions about Engineer B's specific professional decisions to the City Administrator, who controlled the upcoming contract selection, while recognizing the competitive motivation underlying the response.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Engineer C answered the City Administrator's questions and was critical of Engineer B's decisions while simultaneously recognizing that answering 'in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage' — indicating that the critique was not purely objective.
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:16:41.555772+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer C
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.480297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

State Licensing Board Rules - Solicitation and Competition Provisions
type: StateLicensingBoardRulesofProfessionalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: State engineering licensing boards, patterned after NCEES Model Rules
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State Engineering Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:32.545681+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:32.545681+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
sourcetext: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
usedby: Engineer C in determining the ethical limits of responding to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B
usedincontext: Establishes the regulatory framework governing permissible competitive conduct by licensed engineers, including prohibitions on false or misleading statements about competitors and obligations to compete fairly during procurement processes
version: Current applicable state rules
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.853433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.544629+00:00
value: The loyalty obligation runs in both directions — Engineer B owes faithful service to City A, and City A owes Engineer B fair dealing during the active contract period, including refraining from covert competitive evaluation of Engineer B's work through a competitor

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542840+00:00
value: The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides any obligation to respond to the City Administrator's requests, because the Code's prohibition is categorical when the incumbent lacks knowledge and the contract is active

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.541345+00:00
value: The obligation to conduct fair procurement processes overrides any administrative convenience or personal preference the City Administrator may have for informal competitive intelligence gathering; the proper mechanism for evaluating incumbent performance is formal performance review, not solicitation of competitor critique

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.543401+00:00
value: The obligation to conduct fair procurement processes overrides any administrative convenience or personal preference the City Administrator may have for informal competitive intelligence gathering; the proper mechanism for evaluating incumbent performance is formal performance review, not solicitation of competitor critique

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542125+00:00
value: The obligation to conduct fair procurement overrides any administrative interest in obtaining additional information about the incumbent's performance through informal competitive channels

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.543478+00:00
value: The obligation to conduct fair procurement overrides any administrative interest in obtaining additional information about the incumbent's performance through informal competitive channels

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.543563+00:00
value: The client's interest in obtaining independent technical assessment does not justify using a competitor as the source of that assessment during active procurement, as the competitor's interest in the outcome renders the assessment inherently unreliable and the process unfair

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.541179+00:00
value: The conflict of interest disclosure obligation required Engineer C to either decline to provide the critique or affirmatively disclose his competitive interest before doing so; providing the critique without disclosure compounded the ethical violation by depriving the client of information necessary to evaluate the objectivity of the advice

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.543134+00:00
value: Disclosure of the conflict does not necessarily prohibit providing the opinion, but failure to disclose while providing self-serving critical opinions constitutes a violation of the relational principle governing advisory engagements

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.543051+00:00
value: The prohibition on competitive critique overrides any general obligation to answer truthful questions, because the context of competitive procurement transforms truthful critique into an improper mechanism for gaining competitive advantage

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.541505+00:00
value: The loyalty obligation runs in both directions — Engineer B owes faithful service to City A, and City A owes Engineer B fair dealing during the active contract period, including refraining from covert competitive evaluation of Engineer B's work through a competitor

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.543880+00:00
value: Engineer B's faithful agent obligation is not compromised by the City Administrator's questioning; Engineer B retains professional authority over engineering judgments and is not obligated to defer to non-engineer administrative preferences on technical matters

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.543947+00:00
value: Engineer B's faithful agent obligation is not compromised by the City Administrator's questioning; Engineer B retains professional authority over engineering judgments and is not obligated to defer to non-engineer administrative preferences on technical matters

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.540503+00:00
value: The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides any obligation to respond to the City Administrator's requests, because the Code's prohibition is categorical when the incumbent lacks knowledge and the contract is active

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542903+00:00
value: The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides any obligation to respond to the City Administrator's requests, because the Code's prohibition is categorical when the incumbent lacks knowledge and the contract is active

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.541589+00:00
value: The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides any obligation to respond to the City Administrator's requests, because the Code's prohibition is categorical when the incumbent lacks knowledge and the contract is active

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.541670+00:00
value: The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides the obligation to respond to client requests for evaluation when the incumbent is unaware and the contract is active

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.543704+00:00
value: The prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique overrides Engineer C's interest in responding to the City Administrator's questions, because the competitive context makes participation inherently improper regardless of the content of the critique

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.543330+00:00
value: The conflict of interest disclosure obligation required Engineer C to either decline to provide the critique or affirmatively disclose his competitive interest before doing so; providing the critique without disclosure compounded the ethical violation by depriving the client of information necessary to evaluate the objectivity of the advice

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.543231+00:00
value: The conflict of interest disclosure obligation required Engineer C to either decline to provide the critique or affirmatively disclose his competitive interest before doing so; providing the critique without disclosure compounded the ethical violation by depriving the client of information necessary to evaluate the objectivity of the advice

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.544477+00:00
value: The conflict of interest disclosure obligation required Engineer C to either decline to provide the critique or affirmatively disclose his competitive interest before doing so; providing the critique without disclosure compounded the ethical violation by depriving the client of information necessary to evaluate the objectivity of the advice

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.540676+00:00
value: The prohibition on competitor critique overrides any obligation Engineer C might feel to answer the City Administrator's questions honestly, because participation itself — regardless of truthfulness — constitutes improper conduct in this competitive context

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.540789+00:00
value: The prohibitions on competitive critique and reputation injury override the engineer's interest in being forthright with the client, because the competitive and epistemic context makes the critique improper regardless of its subjective truthfulness

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542992+00:00
value: The prohibition on using competitor critique as competitive pretext overrides any general obligation to share professional opinions when the engineer is aware the context is inherently self-serving; only genuine misconduct rising to reportable levels would create an overriding obligation to respond

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.541746+00:00
value: The prohibition on competitive critique overrides any general obligation to answer truthful questions, because the context of competitive procurement transforms truthful critique into an improper mechanism for gaining competitive advantage

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.541844+00:00
value: The prohibitions on competitive critique and reputation injury override the engineer's interest in being forthright with the client, because the competitive and epistemic context makes the critique improper regardless of its subjective truthfulness

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542195+00:00
value: Subjective truthfulness does not satisfy the principle's requirement; accuracy requires full situational knowledge, which Engineer C lacked, so restraint from specific critique was obligatory even if Engineer C believed the critique to be true

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.543777+00:00
value: The principle of epistemic humility and professional fairness requires that engineers refrain from rendering specific critical opinions when they lack full situational context, even if their opinions are subjectively truthful based on the limited information available to them

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.541266+00:00
value: Fairness in competition overrides any interest Engineer C might have in responding to the City Administrator's questions, because participation — regardless of content — constitutes exploitation of an unfair competitive opportunity

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.544150+00:00
value: The principle of fair competition takes precedence over any obligation Engineer C might have to share technical opinions, because the context of active competition renders the critique self-serving rather than professionally objective

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542054+00:00
value: Fairness in competition overrides any interest Engineer C might have in responding to the City Administrator's questions, because participation — regardless of content — constitutes exploitation of an unfair competitive opportunity

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.541015+00:00
value: The restraint from critique under incomplete situational knowledge overrides the general obligation to respond to client inquiries, because subjectively truthful opinions may be objectively inaccurate when situational knowledge is incomplete

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.541903+00:00
value: The restraint from critique under incomplete situational knowledge overrides the general obligation to respond to client inquiries, because subjectively truthful opinions may be objectively inaccurate when situational knowledge is incomplete

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.541104+00:00
value: The prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique overrides Engineer C's interest in responding to the City Administrator's questions, because the competitive context makes participation inherently improper regardless of the content of the critique

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.543632+00:00
value: Even if Engineer C's critique was technically accurate, the self-serving competitive context in which it was rendered renders it ethically impermissible under this principle, because the reputational harm to Engineer B serves Engineer C's competitive interest rather than any legitimate professional or public welfare purpose

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.541979+00:00
value: Even if Engineer C's critique was technically accurate, the self-serving competitive context in which it was rendered renders it ethically impermissible under this principle, because the reputational harm to Engineer B serves Engineer C's competitive interest rather than any legitimate professional or public welfare purpose

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.544203+00:00
value: The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides any obligation to respond to the City Administrator's requests, because the Code's prohibition is categorical when the incumbent lacks knowledge and the contract is active

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.544528+00:00
value: Fairness in competition overrides any interest Engineer C might have in responding to the City Administrator's questions, because participation — regardless of content — constitutes exploitation of an unfair competitive opportunity

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.544427+00:00
value: The prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique overrides Engineer C's interest in responding to the City Administrator's questions, because the competitive context makes participation inherently improper regardless of the content of the critique

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542490+00:00
value: The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides any obligation to respond to the City Administrator's requests, because the Code's prohibition is categorical when the incumbent lacks knowledge and the contract is active

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542366+00:00
value: Objectivity cannot be maintained when the engineer providing the opinion is simultaneously competing for the work being evaluated; the structural conflict of interest makes genuine objectivity impossible in this context

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.544257+00:00
value: The prohibition on competitor critique overrides any obligation Engineer C might feel to answer the City Administrator's questions honestly, because participation itself — regardless of truthfulness — constitutes improper conduct in this competitive context

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.544378+00:00
value: The restraint from critique under incomplete situational knowledge overrides the general obligation to respond to client inquiries, because subjectively truthful opinions may be objectively inaccurate when situational knowledge is incomplete

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542434+00:00
value: The requirement that incumbent engineers have knowledge of competitive evaluations of their work is a precondition for participation in any such evaluation; absent that knowledge, the evaluation is covert and inherently unfair regardless of its technical accuracy

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542290+00:00
value: When competitive interest compromises objectivity, the engineer must decline to render specific evaluations rather than proceeding with a compromised assessment

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542785+00:00
value: The self-serving nature of the advisory engagement is not cured by the technical accuracy of any individual criticism; the structural conflict of interest taints the entire advisory engagement

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.544326+00:00
value: The prohibitions on competitive critique and reputation injury override the engineer's interest in being forthright with the client, because the competitive and epistemic context makes the critique improper regardless of its subjective truthfulness

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542584+00:00
value: Subjective truthfulness does not satisfy the honesty principle when the engineer lacks sufficient situational knowledge to ensure objective accuracy; restraint from specific critique is required

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.544578+00:00
value: The obligation to conduct fair procurement processes overrides any administrative convenience or personal preference the City Administrator may have for informal competitive intelligence gathering; the proper mechanism for evaluating incumbent performance is formal performance review, not solicitation of competitor critique

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.543829+00:00
value: The restraint from critique under incomplete situational knowledge overrides the general obligation to respond to client inquiries, because subjectively truthful opinions may be objectively inaccurate when situational knowledge is incomplete

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542708+00:00
value: The principle of epistemic humility and professional fairness requires that engineers refrain from rendering specific critical opinions when they lack full situational context, even if their opinions are subjectively truthful based on the limited information available to them

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.544020+00:00
value: The loyalty obligation runs in both directions — Engineer B owes faithful service to City A, and City A owes Engineer B fair dealing during the active contract period, including refraining from covert competitive evaluation of Engineer B's work through a competitor

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.544098+00:00
value: Objectivity cannot be maintained when the engineer providing the opinion is simultaneously competing for the work being evaluated; the structural conflict of interest makes genuine objectivity impossible in this context

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:09:42.542653+00:00
value: Subjective truthfulness does not satisfy the principle's requirement; accuracy requires full situational knowledge, which Engineer C lacked, so restraint from specific critique was obligatory even if Engineer C believed the critique to be true

franchiser discussions with replacement Engineer B (Case 93-3) before expiration of Engineer A's contract (Case 93-3)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: In order to maintain continuity and before the contract expired, the franchiser began discussions with Engineer B
from entity text: franchiser discussions with replacement Engineer B (Case 93-3)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: expiration of Engineer A's contract (Case 93-3)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: expiration of Engineer A s contract Case 93-3
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

franchiser instruction to Engineer B not to disclose (BER 93-3) before Engineer B's review and notification to Engineer A (BER 93-3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

franchiser instruction to Engineer B not to disclose (Case 93-3) before Engineer B's design review (Case 93-3)
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Prior to the review, franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to Engineer A, Engineer B's relationship with franchiser.
from entity text: franchiser instruction to Engineer B not to disclose (Case 93-3)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer B's design review (Case 93-3)
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer B s design review Case 93-3
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

franchiser's discussions with Engineer B (BER 93-3) before Engineer A's contract expiration (BER 93-3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

franchiser's notice to Engineer A of non-renewal (BER 93-3) before franchiser's discussions with Engineer B (BER 93-3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.867792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

next 3-year contract selection process after current 3-year contract period
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: after
evidence: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
from entity text: next 3-year contract selection process
owl time property: time:intervalAfter
to entity text: current 3-year contract period
comment: Entity1 is after Entity2
interval after: current 3-year contract period
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.485592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C should have declined to provide critical evaluations of Engineer B's work when solicited by the City Administrator, recognizing that doing so during an active contract renewal process constituted using professional opinion as a p

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, a competitor for future work with Client A, was asked by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under active contract, creating a direct conflict of interest that should have caused Engine

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract, provided critical evaluations of incumbent Engineer B's specific professional decisions when solicited by the City Administrator who controls the contr

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's critical evaluation of Engineer B's decisions was rendered with the knowledge that critical answers would advantage Engineer C in the upcoming contract competition, compromising the objectivity that professional engineering opi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's competitive interest in securing the upcoming City contract compromised the objectivity of any evaluation of incumbent Engineer B's work, making it impossible for Engineer C to render an impartial professional assessment

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, having a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the City A contract renewal, was obligated to affirmatively disclose that conflict of interest to the City Administrator before providing any opinions on Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C provided critical evaluations of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator without disclosing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the contract that Engineer B currently held and was seeking to renew, d

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C for incumbent critique, combined with Engineer C's willingness to provide that critique, created an asymmetric competitive dynamic in which Engineer C gained insider knowledge of the clien

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's participation in critiquing Engineer B while competing for the same contract undermines the fairness of the professional competition for the next 3-year consulting contract with City A

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's participation in the City Administrator's solicited critique of Engineer B created an unfair competitive advantage for Engineer C in the upcoming contract renewal process, undermining the principle that engineering work should

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C may have believed the criticism of Engineer B to be truthful, but because Engineer C lacked full situational knowledge, the criticism may have been objectively inaccurate. The case distinguishes between subjective truthfulness an

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's subjective belief in the truthfulness of the critique of Engineer B's work was insufficient to render the critique ethically permissible, because honesty alone does not satisfy the professional obligations that prohibit competi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C evaluated and criticized Engineer B's professional decisions at the City Administrator's request without Engineer B having any knowledge that a competitor had been engaged to critique his work under the active contract

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C rendered specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions without having access to the full project record, client instructions, contractual constraints, site conditions, or other contextual factors that shape

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made professional decisions, yet rendered specific critical opinions about those decisions. This violated the principle requiring restraint from specific critique

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's provision of critical opinions on Engineer B's work, with full awareness that doing so 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position, constitutes a self-serving advisory engagement prohibited by profession

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C provided critical assessments of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator, knowing that these critical assessments could damage Engineer B's prospects for contract renewal and benefit Engineer C's competitive

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work, rendered in a context where Engineer C stood to gain competitive advantage by diminishing Engineer B's standing with Client A, constituted an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional reputation

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Any evaluation of whether Engineer C's conduct constitutes reportable misconduct must distinguish between providing technically accurate but competitively motivated critique (ethically problematic but potentially not reportable) versus affi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's awareness that answering 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position obligated him to provide only objective, technically grounded assessments of Engineer B's work — or to decline — rather than shaping h

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C should have declined to provide critical evaluations of Engineer B's work when solicited by the City Administrator, recognizing that doing so during an active contract renewal process constituted using professional opinion as a p

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's participation in critiquing Engineer B while competing for the same contract undermines the fairness of the professional competition for the next 3-year consulting contract with City A

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's participation in the City Administrator's solicited critique of Engineer B created an unfair competitive advantage for Engineer C in the upcoming contract renewal process, undermining the principle that engineering work should

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C rendered specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work without having been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and without knowing all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed the work, resulting in op

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C reviewed and criticized Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B remained under an active contract with Client A that had not been terminated, violating the NSPE Code requirement that such r

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's provision of critical opinions on Engineer B's work, with full awareness that doing so 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position, constitutes a self-serving advisory engagement prohibited by profession

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work, rendered in a context where Engineer C stood to gain competitive advantage by diminishing Engineer B's standing with Client A, constituted an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional reputation

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's awareness that answering 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position obligated him to provide only objective, technically grounded assessments of Engineer B's work — or to decline — rather than shaping h

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, having a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the City A contract renewal, was obligated to affirmatively disclose that conflict of interest to the City Administrator before providing any opinions on Engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Any evaluation of whether Engineer C's conduct constitutes reportable misconduct must distinguish between providing technically accurate but competitively motivated critique (ethically problematic but potentially not reportable) versus affi

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, as incumbent consulting engineer, is obligated to continue performing faithfully under the active 3-year contract despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of his professional judgment, retaining the right to defend

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's professional dignity was compromised by the City Administrator's solicitation of a competitor's critique of Engineer B's work without Engineer B's knowledge, denying Engineer B the opportunity to provide context for professiona

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's professional dignity was violated when Engineer C criticized Engineer B's work to the City Administrator without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B remained under active contract, depriving Engineer B of any opportunity t

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, as incumbent consulting engineer, is obligated to continue performing faithfully under the active 3-year contract despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of his professional judgment, retaining the right to defend

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, as the incumbent consulting engineer under an active 3-year contract with City A, bears a loyalty obligation to serve the city's engineering needs faithfully during the contract period, while the city's simultaneous solicitation

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C — a competitor — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's work during the active contract renewal process constitutes an improper use of administrative authority that undermines the integrity

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator used administrative authority to solicit Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work during an active contract and concurrent renewal process, exploiting the procurement process to obtain competitive intelligence again

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator, who holds significant authority over the next contract selection, solicited Engineer C — a competitor with whom the City Administrator had prior experience — to evaluate and criticize specific decisions of incumbent

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C for incumbent critique, combined with Engineer C's willingness to provide that critique, created an asymmetric competitive dynamic in which Engineer C gained insider knowledge of the clien

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C reviewed and criticized Engineer B's work without Engineer B having any knowledge of the review, while Engineer B remained under active contract with Client A. This violated the Code requirement that engineers not review another

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C — a competitor — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's work during the active contract renewal process constitutes an improper use of administrative authority that undermines the integrity

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator used administrative authority to solicit Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work during an active contract and concurrent renewal process, exploiting the procurement process to obtain competitive intelligence again

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C for incumbent critique, combined with Engineer C's willingness to provide that critique, created an asymmetric competitive dynamic in which Engineer C gained insider knowledge of the clien

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C may have believed the criticism of Engineer B to be truthful, but because Engineer C lacked full situational knowledge, the criticism may have been objectively inaccurate. The case distinguishes between subjective truthfulness an

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's subjective belief in the truthfulness of the critique of Engineer B's work was insufficient to render the critique ethically permissible, because honesty alone does not satisfy the professional obligations that prohibit competi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's subjective belief in the truthfulness of the critique of Engineer B's work was insufficient to render the critique ethically permissible, because honesty alone does not satisfy the professional obligations that prohibit competi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C evaluated and criticized Engineer B's professional decisions at the City Administrator's request without Engineer B having any knowledge that a competitor had been engaged to critique his work under the active contract

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C reviewed and criticized Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B remained under an active contract with Client A that had not been terminated, violating the NSPE Code requirement that such r

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B's professional dignity was compromised by Engineer C's willingness to provide self-serving critical assessments of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator in a procurement context, without Engineer B's knowl

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work, rendered in a context where Engineer C stood to gain competitive advantage by diminishing Engineer B's standing with Client A, constituted an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional reputation

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C provided critical assessments of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator, knowing that these critical assessments could damage Engineer B's prospects for contract renewal and benefit Engineer C's competitive

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's participation in the City Administrator's solicited critique of Engineer B created an unfair competitive advantage for Engineer C in the upcoming contract renewal process, undermining the principle that engineering work should

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C — a competitor — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's work during the active contract renewal process constitutes an improper use of administrative authority that undermines the integrity

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator used administrative authority to solicit Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work during an active contract and concurrent renewal process, exploiting the procurement process to obtain competitive intelligence again

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator, who holds significant authority over the next contract selection, solicited Engineer C — a competitor with whom the City Administrator had prior experience — to evaluate and criticize specific decisions of incumbent

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C for incumbent critique, combined with Engineer C's willingness to provide that critique, created an asymmetric competitive dynamic in which Engineer C gained insider knowledge of the clien

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, as incumbent consulting engineer, is obligated to continue performing faithfully under the active 3-year contract despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of his professional judgment, retaining the right to defend

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, as incumbent consulting engineer, is obligated to continue performing faithfully under the active 3-year contract despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of his professional judgment, retaining the right to defend

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, as incumbent consulting engineer, is obligated to continue performing faithfully under the active 3-year contract despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of his professional judgment, retaining the right to defend

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B, as the incumbent consulting engineer under an active 3-year contract with City A, bears a loyalty obligation to serve the city's engineering needs faithfully during the contract period, while the city's simultaneous solicitation

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C should have declined to provide critical evaluations of Engineer B's work when solicited by the City Administrator, recognizing that doing so during an active contract renewal process constituted using professional opinion as a p

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, a competitor for future work with Client A, was asked by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under active contract, creating a direct conflict of interest that should have caused Engine

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's participation in critiquing Engineer B while competing for the same contract undermines the fairness of the professional competition for the next 3-year consulting contract with City A

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C should have declined to provide critical evaluations of Engineer B's work when solicited by the City Administrator, recognizing that doing so during an active contract renewal process constituted using professional opinion as a p

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's participation in the City Administrator's solicited critique of Engineer B created an unfair competitive advantage for Engineer C in the upcoming contract renewal process, undermining the principle that engineering work should

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, having a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the City A contract renewal, was obligated to affirmatively disclose that conflict of interest to the City Administrator before providing any opinions on Engineer

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, having a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the City A contract renewal, was obligated to affirmatively disclose that conflict of interest to the City Administrator before providing any opinions on Engineer

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, having a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the City A contract renewal, was obligated to affirmatively disclose that conflict of interest to the City Administrator before providing any opinions on Engineer

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C rendered specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions without having access to the full project record, client instructions, contractual constraints, site conditions, or other contextual factors that shape

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C rendered specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work without having been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and without knowing all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed the work, resulting in op

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made professional decisions, yet rendered specific critical opinions about those decisions. This violated the principle requiring restraint from specific critique

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C rendered specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions without having access to the full project record, client instructions, contractual constraints, site conditions, or other contextual factors that shape

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C rendered specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work without having been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and without knowing all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed the work, resulting in op

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's awareness that answering 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position obligated him to provide only objective, technically grounded assessments of Engineer B's work — or to decline — rather than shaping h

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's critical evaluation of Engineer B's decisions was rendered with the knowledge that critical answers would advantage Engineer C in the upcoming contract competition, compromising the objectivity that professional engineering opi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's awareness that answering 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position obligated him to provide only objective, technically grounded assessments of Engineer B's work — or to decline — rather than shaping h

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C's competitive interest in securing the upcoming City contract compromised the objectivity of any evaluation of incumbent Engineer B's work, making it impossible for Engineer C to render an impartial professional assessment

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to continue performing all contracted services faithfully, competently, and in Client A's best interests for the duration of the active 3-year contract, notwithstanding the City Administrator's repeated questioning

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to continue performing all contracted engineering services faithfully, competently, and in City A's best interests throughout the final year of the active 3-year contract, notwithstanding the City Administrator's re

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: If Engineer C chose to respond at all to the City Administrator's solicitation, Engineer C was obligated to limit any response to general engineering observations, refraining from specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular dec

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from rendering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions, given that Engineer C lacked access to the full project record, client instructions, budget constraints, and decision-m

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from rendering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work because Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Eng

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Having agreed to respond to the City Administrator's solicitation, Engineer C was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments of the specific issues raised, refraining from framing opinions 'in a cert

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, having engaged in conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's work despite the obligation to decline, was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments, refraining from frami

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, having agreed to respond to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work, was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments of the specific engineering issues raised, refrainin

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to recognize that any subjective belief in the truthfulness of critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions did not render those opinions ethically permissible, given Engineer C's lack of full situational knowledg

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to recognize that his subjective belief in the truthfulness of his critique of Engineer B's work was insufficient to render that critique ethically permissible, given that Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the cir

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from evaluating and criticizing Engineer B's professional decisions for the City Administrator without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active, non-terminated contract with

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from reviewing or evaluating Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active, non-terminated contract with Client A at the time of the review.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer B was obligated to continue performing all consulting engineering services for City A faithfully, competently, and in the city's best interests throughout the final year of the active 3-year contract, notwithstanding the City Admin

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated, as a matter of collegial duty toward Engineer B as a professional peer, to refrain from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions in a context where those opinions were solicited by a par

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of Engineer B through competitive critique rendered without full

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all matters related to the City A contract renewal procurement, including declining to participate in a solicitation that placed Engineer C in the role of

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to decline the City Administrator's solicitation to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's professional decisions, recognizing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering cont

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to decline the City Administrator's solicitation to evaluate and critique Engineer B's engineering decisions, recognizing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal and that pro

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator, before providing any critical opinions about Engineer B's work, that Engineer C's firm was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal and that t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from rendering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work because Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Eng

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from reviewing or evaluating Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active, non-terminated contract with Client A at the time of the review.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated, as a matter of collegial duty toward Engineer B as a professional peer, to refrain from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions in a context where those opinions were solicited by a par

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of Engineer B through competitive critique rendered without full

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to decline the City Administrator's solicitation to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's professional decisions, recognizing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering cont

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to decline the City Administrator's solicitation to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's professional decisions, recognizing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering cont

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from rendering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work because Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Eng

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a direct competitor for the upcoming contract renewal — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's engineering decisions during the active contract period and pending r

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a competitor with a prior relationship with the City Administrator who would be competing for the next 3-year contract — to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's pro

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a competitor for the Client A contract — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's work during the active contract period and concurrent renewal process, recognizing t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator was obligated to ensure that the process for selecting the next consulting engineering firm was conducted fairly and without exploitation of the City Administrator's prior relationship with Engineer C, refraining from

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a direct competitor for the upcoming contract renewal — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's engineering decisions during the active contract period and pending r

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a competitor with a prior relationship with the City Administrator who would be competing for the next 3-year contract — to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's pro

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a competitor for the Client A contract — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's work during the active contract period and concurrent renewal process, recognizing t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: The City Administrator was obligated to ensure that the process for selecting the next consulting engineering firm was conducted fairly and without exploitation of the City Administrator's prior relationship with Engineer C, refraining from

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to decline the City Administrator's solicitation to evaluate and critique Engineer B's engineering decisions, recognizing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal and that pro

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator, before providing any critical opinions about Engineer B's work, that Engineer C's firm was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal and that t

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator his direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the Client A contract renewal before or contemporaneously with providing any opinion about Engineer B's

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract — and therefore had a direct competitive financial interest in the

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, having been solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work while competing for the same contract and lacking full knowledge of Engineer B's circumstances, was obligated to limit any response to general observa

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer C, having been solicited by the City Administrator to comment on Engineer B's work while competing for future work with Client A, was obligated to limit any response to general observations only and to avoid commenting on specific

City Administrator Procurement-Influencing Informal Peer Solicitation
type: Procurement-InfluencingAuthorityInformalPeerSolicitationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From City Administrator's contact with Engineer C through conclusion of the procurement process
affectedparties: City (Client A)
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:36.580700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:36.580700+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
stateclass: Procurement-Influencing Authority Informal Peer Solicitation State
subject: City Administrator's informal solicitation of competitor Engineer C's technical opinions on incumbent Engineer B's work while holding significant procurement influence over the upcoming contract selection
terminatedby: Formal procurement process with appropriate role separation, or City Administrator recusal from procurement
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
triggeringevent: City Administrator, who will be heavily involved in next contract selection, contacts competing firm Engineer C to question Engineer B's specific work decisions
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.854182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator Procurement-Influencing Informal Solicitation of Engineer C
type: Procurement-InfluencingAuthorityInformalPeerSolicitationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the informal conversation between City Administrator and Engineer C
affectedparties: Client A (City Administrator)
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:21:41.520751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:21:41.520751+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A
stateclass: Procurement-Influencing Authority Informal Peer Solicitation State
subject: City Administrator's informal solicitation of Engineer C's technical opinions about Engineer B outside any formal review process
terminatedby: Not formally resolved within the case
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
textreferences: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A
textreferences: The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration
triggeringevent: City Administrator contacted Engineer C informally to obtain opinions on Engineer B's work while holding procurement influence over future contract selection
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.857118
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B Active Contract During Engineer C Solicitation
type: IncumbentEngineerUnderActiveContractState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Client A (City Administrator) contacted Engineer C through the point of the ethical analysis; contract not yet terminated
affectedparties: Client A (City Administrator)
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:21:41.520751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:21:41.520751+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated
stateclass: Incumbent Engineer Under Active Contract State
subject: Engineer B's contractual relationship with Client A at the time of Engineer C's informal consultation
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case — Engineer B's contract remains active throughout
textreferences: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C
textreferences: Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated
textreferences: the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated
triggeringevent: Client A solicited Engineer C's opinions about Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under active contract
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.856632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B Client Relationship Final Year
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Duration of the 3-year contract, currently in final year
affectedparties: City (Client A)
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: Engineer B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:36.580700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:36.580700+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer B's active professional relationship with City (Client A) under the 3-year consulting contract in its final year
terminatedby: Expiration of the 3-year contract term
textreferences: Client A is a city which receives consulting engineering services from a selected private firm.
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
triggeringevent: City selected Engineer B under the 3-year consulting contract
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.854325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B Incumbent Under Active Contract
type: IncumbentEngineerUnderActiveContractState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the final year of the 3-year consulting contract, including at the time Engineer C is informally solicited
affectedparties: City A
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:09:55.816707+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:09:55.816707+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
stateclass: Incumbent Engineer Under Active Contract State
subject: Engineer B's contractual relationship with City A
terminatedby: Expiration or termination of the 3-year contract
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
triggeringevent: Engineer B's ongoing engagement under the 3-year contract with City A
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.471970
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competing Engineer Solicited for Incumbent Critique
type: SolicitedCompetitorCriticEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
has obligation: Competitor Critique Declination Engineer C City A Contract
has obligation: Engineer C Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Obligation Instance
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'competitive_status': 'Competitor for the next 3-year contract', 'prior_relationship': 'Previous experience with City Administrator', 'ethical_awareness': 'Fully realizes the competitive pretext of answering critically'}
caseinvolvement: A competing engineer with prior relationship with the City Administrator who is contacted and asked to evaluate specific decisions of the incumbent engineer, recognizes the competitive pretext, but proceeds to answer critically in a manner that constitutes an unfair competitive practice and potential injury to the incumbent's professional reputation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:01.986691+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:01.986691+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract'}
relationships: {'type': 'potential_client', 'target': 'City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Solicited Competitor Critic Engineer
sourcetext: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.470356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competitive Self-Interest in Evaluation Context
type: CompetitorInformalConsultationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Client A's informal solicitation through Engineer C's response and any subsequent procurement activity
affectedparties: Client A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:27.767190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:27.767190+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
stateclass: Competitor Informal Consultation State
subject: Engineer C's position as a competing firm being informally solicited by Client A who holds procurement influence over future work
terminatedby: Completion of any subsequent procurement process or Engineer C's recusal
textreferences: Competitive edges are sought to win work over other firms
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
textreferences: using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way
triggeringevent: Client A informally soliciting Engineer C's technical opinions on Engineer B's work, creating a competitive advantage opportunity
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.472466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competitor Informal Consultation with City Administrator
type: CompetitorInformalConsultationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During and following the City Administrator's informal conversation with Engineer C about Engineer B's work
affectedparties: Client A (City Administrator)
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:21:41.520751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:21:41.520751+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B
stateclass: Competitor Informal Consultation State
subject: Engineer C's position as a competing firm being informally consulted by Client A about incumbent Engineer B's work
terminatedby: Not formally resolved within the case
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
textreferences: Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A
triggeringevent: City Administrator (Client A) contacted Engineer C to solicit opinions on Engineer B's engineering decisions
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.856954
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge of Engineer B's Decisions
type: IncompleteCircumstantialKnowledgeCriticismState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer C was contacted by Client A through the conversation in which Engineer C offered critical opinions
affectedparties: Client A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:21:41.520751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:21:41.520751+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
stateclass: Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Criticism State
subject: Engineer C's epistemic position relative to Engineer B's work decisions when responding to Client A
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case — Engineer C proceeded to comment without obtaining full contextual knowledge
textreferences: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
textreferences: Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances
textreferences: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful
triggeringevent: Client A solicited Engineer C's specific technical opinions about Engineer B's work decisions without Engineer C having been involved in Engineer B's process
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.856804
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Procurement-Influencing Authority Informal Solicitation
type: Procurement-InfluencingAuthorityInformalPeerSolicitationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During and following the informal conversation between Client A and Engineer C
affectedparties: Client A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:27.767190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:27.767190+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A
stateclass: Procurement-Influencing Authority Informal Peer Solicitation State
subject: Client A (City Administrator) informally soliciting Engineer C's opinions on Engineer B's work outside any formal procurement or peer review process
terminatedby: Formal procurement process initiated with proper procedures, or matter resolved
textreferences: Competition for engineering work by private consulting firms can be quite intense. Selection of a winning proposal may be made on razor-thin margins.
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
textreferences: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A
triggeringevent: City Administrator contacting Engineer C informally to solicit critical technical opinions on the incumbent engineer's work
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.472632
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Self-Interested Delivery Method Recommendation Analog
type: Self-InterestedDeliveryMethodRecommendationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer C's receipt of City Administrator's questions through Engineer C's critical responses
affectedparties: City (Client A)
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:36.580700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:36.580700+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
stateclass: Self-Interested Delivery Method Recommendation State
subject: Engineer C's provision of technical opinions critical of Engineer B, structured to serve Engineer C's competitive interest in winning the next contract rather than to provide objective professional assessment
terminatedby: Engineer C provides objective, conflict-disclosed assessment or declines to respond
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
triggeringevent: Engineer C recognizes that answering questions in a particular perspective would be a pretext to gaining competitive advantage, yet proceeds to answer critically
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.854897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Professional Dignity of Engineer B Implicated By Engineer C Conduct
type: ProfessionalDignity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's professional standing and reputation in the context of the contract renewal process
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Truthfulness
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's professional dignity was compromised by Engineer C's willingness to provide self-serving critical assessments of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator in a procurement context, without Engineer B's knowledge and without Engineer B having any opportunity to contextualize or respond to the critique
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle of professional dignity required Engineer C to refrain from providing critical evaluations of Engineer B's work in a covert, self-serving procurement context that denied Engineer B the basic professional courtesy of knowing that his decisions were being evaluated by a competitor at the client's request
invokedby: Engineer C
principleclass: Professional Dignity
sourcetext: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
tensionresolution: Professional dignity requires that critical evaluations of an engineer's work be rendered in contexts that afford the engineer basic procedural fairness — including notice and an opportunity to respond — rather than in covert competitive contexts designed to damage the engineer's standing for the critic's benefit
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.474461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Professional Dignity of Engineer B Implicated by Covert Competitive Review
type: ProfessionalDignity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's professional standing and reputation with Client A
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's professional dignity was compromised by the City Administrator's solicitation of a competitor's critique of Engineer B's work without Engineer B's knowledge, denying Engineer B the opportunity to provide context for professional decisions and exposing Engineer B's work to potentially inaccurate criticism from a party with a competitive interest in Engineer B's diminished standing
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional dignity requires that engineers not be subjected to covert competitive evaluation of their work while under active contract; the incumbent knowledge requirement in the NSPE Code operationalizes this dignity interest
invokedby: Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Professional Dignity
sourcetext: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C. Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
tensionresolution: Engineer B's professional dignity interest in knowing about and having the opportunity to respond to critique of work performed under contract outweighs the City Administrator's interest in obtaining informal competitive assessments
textreferences: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C
textreferences: Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated
textreferences: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.862311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Professional Dignity of Engineer B Violated by Covert Critique
type: ProfessionalDignity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's professional standing and reputation with Client A
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's professional dignity was violated when Engineer C criticized Engineer B's work to the City Administrator without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B remained under active contract, depriving Engineer B of any opportunity to respond to or contextualize the criticism
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, professional dignity required that Engineer B have knowledge of any review or critique of his work conducted for the same client, so that Engineer B could respond to or contextualize the criticism rather than being subject to covert competitive displacement
invokedby: Engineer B
principleclass: Professional Dignity
sourcetext: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.
tensionresolution: Professional dignity requires that incumbent engineers have knowledge of reviews of their work, overriding any client interest in conducting covert competitive evaluations
textreferences: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.
textreferences: Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
textreferences: Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.481731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Violated by Engineer C and Client A
type: IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementinPeerReview
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work for Client A
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C reviewed and criticized Engineer B's work without Engineer B having any knowledge of the review, while Engineer B remained under active contract with Client A. This violated the Code requirement that engineers not review another engineer's work for the same client without the incumbent's knowledge or termination of the incumbent's contract.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the incumbent knowledge requirement prohibited Engineer C from proceeding with any evaluation of Engineer B's work without first ensuring Engineer B had knowledge of the review, because Engineer B's contract was active and had not been terminated
invokedby: City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority
invokedby: Engineer C
principleclass: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer Review
sourcetext: the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
tensionresolution: The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides the obligation to respond to client requests for evaluation when the incumbent is unaware and the contract is active
textreferences: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.
textreferences: Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
textreferences: the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.481215
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition Invoked By Engineer C
type: CompetitorCritiqueSolicitationProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's response to City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's decisions
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Honesty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C, a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract, provided critical evaluations of incumbent Engineer B's specific professional decisions when solicited by the City Administrator who controls the contract selection process, despite recognizing that doing so would give Engineer C a competitive advantage
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle required Engineer C to decline the City Administrator's solicitation for critique of Engineer B's work, because Engineer C's competitive interest in the upcoming contract made participation in such critique an improper exploitation of a conflict of interest that undermines fair competition and the integrity of the procurement process
invokedby: Engineer C
principleclass: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract. Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on competitive critique overrides any general obligation to answer truthful questions, because the context of competitive procurement transforms truthful critique into an improper mechanism for gaining competitive advantage
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.473326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B Client Relationship Under Strained Authority
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the final year of the 3-year contract
affectedparties: City A
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: Engineer B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:09:55.816707+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:09:55.816707+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer B's active professional relationship with City A, operating under a City Administrator who has repeatedly questioned Engineer B's judgment and holds procurement authority over the next contract
terminatedby: Expiration or termination of the 3-year contract
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
triggeringevent: Engineer B's ongoing engagement under the contract combined with the City Administrator's repeated questioning of Engineer B's judgment
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.470126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer
type: IncumbentConsultingEngineerUnderContract
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Applied to Engineer B
adheres to principle: Professional Dignity of Engineer B Implicated by Covert Competitive Review
adheres to principle: Professional Dignity of Engineer B Violated by Covert Critique
has obligation: Engineer B Incumbent Faithful Performance Obligation Instance
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'contract_status': 'Final year of 3-year term contract', 'performance_status': 'Judgment questioned by City Administrator on multiple occasions'}
caseinvolvement: Currently performing consulting engineering services for City A in the final year of a 3-year contract; subject to repeated questioning of professional judgment by the City Administrator; subject to critical commentary provided by competitor Engineer C to the City Administrator.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:54.803959+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:54.803959+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'evaluated_by', 'target': 'City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority'}
relationships: {'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_critique_by', 'target': 'Engineer C Competing Engineer Improperly Solicited for Incumbent Critique'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.855243
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract
type: IncumbentConsultingEngineerUnderContract
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Applied to Engineer B
adheres to principle: Loyalty Obligation of Engineer B to City A
has obligation: Engineer B Faithful Performance Under Contested Contract Obligation Instance
has obligation: Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Engineer B City A Final Year
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'contract_status': 'Final year of active 3-year contract', 'professional_standing': 'Subject to judgment challenges by City Administrator'}
caseinvolvement: Currently performing consulting engineering services for the city in the final year of a 3-year contract, subject to repeated questioning of professional judgment by the City Administrator, and whose specific decisions are being solicited for critique from a competitor.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:01.986691+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:01.986691+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'Engineer C Competing Engineer Solicited for Incumbent Critique'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_critique', 'target': 'City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.471310
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B Incumbent Faithful Performance Obligation Instance
type: IncumbentEngineerFaithfulPerformanceUnderContestedContractObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Client Relationship Final Year
casecontext: Engineer B served as incumbent consulting engineer for Client A in the final year of a 3-year contract while the City Administrator questioned Engineer B's judgment and simultaneously solicited Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Applied to Engineer B
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Under Contested Contract Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to continue performing all contracted services faithfully, competently, and in Client A's best interests for the duration of the active 3-year contract, notwithstanding the City Administrator's repeated questioning of Engineer B's professional judgment and the concurrent contract renewal competition.
sourcetext: Engineer B was still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of the active 3-year consulting contract
textreferences: Engineer B was still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
textreferences: Engineer B, as incumbent consulting engineer, is obligated to continue performing faithfully under the active 3-year contract despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of professional judgment.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.863769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
type: CovertPeerReviewInstructionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Client A's conversation with Engineer C through any point at which Engineer B is notified
affectedparties: Client A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:27.767190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:27.767190+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C
stateclass: Covert Peer Review Instruction State
subject: Client A's solicitation of Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work without Engineer B's knowledge
terminatedby: Engineer B being notified of the evaluation, or Engineer C declining to participate
textreferences: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C
textreferences: the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated
triggeringevent: Client A contacting Engineer C to evaluate Engineer B's work without notifying Engineer B
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.472303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Obligation Instance
type: CompetitiveConflictofInterestDisclosureBeforeAdvisoryCritiqueObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Procurement Competition
casecontext: Engineer C had a direct competitive financial interest in the Client A contract renewal and was simultaneously being asked to evaluate the incumbent engineer's work by the same client's administrator.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements Applied to Engineer C
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Before Advisory Critique Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator his direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the Client A contract renewal before or contemporaneously with providing any opinion about Engineer B's work, so that the City Administrator could appropriately weigh Engineer C's opinions in light of Engineer C's self-interest.
sourcetext: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
temporalscope: Before or contemporaneously with providing any opinion about Engineer B's work to the City Administrator
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.863505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competitor Informal Consultation
type: CompetitorInformalConsultationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment City Administrator contacts Engineer C through Engineer C's provision of critical responses about Engineer B's decisions
affectedparties: City (Client A)
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:36.580700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:36.580700+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
stateclass: Competitor Informal Consultation State
subject: Engineer C's receipt of informal technical questions from City Administrator about Engineer B's work during active procurement competition
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — Engineer C has responded critically without disclosed recusal or conflict acknowledgment
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
triggeringevent: City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.853880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Solicitation Response
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer C recognizes the competitive advantage potential through the conclusion of the procurement process
affectedparties: City A
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:09:55.816707+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:09:55.816707+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer C's personal competitive interest in securing the next contract conflicting with the professional obligation to provide honest, unbiased technical opinion about Engineer B's work
terminatedby: Conclusion of the procurement process or Engineer C's recusal from the informal solicitation
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
triggeringevent: Engineer C realizing that answering questions critically about Engineer B would serve as a pretext for competitive advantage in the upcoming contract selection
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.469959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Procurement Competition
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From City Administrator's contact with Engineer C through conclusion of the procurement process
affectedparties: City (Client A)
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:36.580700+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:36.580700+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer C's simultaneous role as technical commentator on Engineer B's work and competitor for the contract Engineer B currently holds
terminatedby: Conclusion of procurement process or Engineer C's recusal from either the consultation or the competition
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
triggeringevent: City Administrator solicits Engineer C's technical opinions while Engineer C is a competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.854026
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C General-Only Response Limitation Obligation Instance
type: General-OnlyResponseLimitationWhenSolicitedasCompetitorObligation
type: NamedIndividual
prevails over: Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
casecontext: Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made professional decisions, yet was asked to provide specific evaluations of those decisions by the City Administrator during the active contract period.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Invoked By Engineer C
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:20:20.210270+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:20:20.210270+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: General-Only Response Limitation When Solicited as Competitor Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C, having been solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work while competing for the same contract and lacking full knowledge of Engineer B's circumstances, was obligated to limit any response to general observations only and to refrain from specific critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions, methods, or professional judgment.
sourcetext: While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues.
temporalscope: During the conversation with the City Administrator in which specific evaluations of Engineer B's decisions were solicited
textreferences: Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.
textreferences: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful.
textreferences: While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.482092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C General Only Response Limitation Obligation Instance
type: General-OnlyResponseLimitationWhenSolicitedasCompetitorObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge of Engineer B's Work
casecontext: Engineer C was asked by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work during the active contract period and concurrent renewal competition, creating a conflict of interest that required Engineer C to limit any response to general terms.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Violated by Engineer C
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: General-Only Response Limitation When Solicited as Competitor Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C, having been solicited by the City Administrator to comment on Engineer B's work while competing for future work with Client A, was obligated to limit any response to general observations only and to avoid commenting on specific issues related to Engineer B's professional decisions and judgment.
sourcetext: While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues.
temporalscope: During the conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's work
textreferences: Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.
textreferences: While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.863083
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Criticism
type: IncompleteCircumstantialKnowledgeCriticismState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: At the time Engineer C responds critically to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work
affectedparties: City A
affectedparties: City Administrator
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:09:55.816707+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:09:55.816707+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
stateclass: Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Criticism State
subject: Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions without involvement in or full knowledge of the circumstances under which those decisions were made
terminatedby: Engineer C refraining from further criticism or obtaining full context of Engineer B's decisions
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
triggeringevent: Engineer C offering critical assessments of Engineer B's decisions without having been involved in the decision-making process or having full knowledge of the constraints Engineer B faced
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.469773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge of Engineer B's Work
type: IncompleteCircumstantialKnowledgeCriticismState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During Engineer C's conversation with Client A and any subsequent evaluation activity
affectedparties: Client A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:27.767190+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:27.767190+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
stateclass: Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Criticism State
subject: Engineer C's lack of full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made design decisions
terminatedby: Engineer C obtaining full knowledge of Engineer B's circumstances, or refraining from criticism
textreferences: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
textreferences: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful
triggeringevent: Engineer C offering critical opinions about Engineer B's work without having been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.472150
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

General Only Response Limitation Engineer C City Administrator Solicitation
type: General-OnlyResponseLimitationWhenSolicitedasCompetitorObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Criticism
casecontext: Engineer C, a competitor for the upcoming contract, was solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate specific decisions made by Engineer B, and responded with specific critical opinions rather than limiting the response to general observations.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Invoked Against Engineer C
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: General-Only Response Limitation When Solicited as Competitor Obligation
obligationstatement: If Engineer C chose to respond at all to the City Administrator's solicitation, Engineer C was obligated to limit any response to general engineering observations, refraining from specific critical opinions about Engineer B's particular decisions, methods, or professional judgment, so as to avoid improper competitive advantage and potential injury to Engineer B's professional reputation.
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
temporalscope: At the time of formulating and delivering responses to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's specific decisions
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.475565
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Engineer C Engineer B Decisions
type: IncompleteKnowledgeRestraintinCompetitorCritiqueObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge of Engineer B's Decisions
casecontext: Engineer C was asked by the City Administrator to evaluate specific decisions made by Engineer B on city engineering matters, without having access to the full project record or the circumstances under which Engineer B made those decisions.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
derived from principle: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Invoked By Engineer C
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Incomplete Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from rendering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions, given that Engineer C lacked access to the full project record, client instructions, budget constraints, and decision-making context under which Engineer B performed the work, recognizing that such incomplete critique could unjustly injure Engineer B's professional reputation.
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's solicitation and throughout any response provided
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.475244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Engineer B City A Final Year
type: IncumbentEngineerFaithfulPerformanceUnderContestedContractObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer B Client Relationship Under Strained Authority
casecontext: Engineer B is in the final year of a 3-year consulting engineering contract with City A, during which the City Administrator has questioned Engineer B's judgment on several occasions and is simultaneously involved in selecting the firm for the next 3-year contract.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Applied to Engineer B
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Under Contested Contract Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to continue performing all contracted engineering services faithfully, competently, and in City A's best interests throughout the final year of the active 3-year contract, notwithstanding the City Administrator's repeated questioning of Engineer B's professional judgment and the pending renewal competition, refraining from allowing competitive uncertainty or administrative criticism to diminish the quality or completeness of services delivered.
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
temporalscope: Throughout the final year of the active 3-year contract, until the contract period expires
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.476053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Objectivity Principle Violated By Engineer C
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's professional assessment of Engineer B's specific engineering decisions
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Truthfulness
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C's critical evaluation of Engineer B's decisions was rendered with the knowledge that critical answers would advantage Engineer C in the upcoming contract competition, compromising the objectivity that professional engineering opinions require
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, Engineer C's competitive interest in the outcome of his critique of Engineer B was sufficiently proximate and material to compromise the objectivity of his professional assessment — Engineer C could not render an objective professional opinion about a competitor's work when the content of that opinion directly affected Engineer C's competitive prospects
invokedby: Engineer C
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract. Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
tensionresolution: The objectivity principle required Engineer C to recognize that his competitive interest in the outcome of his critique disqualified him from rendering an objective professional opinion, and to decline to provide the critique on that basis
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.474621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization Applied to Engineer C Critique
type: ProportionalityinMisconductCharacterization
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's critical opinions on Engineer B's engineering decisions
balancingwith: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Any evaluation of whether Engineer C's conduct constitutes reportable misconduct must distinguish between providing technically accurate but competitively motivated critique (ethically problematic but potentially not reportable) versus affirmatively misrepresenting Engineer B's work to gain competitive advantage (potentially reportable misconduct)
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Proportionality requires that the ethical analysis of Engineer C's conduct calibrate the severity of the violation to the nature of the critique — self-interested but technically accurate critique differs in ethical weight from fabricated or exaggerated criticism
invokedby: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
principleclass: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
tensionresolution: The proportionality principle does not excuse Engineer C's conduct but calibrates the appropriate response; the core ethical violation is the conflict of interest and self-serving nature of the engagement, regardless of technical accuracy
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.858485
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Honesty Principle Tension with Accuracy in Engineer C Critique
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's criticism of Engineer B's professional decisions
balancingwith: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition
balancingwith: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C may have believed the criticism of Engineer B to be truthful, but because Engineer C lacked full situational knowledge, the criticism may have been objectively inaccurate. The case distinguishes between subjective truthfulness and objective accuracy, finding that Engineer C's subjective honesty did not excuse the impropriety of the critique.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, honesty required not only subjective truthfulness but also epistemic humility about the limits of one's situational knowledge, and restraint from rendering specific opinions when that knowledge was insufficient to ensure objective accuracy
invokedby: Engineer C
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
tensionresolution: Subjective truthfulness does not satisfy the honesty principle when the engineer lacks sufficient situational knowledge to ensure objective accuracy; restraint from specific critique is required
textreferences: Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation.
textreferences: However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
textreferences: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.481577
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Invoked By Engineer C
type: IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementinPeerReview
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's covert evaluation of Engineer B's work for the City Administrator
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C evaluated and criticized Engineer B's professional decisions at the City Administrator's request without Engineer B having any knowledge that a competitor had been engaged to critique his work under the active contract
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, Engineer C's participation in a covert competitive evaluation of Engineer B's work — without Engineer B's knowledge — violated both Engineer B's professional dignity and the integrity of the procurement process, because Engineer B had no opportunity to contextualize, respond to, or even be aware of the competitive critique being rendered against his professional decisions
invokedby: Engineer C
principleclass: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer Review
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
tensionresolution: The requirement that incumbent engineers have knowledge of competitive evaluations of their work is a precondition for participation in any such evaluation; absent that knowledge, the evaluation is covert and inherently unfair regardless of its technical accuracy
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.473796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation Applied to Engineer C
type: Non-Self-ServingAdvisoryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's advisory opinions provided to City Administrator about Engineer B
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C's provision of critical opinions on Engineer B's work, with full awareness that doing so 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position, constitutes a self-serving advisory engagement prohibited by professional ethics
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The non-self-serving advisory obligation prohibits engineers from structuring professional opinions to serve their own commercial interests; Engineer C's conscious awareness of the competitive pretext renders his critique a self-serving advisory product rather than a genuine professional assessment
invokedby: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
principleclass: Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
tensionresolution: The self-serving nature of the advisory engagement is not cured by the technical accuracy of any individual criticism; the structural conflict of interest taints the entire advisory engagement
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.858171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Objectivity Compromised by Engineer C's Competitive Interest
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's professional decisions for Client A
balancingwith: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition
balancingwith: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C's competitive interest in securing the upcoming City contract compromised the objectivity of any evaluation of incumbent Engineer B's work, making it impossible for Engineer C to render an impartial professional assessment
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, objectivity required Engineer C to recognize that a direct competitive interest in the outcome of the evaluation — securing future work from Client A — fundamentally compromised the ability to render an impartial professional opinion about the incumbent's work
invokedby: Engineer C
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
tensionresolution: When competitive interest compromises objectivity, the engineer must decline to render specific evaluations rather than proceeding with a compromised assessment
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable
textreferences: The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.481888
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Engineer C Critical Evaluation
type: SolicitedCompetitorCritiqueObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Evaluation Context
casecontext: Engineer C provided critical evaluations of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator, with full awareness that answering in a certain perspective would serve as a pretext for gaining competitive advantage in the upcoming contract selection.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Objectivity Obligation Applied to Engineer C Critical Opinions
derived from principle: Objectivity Principle Violated By Engineer C
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: Having agreed to respond to the City Administrator's solicitation, Engineer C was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments of the specific issues raised, refraining from framing opinions 'in a certain perspective' designed to advantage Engineer C's competitive position for the upcoming contract, and to include all relevant information pertinent to a fair evaluation of Engineer B's work.
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: At the time of formulating and delivering responses to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's specific decisions
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.476207
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition Engineer C Critique of Engineer B
type: TruthfulnessInsufficiencyRecognitioninCompetitorCritiqueObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Criticism
casecontext: Engineer C provided critical assessments of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator, knowing that critical answers would advantage Engineer C in the upcoming contract competition, without having full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made those decisions.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Honesty Principle Insufficient Alone to Justify Engineer C Critique
derived from principle: Honesty Principle Tension with Accuracy in Engineer C Critique
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition in Competitor Critique Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to recognize that any subjective belief in the truthfulness of critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions did not render those opinions ethically permissible, given Engineer C's lack of full situational knowledge and direct competitive interest in the outcome, and to refrain from providing specific critical opinions on that basis alone.
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: At the time of formulating and delivering responses to the City Administrator's questions
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.475398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Obligation Instance
type: ClientProcurementProcessIntegrityPreservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: City Administrator Procurement-Influencing Informal Solicitation of Engineer C
casecontext: The City Administrator, who holds significant authority over the next contract selection process and has a prior relationship with Engineer C, contacted Engineer C to obtain critical opinions about Engineer B's work while Engineer B's active contract was still in force and the renewal competition was underway.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Applied to City Administrator
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City Administrator (acting on behalf of City A)
obligationclass: Client Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Obligation
obligationstatement: The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a direct competitor for the upcoming contract renewal — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's engineering decisions during the active contract period and pending renewal process, recognizing that such solicitation compromised the fairness of the competitive procurement process, created a conflict of interest for Engineer C, and undermined Engineer B's professional standing without due process.
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
temporalscope: During the active contract period and the concurrent contract renewal selection process
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.859679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Client Procurement Process Integrity City Administrator City A
type: ClientProcurementProcessIntegrityPreservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer C Procurement-Influencing Authority Informal Solicitation
casecontext: The City Administrator, who held significant authority over the next contract selection, contacted Engineer C — a competing firm with whom the City Administrator had prior experience — to evaluate specific decisions made by incumbent Engineer B during the active contract period.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
derived from principle: Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Violated by City Administrator
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City Administrator
obligationclass: Client Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Obligation
obligationstatement: The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a competitor with a prior relationship with the City Administrator who would be competing for the next 3-year contract — to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's professional decisions during the active contract period and pending renewal process, recognizing that such solicitation compromised the fairness of the competitive process, created conflicts of interest for Engineer C, and undermined Engineer B's professional standing without due process.
sourcetext: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
temporalscope: During the active contract period and pending renewal process, before the next contract selection had been completed
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.475722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer C
type: CompetitorCritiqueSolicitationProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's participation in evaluation of Engineer B's work for Client A
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Honesty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C, a competitor for future work with Client A, was asked by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under active contract, creating a direct conflict of interest that should have caused Engineer C to decline participation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The prohibition on competitor critique solicitation applies with full force when the competing engineer is asked to evaluate specific work products of the incumbent, as Engineer C was asked to do here, because the competitive advantage gained from such participation corrupts the professional evaluation process
invokedby: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
principleclass: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A. Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on competitor critique overrides any obligation Engineer C might feel to answer the City Administrator's questions honestly, because participation itself — regardless of truthfulness — constitutes improper conduct in this competitive context
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
textreferences: Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable
textreferences: Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.858650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer C
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureinAdvisoryEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's advisory critique of Engineer B's decisions provided to City Administrator
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Honesty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C provided critical evaluations of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator without disclosing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the contract that Engineer B currently held and was seeking to renew, depriving the City Administrator of information necessary to assess the objectivity and reliability of Engineer C's critique
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, Engineer C's competitive interest in the outcome of his critique of Engineer B constituted a material conflict of interest that required affirmative disclosure to the City Administrator before any evaluation was provided, so that the City Administrator could assess whether to seek independent, unconflicted evaluation of Engineer B's performance
invokedby: Engineer C
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements
sourcetext: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C. Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
tensionresolution: The conflict of interest disclosure obligation required Engineer C to either decline to provide the critique or affirmatively disclose his competitive interest before doing so; providing the critique without disclosure compounded the ethical violation by depriving the client of information necessary to evaluate the objectivity of the advice
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.474300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Collegial Non-Harm to Incumbent Reputation Obligation Instance
type: CollegialObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer C Competitive Self-Interest in Evaluation Context
casecontext: Engineer C provided critical opinions about Engineer B's specific engineering decisions to the City Administrator, who held significant authority over the contract renewal process, while Engineer C was simultaneously competing for that contract — creating a situation where the critique served to harm Engineer B's professional reputation for Engineer C's competitive benefit.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: Professional Dignity of Engineer B Implicated By Engineer C Conduct
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Collegial Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated, as a matter of collegial duty toward Engineer B as a professional peer, to refrain from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions in a context where those opinions were solicited by a party with authority over Engineer B's contract renewal and where Engineer C had a direct competitive interest in undermining Engineer B's professional standing.
sourcetext: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
temporalscope: At the time of responding to the City Administrator's solicitation for critique of Engineer B's work
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.859944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competitive Conflict Disclosure Before Critique Obligation Instance
type: CompetitiveConflictofInterestDisclosureBeforeAdvisoryCritiqueObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Solicitation Response
casecontext: Engineer C was solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's engineering decisions while Engineer C was simultaneously competing for the contract renewal that Engineer B held, creating a direct competitive conflict of interest in the advisory role.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements Applied to Engineer C
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Before Advisory Critique Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator, before providing any critical opinions about Engineer B's work, that Engineer C's firm was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal and that this competitive financial interest created a conflict of interest that the City Administrator should weigh in evaluating any opinions Engineer C provided.
sourcetext: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
temporalscope: Before or contemporaneously with providing any evaluative opinions about Engineer B's work to the City Administrator
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.859274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Evaluation Context
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Client A solicited Engineer C's opinions through the ethical analysis period
affectedparties: Client A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Engineer C
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:21:41.520751+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:21:41.520751+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer C's simultaneous role as potential evaluator of Engineer B's work and as a competing firm seeking future work from Client A
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case
textreferences: Competitive edges are sought to win work over other firms
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
textreferences: using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way
triggeringevent: Engineer C was asked to evaluate a competitor's work by a client who controls future contract awards, creating direct tension between honest professional assessment and competitive self-interest
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.857268
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique Invoked By Engineer C
type: ProhibitiononReputationInjuryThroughCompetitiveCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's critical evaluation of Engineer B's decisions communicated to City Administrator
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Truthfulness
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C provided critical assessments of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator, knowing that these critical assessments could damage Engineer B's prospects for contract renewal and benefit Engineer C's competitive position for the same contract
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, Engineer C's critique of Engineer B constitutes an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional reputation and prospects through competitive critique rendered in circumstances where Engineer C stands to benefit professionally from Engineer B's diminished standing — precisely the conduct this principle prohibits
invokedby: Engineer C
principleclass: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
sourcetext: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
tensionresolution: Even if Engineer C's critique was technically accurate, the self-serving competitive context in which it was rendered renders it ethically impermissible under this principle, because the reputational harm to Engineer B serves Engineer C's competitive interest rather than any legitimate professional or public welfare purpose
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.473484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Engineer C Review of Engineer B
type: ActiveContractIncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementBeforeReviewObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer B Faithful Performance Under Contested Contract Obligation Instance
defeasible under: Engineer B Incumbent Under Active Contract
casecontext: Engineer C evaluated and criticized Engineer B's professional decisions at the City Administrator's request without Engineer B having any knowledge that their work was being reviewed and critiqued by a competitor.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
derived from principle: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Invoked By Engineer C
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Active Contract Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Before Review Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from evaluating and criticizing Engineer B's professional decisions for the City Administrator without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active, non-terminated contract with City A, recognizing that the Code of Ethics prohibits review of another engineer's work for the same client except with the knowledge of that engineer or unless the engineer's connection with the work has been terminated.
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's solicitation and throughout any evaluation provided
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.475874
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority Individual
type: CityAdministratorEngineeringProcurementAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Applied to City Administrator
adheres to principle: Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Violated by City Administrator
adheres to principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked By Engineer C and City Administrator
has obligation: City Administrator Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Instance
has obligation: City Administrator Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Obligation Instance
has obligation: Client Procurement Process Integrity City Administrator City A
has obligation: Fairness in Professional Competition Engineer C City Administrator Procurement
attributes: {'license': 'Non-engineer administrative official', 'dual_role': 'Incumbent contract coordinator and renewal selection authority', 'prior_relationship': 'Previous experience with competing firm Engineer C', 'conduct': 'Solicited competitor critique of incumbent engineer during active contract'}
caseinvolvement: Non-engineer municipal administrator who coordinates Engineer B's work, questions Engineer B's judgment, holds significant authority over the next contract selection, has prior experience with competitor Engineer C, and improperly solicited Engineer C's critical opinions on Engineer B's work during the active contract period.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:54.803959+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:54.803959+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'coordinator_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'selection_authority_for', 'target': 'City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_critique_from', 'target': 'Engineer C Competing Engineer Improperly Solicited for Incumbent Critique'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority
sourcetext: The City Administrator leads the effort for the city to coordinate the work of Engineer B
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period
textreferences: The City Administrator leads the effort for the city to coordinate the work of Engineer B
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.855534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Applied to City Administrator
type: ClientProcurementProcessIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City A's consulting engineering contract renewal process
appliedto: Engineer B's incumbent contract performance
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C — a competitor — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's work during the active contract renewal process constitutes an improper use of administrative authority that undermines the integrity of the procurement process
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The City Administrator's prior relationship with Engineer C and concurrent authority over the renewal selection process created an obligation to refrain from soliciting competitor opinions on the incumbent, as such solicitation corrupts the merit-based nature of the selection
invokedby: City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority Individual
principleclass: Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
tensionresolution: The client's interest in obtaining independent technical assessment does not justify using a competitor as the source of that assessment during active procurement, as the competitor's interest in the outcome renders the assessment inherently unreliable and the process unfair
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.857728
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Invoked By City Administrator
type: ClientProcurementProcessIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C for critique of Engineer B's work during the final year of Engineer B's contract
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Administrator, who holds significant authority over the next contract selection, solicited Engineer C — a competitor with whom the City Administrator had prior experience — to evaluate and criticize specific decisions of incumbent Engineer B, using this informal competitive critique as a mechanism to build a case affecting the upcoming contract renewal decision
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the City Administrator's use of administrative authority to solicit competitor critique of the incumbent engineer constitutes an improper procurement mechanism that bypasses fair, merit-based, and transparent selection procedures, creating an asymmetric competitive dynamic that compromises the integrity of the upcoming contract selection process
invokedby: City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority
principleclass: Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation
sourcetext: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract. The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
tensionresolution: The obligation to conduct fair procurement processes overrides any administrative convenience or personal preference the City Administrator may have for informal competitive intelligence gathering; the proper mechanism for evaluating incumbent performance is formal performance review, not solicitation of competitor critique
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.473975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Engineer C City Administrator
type: CompetitiveConflictofInterestDisclosureBeforeAdvisoryCritiqueObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance
defeasible under: Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Evaluation Context
casecontext: Engineer C provided critical evaluations of Engineer B's professional decisions to the City Administrator, who held significant authority over the next contract selection, without disclosing that Engineer C was a competitor for that contract.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.96
derived from principle: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements Applied to Engineer C
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Before Advisory Critique Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the City Administrator that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract — and therefore had a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of any critical evaluation of Engineer B's work — before or contemporaneously with providing any evaluative opinions, so that the City Administrator could appropriately weigh Engineer C's advisory opinions in light of that self-interest.
sourcetext: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
temporalscope: Before or contemporaneously with providing any evaluative opinions about Engineer B's work to the City Administrator
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.475091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked By Engineer C Situation
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Contract renewal selection process for City A consulting engineering services
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Professional Competence
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C's participation in critiquing Engineer B while competing for the same contract undermines the fairness of the professional competition for the next 3-year consulting contract with City A
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Fairness in professional competition requires that competing engineers not use solicited critique opportunities as a mechanism to gain competitive advantage over incumbents, as this corrupts the merit-based nature of engineering procurement
invokedby: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
tensionresolution: The principle of fairness in competition takes precedence over any obligation Engineer C might have to share technical opinions, because the context of active competition renders the critique self-serving rather than professionally objective
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.857415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Loyalty Obligation of Engineer B to City A
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's ongoing service relationship with City A during the final year of the 3-year contract
balancingwith: Professional Accountability
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, as the incumbent consulting engineer under an active 3-year contract with City A, bears a loyalty obligation to serve the city's engineering needs faithfully during the contract period, while the city's simultaneous solicitation of competitor critique undermines the trust relationship that loyalty presupposes
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: In this context, the loyalty principle creates a baseline expectation of good-faith service by Engineer B and a corresponding obligation of good-faith dealing by City A — the city's covert solicitation of competitor critique of Engineer B's work during the active contract period represents a breach of the relational trust that the loyalty principle presupposes
invokedby: Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract. The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
tensionresolution: The loyalty obligation runs in both directions — Engineer B owes faithful service to City A, and City A owes Engineer B fair dealing during the active contract period, including refraining from covert competitive evaluation of Engineer B's work through a competitor
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.474792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Violated by City Administrator
type: ClientProcurementProcessIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City A's contract renewal and selection process for consulting engineering services
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Administrator used administrative authority to solicit Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work during an active contract and concurrent renewal process, exploiting the procurement process to obtain competitive intelligence against the incumbent through improper means
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The City Administrator's solicitation of a competitor's critique of the incumbent — without the incumbent's knowledge and during an active contract — constitutes an improper use of administrative procurement authority that corrupts the merit-based selection process
invokedby: City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority Individual
principleclass: Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A. Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
tensionresolution: The obligation to conduct fair procurement overrides any administrative interest in obtaining additional information about the incumbent's performance through informal competitive channels
textreferences: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
textreferences: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.862161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer B Faithful Performance Under Contested Contract Obligation Instance
type: IncumbentEngineerFaithfulPerformanceUnderContestedContractObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Engineer C Review of Engineer B
defeasible under: Engineer B Client Relationship Under Strained Authority
casecontext: Engineer B is in the final year of a 3-year consulting engineering contract with City A, during which the City Administrator has questioned Engineer B's judgment on several occasions and is simultaneously coordinating the selection process for the next 3-year contract.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
derived from principle: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Applied to Engineer B
derived from principle: Loyalty Obligation of Engineer B to City A
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Under Contested Contract Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to continue performing all consulting engineering services for City A faithfully, competently, and in the city's best interests throughout the final year of the active 3-year contract, notwithstanding the City Administrator's repeated questioning of Engineer B's professional judgment and the concurrent contract renewal competition in which Engineer C was participating.
sourcetext: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of the active 3-year contract, particularly during the final year when competitive and reputational pressures are heightened
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.859538
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Honorable Procurement Conduct Obligation Instance
type: HonorableProfessionalConductinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
defeasible under: Engineer C Competitor Informal Consultation
prevails over: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
casecontext: Engineer C was solicited by the City Administrator to provide critical opinions about Engineer B's work during the active contract period and pending renewal competition, and Engineer C participated in that solicitation with awareness that doing so 'in a certain perspective' would advantage Engineer C's competitive position.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
derived from principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated by Engineer C Participation
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all matters related to the City A contract renewal procurement, including declining to participate in a solicitation that placed Engineer C in the role of competitor-critic of the incumbent engineer, and refraining from any conduct that would exploit the City Administrator's improper solicitation as a vehicle for competitive advantage.
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: Throughout the contract renewal procurement process, from the moment of the City Administrator's solicitation
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.859813
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked By Engineer C and City Administrator
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: The competitive process for the next 3-year consulting engineering contract
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C for incumbent critique, combined with Engineer C's willingness to provide that critique, created an asymmetric competitive dynamic in which Engineer C gained insider knowledge of the client's dissatisfactions with Engineer B while Engineer B had no equivalent opportunity to respond, defend his decisions, or even know that a competitor was being consulted about his work
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, fairness in professional competition required both that the City Administrator conduct the contract renewal through formal, equal-access procedures and that Engineer C decline to participate in an informal competitive evaluation that gave Engineer C an unfair advantage over Engineer B
invokedby: City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority
invokedby: Engineer C
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
tensionresolution: The principle of fair competition requires that competitive advantages be earned through merit demonstrated in formal evaluation processes, not through exploitation of informal relationships with procurement officials or participation in covert incumbent critique
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.474138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Invoked Against Engineer C
type: IncompleteSituationalKnowledgeRestraintinCompetitorCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's specific criticism of Engineer B's professional decisions
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Honesty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made professional decisions, yet rendered specific critical opinions about those decisions. This violated the principle requiring restraint from specific critique when situational knowledge is incomplete.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, incomplete situational knowledge required Engineer C to refrain from specific criticism of Engineer B's decisions, because Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and could not know all the circumstances that informed those decisions
invokedby: Engineer C
principleclass: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
sourcetext: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful.
tensionresolution: The restraint from critique under incomplete situational knowledge overrides the general obligation to respond to client inquiries, because subjectively truthful opinions may be objectively inaccurate when situational knowledge is incomplete
textreferences: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process.
textreferences: Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
textreferences: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.481047
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Invoked By Engineer C
type: IncompleteSituationalKnowledgeRestraintinCompetitorCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's specific critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions on city engineering issues
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Truthfulness
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C rendered specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions without having access to the full project record, client instructions, contractual constraints, site conditions, or other contextual factors that shaped Engineer B's decisions — evaluating only the specific issues raised by the City Administrator from the City Administrator's perspective
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:12:49.348529+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, Engineer C lacked the complete situational knowledge necessary to render fair and accurate critical opinions about Engineer B's decisions, because Engineer C had access only to the City Administrator's framing of the issues rather than the full professional context in which Engineer B made those decisions
invokedby: Engineer C
principleclass: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
sourcetext: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City. Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
tensionresolution: The principle of epistemic humility and professional fairness requires that engineers refrain from rendering specific critical opinions when they lack full situational context, even if their opinions are subjectively truthful based on the limited information available to them
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.473643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Violated by Engineer C
type: IncompleteSituationalKnowledgeRestraintinCompetitorCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's specific critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Truthfulness
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C rendered specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work without having been involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and without knowing all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed the work, resulting in opinions that may have been inaccurate even if Engineer C believed them to be truthful
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer C's epistemic position — as an outsider to Engineer B's decision-making context — required restraint from specific criticism; at most, Engineer C could have answered questions in a very general sense without commenting on specific issues
invokedby: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
principleclass: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
sourcetext: Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances. As such, Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.
tensionresolution: Subjective truthfulness does not satisfy the principle's requirement; accuracy requires full situational knowledge, which Engineer C lacked, so restraint from specific critique was obligatory even if Engineer C believed the critique to be true
textreferences: Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances
textreferences: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
textreferences: Engineer C should have refrained from any criticism. While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues
textreferences: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.858969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority
type: CityAdministratorEngineeringProcurementAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Applied to City Administrator
adheres to principle: Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Invoked By City Administrator
adheres to principle: Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Violated by City Administrator
adheres to principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked By Engineer C and City Administrator
adheres to principle: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Violated by Engineer C and Client A
has obligation: City Administrator Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Instance
has obligation: City Administrator Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Obligation Instance
has obligation: Client Procurement Process Integrity City Administrator City A
has obligation: Fairness in Professional Competition Engineer C City Administrator Procurement
attributes: {'license': 'Non-engineer administrative official', 'authority': 'Coordinates incumbent work and heavily involved in next contract selection', 'prior_relationship': 'Previous experience with competing firm Engineer C'}
caseinvolvement: Non-engineer municipal administrative official who coordinates the incumbent engineer's work, holds significant authority over the next contract selection, has questioned the incumbent's judgment, and improperly solicits a competitor to critique the incumbent's specific decisions.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:10:01.986691+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:10:01.986691+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'coordinator', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract'}
relationships: {'type': 'improper_solicitor', 'target': 'Engineer C Competing Engineer Solicited for Incumbent Critique'}
relationships: {'type': 'procurement_authority', 'target': 'City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority
sourcetext: The City Administrator leads the effort for the city to coordinate the work of Engineer B
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions
textreferences: The City Administrator leads the effort for the city to coordinate the work of Engineer B
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.471631
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition Applied to Engineer C
type: CompetitorCritiqueSolicitationProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Administrator's solicitation of Engineer C's opinions on Engineer B's work
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C should have declined to provide critical evaluations of Engineer B's work when solicited by the City Administrator, recognizing that doing so during an active contract renewal process constituted using professional opinion as a pretext for competitive advantage
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineer C's full awareness that answering critically would provide competitive advantage obligated Engineer C to either decline the solicitation or disclose the conflict of interest before providing any opinion
invokedby: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
principleclass: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on using competitor critique as competitive pretext overrides any general obligation to share professional opinions when the engineer is aware the context is inherently self-serving; only genuine misconduct rising to reportable levels would create an overriding obligation to respond
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.857553
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition Obligation Instance
type: TruthfulnessInsufficiencyRecognitioninCompetitorCritiqueObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance
defeasible under: Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge of Engineer B's Work
casecontext: Engineer C believed his critique of Engineer B was truthful but lacked full situational knowledge of Engineer B's decision-making context, making the critique potentially inaccurate despite Engineer C's subjective belief in its truthfulness.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
derived from principle: Honesty Principle Insufficient Alone to Justify Engineer C Critique
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition in Competitor Critique Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to recognize that his subjective belief in the truthfulness of his critique of Engineer B's work was insufficient to render that critique ethically permissible, given that Engineer C lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B made his professional decisions, and that accuracy — not merely subjective truthfulness — is required before rendering competitive critique.
sourcetext: Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer C formulated and delivered opinions about Engineer B's work to the City Administrator
textreferences: Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
textreferences: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.863236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Honesty Principle Insufficient Alone to Justify Engineer C Critique
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's critical opinions about Engineer B's professional decisions
balancingwith: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition
balancingwith: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C's subjective belief in the truthfulness of the critique of Engineer B's work was insufficient to render the critique ethically permissible, because honesty alone does not satisfy the professional obligations that prohibit competitive critique rendered without full situational knowledge and without the incumbent's knowledge
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Honesty is a necessary but not sufficient condition for permissible professional critique; in competitive contexts with incomplete situational knowledge, subjective truthfulness does not override the prohibitions on competitor critique and reputation injury
invokedby: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
tensionresolution: The prohibitions on competitive critique and reputation injury override the engineer's interest in being forthright with the client, because the competitive and epistemic context makes the critique improper regardless of its subjective truthfulness
textreferences: Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances
textreferences: Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.862617
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique Invoked Against Engineer C
type: ProhibitiononReputationInjuryThroughCompetitiveCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's critical evaluation of Engineer B's professional work and decisions
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Truthfulness
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work, rendered in a context where Engineer C stood to gain competitive advantage by diminishing Engineer B's standing with Client A, constituted an attempt to injure Engineer B's professional reputation, prospects, and practice through improper and questionable methods
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The competitive benefit Engineer C could derive from the critique — securing future work with Client A at Engineer B's expense — transforms the critique from potentially permissible professional commentary into prohibited reputation injury, paralleling the BER Case 01-1 finding
invokedby: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
principleclass: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
sourcetext: Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. For this reason, in the present case, using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique overrides Engineer C's interest in responding to the City Administrator's questions, because the competitive context makes participation inherently improper regardless of the content of the critique
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
textreferences: Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers
textreferences: using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.859119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

City Administrator Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Instance
type: ClientProcurementProcessIntegrityPreservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Fairness in Professional Competition Engineer C City Administrator Procurement
defeasible under: City Administrator Procurement-Influencing Informal Peer Solicitation
prevails over: Fairness in Professional Competition Engineer C City Administrator Procurement
casecontext: The City Administrator used administrative authority to contact Engineer C and solicit critical opinions about Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under an active contract and while the contract renewal selection process was underway.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Invoked By City Administrator
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City Administrator (Client A)
obligationclass: Client Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Obligation
obligationstatement: The City Administrator was obligated to refrain from soliciting Engineer C — a competitor for the Client A contract — to evaluate and critique Engineer B's work during the active contract period and concurrent renewal process, recognizing that such solicitation compromised the fairness of the competitive process, created conflicts of interest for Engineer C, and undermined Engineer B's professional standing without due process.
sourcetext: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A.
temporalscope: During the active contract period and concurrent contract renewal selection process
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work.
textreferences: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A.
textreferences: In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.863935
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Competitor Critique Declination Engineer C City A Contract
type: CompetitorCritiqueDeclinationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer C Competitor Informal Consultation with City Administrator
casecontext: Engineer C, a competing firm with a prior relationship with the City Administrator, was contacted to evaluate specific decisions made by incumbent Engineer B during the active contract period, while the renewal competition was pending.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
derived from principle: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition Applied to Engineer C
derived from principle: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer C
derived from principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked By Engineer C Situation
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Competitor Critique Declination Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to decline the City Administrator's solicitation to evaluate and criticize Engineer B's professional decisions, recognizing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year consulting engineering contract and that providing such critique created an inherent conflict of interest and constituted use of a competitive advantage derived from improper means.
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of the City Administrator's solicitation, before providing any evaluative opinions about Engineer B's work
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.474939
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Engineer C City Administrator Procurement
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: City Administrator Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Instance
casecontext: The City Administrator, who held significant authority over the next contract selection and had prior experience with Engineer C, solicited Engineer C to evaluate and criticize the incumbent Engineer B's work, creating an unfair competitive dynamic that undermined the integrity of the procurement process.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked By Engineer C and City Administrator
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T18:14:35.306994+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City Administrator
obligationclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
obligationstatement: The City Administrator was obligated to ensure that the process for selecting the next consulting engineering firm was conducted fairly and without exploitation of the City Administrator's prior relationship with Engineer C, refraining from using that relationship to obtain competitive intelligence about the incumbent Engineer B that would advantage Engineer C in the upcoming selection process.
sourcetext: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
temporalscope: Throughout the contract renewal and selection process for the next 3-year consulting engineering contract
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
textreferences: The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T18:27:44.476356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Violated by Engineer C Review
type: IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementinPeerReview
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work products for City Administrator
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C reviewed and criticized Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B remained under an active contract with Client A that had not been terminated, violating the NSPE Code requirement that such review occur only with the incumbent's knowledge or after contract termination
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The knowledge requirement is a bright-line condition: because Engineer B had no knowledge of the review and the contract was still active, Engineer C's participation was impermissible regardless of the accuracy or good faith of the critique
invokedby: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
principleclass: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer Review
sourcetext: the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated. In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C. Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
tensionresolution: The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides any obligation to respond to the City Administrator's requests, because the Code's prohibition is categorical when the incumbent lacks knowledge and the contract is active
textreferences: Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C
textreferences: Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated
textreferences: the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.858795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Objectivity Obligation Applied to Engineer C Critical Opinions
type: Objectivity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's technical opinions on Engineer B's engineering decisions
balancingwith: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition
balancingwith: Honesty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C's awareness that answering 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position obligated him to provide only objective, technically grounded assessments of Engineer B's work — or to decline — rather than shaping his critique to serve competitive ends
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Objectivity as a professional principle requires that technical opinions not be colored by the engineer's personal or commercial interests in the outcome; Engineer C's self-awareness of the pretext undermines any claim to objectivity in the critique provided
invokedby: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
principleclass: Objectivity
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
tensionresolution: Objectivity cannot be maintained when the engineer providing the opinion is simultaneously competing for the work being evaluated; the structural conflict of interest makes genuine objectivity impossible in this context
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.858023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements Applied to Engineer C
type: ConflictofInterestDisclosureinAdvisoryEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer C's advisory opinions on Engineer B's professional decisions
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C, having a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of the City A contract renewal, was obligated to affirmatively disclose that conflict of interest to the City Administrator before providing any opinions on Engineer B's work, so that the City Administrator could assess the objectivity of the advice
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The conflict of interest disclosure obligation applies with particular force when the advisory engagement is unsolicited in the formal sense and the advisor has a direct competitive stake in how the client receives the advice
invokedby: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
principleclass: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
tensionresolution: Disclosure of the conflict does not necessarily prohibit providing the opinion, but failure to disclose while providing self-serving critical opinions constitutes a violation of the relational principle governing advisory engagements
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.857867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Obligation Instance
type: ActiveContractIncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementBeforeReviewObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
defeasible under: Engineer B Active Contract During Engineer C Solicitation
prevails over: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
prevails over: Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
casecontext: Engineer C evaluated Engineer B's work at the City Administrator's solicitation while Engineer B was still under a 3-year consulting contract with Client A that had not been terminated.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
derived from principle: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Violated by Engineer C Review
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Active Contract Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Before Review Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from reviewing or evaluating Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active, non-terminated contract with Client A at the time of the review.
sourcetext: The Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's solicitation and during any evaluation of Engineer B's work
textreferences: Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
textreferences: In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.
textreferences: The Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.862899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Obligation Instance
type: IncompleteKnowledgeRestraintinCompetitorCritiqueObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
prevails over: Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
casecontext: Engineer C was solicited by the City Administrator to evaluate Engineer B's work while Engineer B remained under an active contract with Client A and while Engineer C was competing for future work with Client A.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Violated by Engineer C
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Incomplete Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from rendering specific critical opinions about Engineer B's work because Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process and lacked full knowledge of the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work, making Engineer C's opinions potentially inaccurate even if subjectively believed to be truthful.
sourcetext: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process.
temporalscope: At the time of the City Administrator's solicitation and throughout any subsequent conversation about Engineer B's work
textreferences: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process.
textreferences: Engineer C should have refrained from any criticism.
textreferences: Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B's decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.862759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Prohibition on Reputation Injury Obligation Instance
type: CollegialObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
defeasible under: Engineer C Self-Interested Delivery Method Recommendation Analog
prevails over: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
casecontext: Engineer C's critique of Engineer B's work was rendered in a context where Engineer C stood to gain competitive advantage by diminishing Engineer B's professional standing with Client A, and where Engineer C lacked full knowledge of Engineer B's decision-making circumstances.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique Invoked Against Engineer C
derived from principle: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique Invoked By Engineer C
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Collegial Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to refrain from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of Engineer B through competitive critique rendered without full knowledge of Engineer B's circumstances.
sourcetext: Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
temporalscope: During and after the conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's work
textreferences: Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
textreferences: Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
textreferences: using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.864074
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated by Engineer C Participation
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Contract renewal selection process for consulting engineering services with Client A
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer C's participation in the City Administrator's solicited critique of Engineer B created an unfair competitive advantage for Engineer C in the upcoming contract renewal process, undermining the principle that engineering work should be awarded on the basis of qualifications and merit rather than through exploitation of improper competitive intelligence
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Fairness in professional competition requires that competing engineers not exploit opportunities created by clients' improper solicitations to gain competitive advantage; Engineer C's obligation was to decline participation rather than to benefit from the City Administrator's improper conduct
invokedby: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: Competition for engineering work by private consulting firms can be quite intense. Selection of a winning proposal may be made on razor-thin margins. Competitive edges are sought to win work over other firms. The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration.
tensionresolution: Fairness in competition overrides any interest Engineer C might have in responding to the City Administrator's questions, because participation — regardless of content — constitutes exploitation of an unfair competitive opportunity
textreferences: Competition for engineering work by private consulting firms can be quite intense. Selection of a winning proposal may be made on razor-thin margins. Competitive edges are sought to win work over other firms. The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration
textreferences: Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer's work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.862472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Applied to Engineer B
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's ongoing consulting services for City A in the final year of contract
balancingwith: Professional Competence
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, as incumbent consulting engineer, is obligated to continue performing faithfully under the active 3-year contract despite the City Administrator's repeated questioning of his professional judgment, retaining the right to defend professional decisions through appropriate channels
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:22:54.462969+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation requires Engineer B to continue serving City A's interests diligently through the contract term, while the repeated questioning of his judgment by a non-engineer administrator creates a context in which his professional authority and ethical limits become relevant
invokedby: Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
tensionresolution: Engineer B's faithful agent obligation is not compromised by the City Administrator's questioning; Engineer B retains professional authority over engineering judgments and is not obligated to defer to non-engineer administrative preferences on technical matters
textreferences: Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract.
textreferences: The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.858335
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
type: CompetingEngineerImproperlySolicitedforIncumbentCritique
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition Applied to Engineer C
adheres to principle: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements Applied to Engineer C
adheres to principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated by Engineer C Participation
adheres to principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked By Engineer C Situation
adheres to principle: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Violated by Engineer C
adheres to principle: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Violated by Engineer C Review
adheres to principle: Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation Applied to Engineer C
adheres to principle: Objectivity Obligation Applied to Engineer C Critical Opinions
adheres to principle: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique Invoked Against Engineer C
adheres to principle: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization Applied to Engineer C Critique
has obligation: Competitor Critique Declination Engineer C City A Contract
has obligation: Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Collegial Non-Harm to Incumbent Reputation Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Competitive Conflict Disclosure Before Critique Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Prohibition on Reputation Injury Obligation Instance
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'competitive_status': "Competitor for Client A's future engineering contract", 'knowledge_limitation': "Not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process; lacked full situational awareness"}
caseinvolvement: Engineer C, a competitor for future work with Client A, was contacted by the City Administrator and asked to evaluate Engineer B's work while Engineer B was still under active contract. Engineer C provided criticism of Engineer B's work without full knowledge of the circumstances behind Engineer B's decisions, potentially gaining an unfair competitive advantage and risking injury to Engineer B's professional reputation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:21:25.232840+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:21:25.232840+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'potential_client', 'target': 'Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Competing Engineer Improperly Solicited for Incumbent Critique
sourcetext: Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A
textreferences: Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
textreferences: Engineer C should have refrained from any criticism
textreferences: Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.856231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance
type: CompetitorCritiqueDeclinationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Engineer C City Administrator
competes with: Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
competes with: Engineer C Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition Obligation Instance
defeasible under: Engineer C Competitor Informal Consultation
prevails over: Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
prevails over: Engineer C Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition Obligation Instance
casecontext: Engineer C, a competing firm with a prior relationship with the City Administrator, was contacted during the final year of Engineer B's active 3-year contract and asked to provide critical opinions on specific engineering issues Engineer B had worked on for the City, while the contract renewal selection process was underway.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition Applied to Engineer C
derived from principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated by Engineer C Participation
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Competitor Critique Declination Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C was obligated to decline the City Administrator's solicitation to evaluate and critique Engineer B's engineering decisions, recognizing that Engineer C was a direct competitor for the upcoming 3-year contract renewal and that providing such critique — particularly 'in a certain perspective' — would constitute use of an improper competitive advantage and would undermine the fairness of the professional competition.
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: Upon being contacted by the City Administrator and before providing any evaluative opinions about Engineer B's work
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.863373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
type: SolicitedCompetitorCritiqueObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Obligation Instance
competes with: Engineer C Honorable Procurement Conduct Obligation Instance
competes with: Engineer C Prohibition on Reputation Injury Obligation Instance
defeasible under: Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
defeasible under: Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Procurement Competition
casecontext: Engineer C was aware that answering the City Administrator's questions 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position in the Client A contract renewal.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Objectivity Obligation Applied to Engineer C Critical Opinions
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C, having engaged in conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's work despite the obligation to decline, was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments, refraining from framing opinions 'in a certain perspective' designed to advantage Engineer C's competitive position, and to include all relevant information pertinent to a fair evaluation of Engineer B's work.
sourcetext: Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.
temporalscope: During and after the conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's work
textreferences: Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.
textreferences: using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.863636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
type: SolicitedCompetitorCritiqueObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance
competes with: Engineer C Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Obligation Instance
defeasible under: Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
defeasible under: Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Evaluation Context
defeasible under: Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Solicitation Response
casecontext: Engineer C provided critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions to the City Administrator while fully aware that answering 'in a certain perspective' would serve as a pretext for gaining competitive advantage in the upcoming 3-year contract renewal.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Objectivity Compromised by Engineer C's Competitive Interest
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer C
obligationclass: Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer C, having agreed to respond to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work, was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments of the specific engineering issues raised, refraining from framing opinions 'in a certain perspective' designed to advantage Engineer C's competitive position in the upcoming contract renewal, and including all relevant information pertinent to a fair evaluation of Engineer B's decisions.
sourcetext: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
temporalscope: At the time of providing responses to the City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.859409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction

Engineer C Competing Engineer Improperly Solicited for Incumbent Critique
type: CompetingEngineerImproperlySolicitedforIncumbentCritique
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition Applied to Engineer C
adheres to principle: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer C
adheres to principle: Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition Invoked By Engineer C
adheres to principle: Conflict of Interest Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer C
adheres to principle: Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements Applied to Engineer C
adheres to principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Implicated by Engineer C Participation
adheres to principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked By Engineer C Situation
adheres to principle: Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked By Engineer C and City Administrator
adheres to principle: Honesty Principle Insufficient Alone to Justify Engineer C Critique
adheres to principle: Honesty Principle Tension with Accuracy in Engineer C Critique
adheres to principle: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Invoked Against Engineer C
adheres to principle: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint Invoked By Engineer C
adheres to principle: Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Invoked By Engineer C
adheres to principle: Non-Self-Serving Advisory Obligation Applied to Engineer C
adheres to principle: Objectivity Compromised by Engineer C's Competitive Interest
adheres to principle: Objectivity Obligation Applied to Engineer C Critical Opinions
adheres to principle: Objectivity Principle Violated By Engineer C
adheres to principle: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique Invoked Against Engineer C
adheres to principle: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique Invoked By Engineer C
adheres to principle: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization Applied to Engineer C Critique
has obligation: Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Engineer C Review of Engineer B
has obligation: Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Engineer C City Administrator
has obligation: Competitor Critique Declination Engineer C City A Contract
has obligation: Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Collegial Non-Harm to Incumbent Reputation Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Competitive Conflict Disclosure Before Critique Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C General-Only Response Limitation Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C General Only Response Limitation Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Honorable Procurement Conduct Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Prohibition on Reputation Injury Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
has obligation: Engineer C Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition Obligation Instance
has obligation: General Only Response Limitation Engineer C City Administrator Solicitation
has obligation: Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Engineer C Engineer B Decisions
has obligation: Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Engineer C Critical Evaluation
has obligation: Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition Engineer C Critique of Engineer B
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'competitive_status': 'Competitor for next 3-year contract', 'ethical_awareness': 'Fully realized the impropriety of the solicitation and its competitive implications', 'conduct': 'Answered questions and was critical of incumbent Engineer B'}
caseinvolvement: A competing engineering firm with prior relationship with the City Administrator, contacted by the Administrator to provide opinions on Engineer B's work; fully aware that answering critically would serve as a pretext for competitive advantage in the upcoming contract renewal; chose to answer and was critical of Engineer B's decisions.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 20
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T16:20:54.803959+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 20
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T16:20:54.803959+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competing_for_contract_with', 'target': 'City A Municipal Consulting Engineering Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'competitor_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Incumbent Consulting Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'solicited_by', 'target': 'City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Competing Engineer Improperly Solicited for Incumbent Critique
sourcetext: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C
textreferences: Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions
textreferences: Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract
textreferences: The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C
textreferences: The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City
wasattributedto: Case 20 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T16:36:27.855388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 20 Extraction