ProEthica Case 6 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.588933
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Attorney X Client
type: Provider-ClientRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'profession': 'Attorney', 'context': 'BER Case 21-9'}
caseinvolvement: Attorney who retained Engineer A to provide non-engineering expert testimony in State M legal proceedings, establishing the client relationship that triggered Engineer A's obligations regarding licensure disclosure.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
importance: low
relationships: {'type': 'retained', 'target': 'Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness BER 21-9'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Provider-Client Role
sourcetext: Attorney X contacted Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M
textreferences: Attorney X contacted Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.594608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Award Three Compliant Firm Z Contracts
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

BER Case 08-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 08-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: The Board of Ethical Review (BER) Case 08-8 provides helpful precedent.
textreferences: BER Case 08-8 concluded that one of the most fundamental outcomes of these antitrust actions and rules was the basic principle that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect.
textreferences: The Board of Ethical Review (BER) Case 08-8 provides helpful precedent.
usedby: BER in current case analysis
usedincontext: Provides precedent establishing that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected by antitrust-driven code revisions and remain in full force and effect
version: 2008
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.592583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

BER Case 21-9
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 21-9
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 21-9, where Engineer A was a licensed professional engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and was a Board Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering.
textreferences: BER Case 21-9, where Engineer A was a licensed professional engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and was a Board Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering.
textreferences: the BER concluded that if Engineer A qualified as an expert without relying on engineering qualifications, Engineer A's self-presentation as a consultant-expert without identifying status as a licensed professional engineer was not unethical. However, when Engineer A claimed status as a Board Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, Engineer A's self-presentation became unethical.
usedby: BER in current case analysis
usedincontext: Provides precedent on licensure compliance obligations, establishing that engineers must conform with state registration laws and that self-presentation using engineering credentials in unlicensed jurisdictions is unethical
version: 2021
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.593330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

BER Case 22-1
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 22-1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Recent BER cases demonstrate that an engineer's careful compliance with licensure law is expected. For example, BER Case 22-1 introduced Engineer A, a consulting engineer...
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to report 'Transportation Engineer' B for unlicensed practice
textreferences: Recent BER cases demonstrate that an engineer's careful compliance with licensure law is expected. For example, BER Case 22-1 introduced Engineer A, a consulting engineer...
textreferences: the BER found it was unlawful and therefore not ethical for 'Transportation Engineer' B to engage in the practice of engineering without having fulfilled the requirements for licensure
usedby: BER in current case analysis
usedincontext: Provides precedent that engineers must comply carefully with licensure law, and that practicing engineering without fulfilling licensure requirements is unlawful and therefore unethical; also establishes obligation to report unlicensed practice
version: 2022
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.592893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

BER Case 23-3
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 23-3
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 23-3 discussed Engineer D, a licensed professional engineer, who worked as the City Engineer in a mid-sized municipality...
textreferences: BER Case 23-3 discussed Engineer D, a licensed professional engineer, who worked as the City Engineer in a mid-sized municipality...
textreferences: the BER acknowledged: Some might assert that because Engineer A's employment contract with the City did not include a revolving door prohibition, nothing more needs to be said. But the BER does not hold this perspective.
usedby: BER in current case analysis
usedincontext: Provides precedent on revolving door ethics for engineers transitioning from public agency roles to private firms, establishing that the spirit of the ethics code applies beyond contractual provisions
version: 2023
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.593025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

BER Case 58-1
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 58-1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 58-1 speaks of the 'purity of the enterprise, of avoiding 'dishonor to the profession, and how engineers must consider not only the letter but the spirit of the ethics code.
textreferences: BER Case 58-1 speaks of the 'purity of the enterprise, of avoiding 'dishonor to the profession, and how engineers must consider not only the letter but the spirit of the ethics code.
usedby: BER in analysis of BER Case 23-3 and current case
usedincontext: Cited within BER Case 23-3 analysis for the principle of 'purity of the enterprise' and avoiding dishonor to the profession, establishing that engineers must consider not only the letter but the spirit of the ethics code
version: 1958
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.593167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

BER Case 80-1
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 80-1
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: BER Case 80-1 examined a state agency's selection method that mixed qualifications screening with a post-scoping meeting price proposal.
textreferences: BER Case 80-1 examined a state agency's selection method that mixed qualifications screening with a post-scoping meeting price proposal.
textreferences: Earlier BER opinions confirm that engineers may, and sometimes must, challenge procurement practices that could compromise the public interest.
textreferences: The BER held that lodging such a protest was not an unfair competitive act under the Code.
usedby: BER in current case analysis
usedincontext: Provides precedent that engineers may challenge procurement practices that compromise the public interest, and that protesting an award on grounds of inadequate design is not an unfair competitive act under the Code
version: 1980
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.592740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Case 6 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.611413
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

CausalLink_Award Three Compliant Firm Z C
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

CausalLink_City Engineer Dismisses Correc
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158554
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Investigates Report
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer B Reports Contracting
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158451
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

CausalLink_Escalate to City Manager and A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

CausalLink_Hire Firm X via RFQ
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

CausalLink_Report Findings to City Engine
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158508
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

CausalLink_Unilaterally Award Contracts W
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Council Authorization and RFQ Threshold Requirement
type: PublicContractingThresholdRequirement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: City D municipal government
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: City D Municipal Procurement Rules — Contract Authorization Thresholds
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:04:56.425673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:04:56.425673+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Contracting Threshold Requirement
sourcetext: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements
textreferences: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process
usedby: Engineer A, City D's Engineer
usedincontext: Specifies the dollar-amount threshold above which City D contracts require both City Council authorization and a competitive RFQ process; the two most recent Firm Z contracts violated this requirement, forming the core compliance concern investigated by Engineer A
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.589509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Employer
type: EmployerRelationshipRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'jurisdiction': 'State with codified QBS procurement laws'}
caseinvolvement: Municipal employer of Engineer A (and City D's Engineer), subject to QBS procurement laws, whose contracting practices are under investigation for non-compliance
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'contracts_with', 'target': 'Firm X'}
relationships: {'type': 'contracts_with', 'target': 'Firm Z'}
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'City D Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Employer Relationship Role
sourcetext: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, joins City D's engineering department
textreferences: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels
textreferences: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, joins City D's engineering department
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.590853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Engineer
type: CityEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'position': 'City Engineer', 'employer': 'City D'}
caseinvolvement: The City Engineer of City D whose department awarded contracts to Firm Z outside required competitive QBS procurement processes, and who refused to address the contract arrangement with Firm Z when raised by Engineer A, triggering escalation obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'awarded_contracts_to', 'target': 'Firm Z'}
relationships: {'type': 'refused_to_address_concerns_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Engineering Procurement Whistleblower'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Engineer A Procurement Compliance Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: City Engineer
sourcetext: the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law
textreferences: the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law
textreferences: the City D Engineer's refusal to address the contract arrangement with Firm Z
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.594770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Engineer City Engineer
type: CityEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'position': 'City Engineer', 'employer': 'City D'}
caseinvolvement: Approved the two most recent Firm Z contracts without RFQ process despite exceeding Council authorization thresholds; acknowledged non-compliance but dismissed need for corrective action citing convenience and longstanding relationship
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'awarded_contracts_to', 'target': 'Firm Z'}
relationships: {'type': 'dismissed_findings_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: City Engineer
sourcetext: City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action
textreferences: City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer
textreferences: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.590235
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Engineer Dismissal of Procurement Concern
type: SuperiorAuthorityDismissalofComplianceConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From City D Engineer's refusal to act through the present unresolved state
affectedparties: City D Engineer
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Firm Z
affectedparties: State licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the third question asks what steps must Engineer A take given the City D Engineer's refusal to address the contract arrangement with Firm Z
stateclass: Superior Authority Dismissal of Compliance Concern State
subject: City D Engineer's refusal to address Firm Z contract non-compliance after Engineer A's investigation and notification
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — unresolved at time of analysis
textreferences: Engineer D's authority should be respected, and all facts must be carefully checked and verified
textreferences: the third question asks what steps must Engineer A take given the City D Engineer's refusal to address the contract arrangement with Firm Z
triggeringevent: City D Engineer declined to take corrective action regarding the non-QBS contracts with Firm Z despite Engineer A's findings
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.595412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Engineer Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment Own Violations
type: LicensureBoardSelf-ReportingAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The City D Engineer, having acknowledged non-compliance with procurement requirements, was required to assess self-reporting obligations to the state licensure board regarding their own violations of Code section III.8.a
casecontext: City D Engineer's acknowledgment of procurement non-compliance and refusal to take corrective action
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Obligation to consider self-reporting to licensure board following acknowledgment of non-compliant Firm Z contract awards
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City D Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
textreferences: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
textreferences: For this reason, the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.606956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Engineer Procurement Law Knowledge Deficiency
type: ProcurementLawKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Law Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: City D's Engineer possessed awareness of procurement law requirements but failed to apply them, acknowledging non-compliance while rationalizing inaction — indicating a failure of capability application rather than knowledge absence.
casecontext: Demonstrated through the City Engineer's response to Engineer A's compliance findings, where knowledge of the violation was acknowledged but not acted upon.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: City D's Engineer acknowledged that the two most recent Firm Z contracts did not comply with contracting requirements but dismissed corrective action, citing convenience and longstanding relationship.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City D Engineer
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.601288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Engineer Procurement Rationalization Resistance Failure
type: PublicAgencyContractingEthicsCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Agency Contracting Ethics Capability
capabilitystatement: The City D Engineer demonstrated deficient capability to resist rationalization of procurement violations, acknowledging non-compliance but refusing corrective action — failing to apply the spirit as well as the letter of the ethics code
casecontext: City D Engineer's response to Engineer A's investigation findings regarding non-compliant Firm Z contracts
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Refusal to take corrective action on confirmed Firm Z procurement violations despite acknowledgment of non-compliance
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City D Engineer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: This case also discusses how engineers must conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly so as to maintain the public's trust in professional procurement matters.
textreferences: BER Case 58-1 speaks of the 'purity of the enterprise, of avoiding 'dishonor to the profession, and how engineers must consider not only the letter but the spirit of the ethics code.
textreferences: The City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
textreferences: This case also discusses how engineers must conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly so as to maintain the public's trust in professional procurement matters.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.607098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Engineer Public Agency Contracting Ethics Failure
type: PublicAgencyContractingEthicsCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Agency Contracting Ethics Capability
capabilitystatement: City D's Engineer demonstrated a failure of public agency contracting ethics capability by rationalizing procurement violations on grounds of administrative convenience and longstanding relationships rather than taking required corrective action.
casecontext: Demonstrated through the City Engineer's response to Engineer A's compliance findings.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Explicit acknowledgment of non-compliance followed by dismissal of corrective action, citing convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: City D Engineer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.601760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Firm X Contract Compliance State
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From seven years ago through present; contract within original RFQ scope with four optional extensions remaining
affectedparties: City D
affectedparties: City D's Engineer
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm X
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: City D hired Firm X seven years ago through an RFQ process to maintain the citywide traffic model and review traffic studies submitted by private developers
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: City D's contract with Firm X for traffic engineering services
terminatedby: Not terminated; contract remains compliant
textreferences: City D hired Firm X seven years ago through an RFQ process to maintain the citywide traffic model and review traffic studies submitted by private developers
textreferences: The contract includes an option for annual extensions for up to 10 years
textreferences: The work provided by Firm X aligns with the original scope of the RFQ and the resulting contract, with four optional extensions remaining
triggeringevent: City D hired Firm X seven years ago through a proper RFQ process; contract includes annual extension options for up to 10 years
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.591018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Firm Z Contracting History Records
type: ReferenceMaterial
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: City D engineering department
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: City D — Firm Z Civil Engineering Contract Records (Six-Year History)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:04:56.425673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:04:56.425673+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Reference Material
sourcetext: City D has entered into five separate contracts with Firm Z over the past six years, with no recorded issues
textreferences: City D has entered into five separate contracts with Firm Z over the past six years, with no recorded issues
textreferences: However, the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process
textreferences: Records show the first three contracts were awarded through a competitive RFQ process that attracted, on average, four submissions per advertisement
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Provides the evidentiary basis for Engineer A's investigation findings; documents that the first three Firm Z contracts were competitively procured via RFQ while the two most recent were not, establishing the pattern of non-compliance that Engineer A brings to City D's Engineer
version: Current records
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.589779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Firm Z Early Contracts Compliance State
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Over the past six years; first three contracts awarded through competitive RFQ process
affectedparties: City D
affectedparties: City D's Engineer
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm Z
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Records show the first three contracts were awarded through a competitive RFQ process that attracted, on average, four submissions per advertisement
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: City D's first three contracts with Firm Z for civil engineering services
terminatedby: Superseded by non-compliant contracting for the two most recent contracts
textreferences: Records show the first three contracts were awarded through a competitive RFQ process that attracted, on average, four submissions per advertisement
triggeringevent: City D initiated competitive RFQ processes attracting an average of four submissions per advertisement for the first three Firm Z contracts
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.591184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Firm Z Recent Contracts Non-Compliance State
type: ProcurementNon-ComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the award of the two most recent Firm Z contracts through present; unresolved as of Engineer A's investigation
affectedparties: City D
affectedparties: City D's Engineer
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Firm Z
affectedparties: Other qualified firms excluded from competition
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process
stateclass: Procurement Non-Compliance State
subject: City D's two most recent contracts with Firm Z, awarded without RFQ process and without Council authorization
terminatedby: Not yet terminated; City D's Engineer has dismissed corrective action
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification
textreferences: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process
triggeringevent: City Engineer approved two contracts with Firm Z unilaterally, bypassing required RFQ process and Council authorization despite dollar amounts exceeding applicable thresholds
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.591365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Jurisdiction QBS Procurement Laws
type: Qualification-BasedSelectionProcurementLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: State legislature and local government of City D's jurisdiction
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State and Local Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Statutes (Jurisdiction of City D)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:04:56.425673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:04:56.425673+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
sourcetext: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws
textreferences: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws
textreferences: Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process
usedby: Engineer A, Engineer B, City D's Engineer
usedincontext: Establishes the legal mandate for RFQ processes in awarding engineering contracts; defines the compliance baseline against which City D's contracting practices with Firm X and Firm Z are evaluated; grounds Engineer A's professional obligation to investigate and report non-compliant contracting
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.589377
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D Procurement Non-Compliance with Firm Z
type: ProcurementNon-ComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time the two non-QBS contracts were awarded to Firm Z through the present unresolved state
affectedparties: City D
affectedparties: Engineer A (City Engineer)
affectedparties: Engineer B (reporting engineer)
affectedparties: Firm Z engineers
affectedparties: State licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: City D's two recent contract awards to Firm Z appear to have violated the procurement law
stateclass: Procurement Non-Compliance State
subject: City D's contract awards to Firm Z
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — unresolved at time of analysis
textreferences: City D's two recent contract awards to Firm Z appear to have violated the procurement law
textreferences: the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a
triggeringevent: City D awarded two contracts to Firm Z without following required QBS competitive selection procedures
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.595073
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City D's Engineer Superior Authority Dismissal State
type: SuperiorAuthorityDismissalofComplianceConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment City D's Engineer dismissed Engineer A's corrective action recommendations through present; unresolved
affectedparties: City D
affectedparties: City D's Engineer
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Firm Z
affectedparties: Public interest in fair procurement
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification
stateclass: Superior Authority Dismissal of Compliance Concern State
subject: City D's Engineer's response to Engineer A's compliance findings and recommendations
terminatedby: Not yet terminated; dismissal stands as of the case facts
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process
triggeringevent: City D's Engineer acknowledged non-compliance but explicitly declined corrective action, citing convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.591599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City Engineer Dismisses Corrective Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City Engineer Dismisses Corrective Action (Action 7) → Escalate to City Manager and Attorney (Action 8)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

City Engineer dismissing corrective action before Engineer A's required next steps (escalation)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.611188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Collegial Obligation Engineer A Response to Engineer B
type: CollegialObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B, a competing firm owner with no prior relationship to Engineer A, raised concerns about City D's contracting practices. Engineer A committed to investigating those concerns.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Assistant City Engineer)
obligationclass: Collegial Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to treat Engineer B's concerns about exclusionary contracting practices with professional respect and to conduct a genuine investigation, recognizing Engineer B's legitimate professional interest in fair access to public engineering contracts.
sourcetext: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns.
temporalscope: Upon being approached by Engineer B with procurement concerns
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns.
textreferences: Engineers A and B have no historical relationship.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.599452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Competitive Procurement Fairness City D Engineer Firm Z Awards
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D exclusively awarded civil engineering contracts to Firm Z over six years, with the two most recent contracts bypassing the RFQ process that had previously attracted an average of four competing submissions.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City D's Engineer (City Engineer)
obligationclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
obligationstatement: City D's Engineer was obligated to ensure that civil engineering contracts awarded to Firm Z were subject to open, competitive RFQ processes providing all qualified firms a fair opportunity to compete, and was obligated to refrain from establishing an exclusive contracting relationship with Firm Z that circumvented competitive procurement requirements.
sourcetext: Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of awarding contracts to Firm Z, particularly for the two most recent non-compliant contracts
textreferences: Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process.
textreferences: Engineer B expresses frustration that this practice excludes other qualified firms from competing for City D contracts.
textreferences: Records show the first three contracts were awarded through a competitive RFQ process that attracted, on average, four submissions per advertisement.
textreferences: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.606063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint — City D Exclusive Firm Z Awards
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D awarded the two most recent Firm Z contracts without RFQ, excluding other qualified firms from competition despite the first three Firm Z contracts having attracted an average of four submissions per competitive advertisement
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: City D's Engineer
constraintclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
constraintstatement: City D's Engineer was legally and ethically constrained from systematically awarding civil engineering contracts exclusively to Firm Z without competitive RFQ processes, as this practice denied other qualified firms the opportunity to compete for public contracts in violation of QBS procurement law requirements.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: City D jurisdiction QBS procurement laws; NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE BER Case 08-8; NSPE BER Case 80-1
sourcetext: Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process
temporalscope: Throughout the period of the two most recent Firm Z contract awards
textreferences: Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process
textreferences: Engineer B expresses frustration that this practice excludes other qualified firms from competing for City D contracts
textreferences: Records show the first three contracts were awarded through a competitive RFQ process that attracted, on average, four submissions per advertisement
textreferences: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.600092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Compliance Violations Discovered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 301
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: It was not only ethical for Engineer B to complain to Engineer A, it was ethically required that Engineer B report his belief that statutory obligations were not being followed.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.155676
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.7.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer B was ethically required to report the suspected procurement violations to Engineer A, Engineer B's status as a competitor with a direct financial interest in the outcome does not diminish or nullify the ethical obligation to report. The NSPE Code's duty to report known violations is categorical and does not contain a carve-out for self-interested reporters. However, Engineer B's competitive motivation does impose an independent obligation of objectivity: Engineer B was required to report only facts and reasonable beliefs grounded in observable contracting records, not exaggerated or maliciously framed allegations designed to injure Firm Z or Firm X. The distinction matters because Code Section III.7 prohibits engineers from attempting to injure the professional reputation of other engineers through false or malicious statements. So long as Engineer B's report was factually grounded and not embellished to gain competitive advantage, the mixed motive of self-interest and public duty does not render the report unethical. The Board's conclusion that reporting was ethically required should therefore be understood as conditioned on Engineer B's good-faith, fact-based framing of the concern.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.155875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer B was ethically required to report raises a further question the Board did not address: whether Engineer B bore any independent obligation to report directly to City D's governing council, the city manager, or the state engineering licensure board, rather than routing the concern exclusively through Engineer A. The answer is that Engineer B's initial approach to Engineer A was the appropriate first step under the principle of lowest-level resolution, which favors addressing compliance concerns at the most proximate level capable of correcting them before escalating externally. Engineer A, as Assistant City Engineer with direct oversight responsibility for contracting practices, was precisely the internal actor best positioned to investigate and remedy the concern without triggering the reputational and institutional disruption of an external complaint. Engineer B's choice to approach Engineer A first was therefore not only permissible but strategically and ethically sound. However, if Engineer A had declined to investigate or had been complicit in the violations, Engineer B's obligation would have shifted toward direct reporting to the city council or the state licensure board, because the internal channel would have been demonstrably unavailable.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.155955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 104
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: II.1.e.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A's investigation was ethical should be extended to recognize that Engineer A's investigation also served as a necessary precondition for Engineer A's own compliance with Code Section II.1.e., which prohibits aiding or abetting unlawful practice. By joining City D and assuming supervisory responsibility over contracting, Engineer A became a potential instrument through which non-compliant procurement could continue. Without a prompt and thorough investigation, Engineer A risked unwitting complicity in ongoing statutory violations. The investigation was therefore not merely a collegial response to Engineer B's concerns or a routine familiarization exercise; it was an affirmative step required to ensure that Engineer A's own conduct remained lawful and consistent with the Code. This framing also clarifies that the ethical weight of the investigation derived from Engineer A's independent professional obligations, not solely from Engineer B's complaint, meaning the investigation would have been ethically required even if Engineer B had never raised the concern.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.156071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's approval of Engineer A's investigation implicitly validates the distinction Engineer A drew between Firm X's contract and Firm Z's two non-compliant contracts, but the Board did not articulate the analytical basis for that distinction. The Firm X contract was procured through a proper RFQ seven years ago and includes contractually authorized optional extensions that remain within the original scope. Exercising those extensions does not constitute a new procurement and therefore does not trigger a fresh RFQ obligation under QBS law. By contrast, the two most recent Firm Z contracts were entirely new engagements awarded without any RFQ process and without Council authorization, despite exceeding the dollar threshold that mandates both. Engineer A's investigation correctly identified this structural difference, and the Board's endorsement of the investigation implicitly confirms that not all exclusive contractor relationships are ethically equivalent: the compliance status of a contract depends on whether the original award and any subsequent modifications conform to applicable procurement law, not merely on whether a single firm has received repeated work. This nuance is important because it prevents a superficial reading of the facts that would treat Firm X's relationship with City D as equally suspect.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.156159
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 3
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 204
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
cited provision4: II.1.e.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's conclusions, taken together, establish the ethical foundation for Engineer A's next required steps after the City D Engineer's refusal to act, even though the Board's explicit conclusions do not address Q3 directly. Once internal escalation to the immediate superior has been exhausted without result, Engineer A's obligations under Code Sections I.4, I.6, and II.1.f. require graduated escalation to the next available internal authority — most immediately the City Manager or the City Council — before proceeding to external bodies such as the state engineering licensure board. This sequencing reflects the principle that faithful agency to the public employer does not end with the City D Engineer; City D as an institution includes its elected and appointed governing authorities, who have an independent interest in lawful procurement and who were bypassed when the City D Engineer unilaterally approved the non-compliant Firm Z contracts. Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to City D is therefore best fulfilled, not violated, by escalating to the City Manager or Council, because those bodies represent the legitimate institutional principal whose procurement authority was usurped. Only if those internal channels also fail to produce corrective action does Engineer A's obligation shift unambiguously to external reporting to the state licensure board.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.156313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 3
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: A significant ethical dimension the Board did not address is the independent obligation of the City D Engineer, as a licensed professional engineer, with respect to the state engineering licensure board. The City D Engineer is not merely an administrator who made a procedural error; the City D Engineer is a licensed professional engineer who personally approved contracts that violated state QBS procurement laws codified within the professional engineering licensure statutes, acknowledged those violations when confronted, and then affirmatively refused to take corrective action. This sequence — knowing violation, acknowledgment, and deliberate non-correction — constitutes a failure of professional conduct that the Code requires licensed engineers to report to appropriate professional or technical societies and public authorities. The City D Engineer's licensed status does not merely make the violation more serious; it triggers a self-reporting obligation that the City D Engineer has failed to honor, and it creates an independent reporting obligation for Engineer A toward the state licensure board once internal remedies are exhausted. The Board's silence on this point leaves a material gap in the ethical analysis.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.156420
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_107
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.1.e.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 107
conclusion text: The Board's conclusions do not address the ethical position of the engineers at Firm Z who accepted the two non-compliant contracts. Under Code Section III.8.a., engineers are required to conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering, and where QBS procurement laws are codified within the state's professional engineering licensure statutes, accepting a contract awarded in violation of those statutes is not a neutral act. The engineers at Firm Z who executed or performed work under the non-compliant contracts had an independent obligation to satisfy themselves that the procurement was lawful before proceeding, particularly given that the first three Firm Z contracts had been properly awarded through an RFQ process, making the absence of an RFQ on the fourth and fifth contracts a detectable departure from established practice. While the primary legal and ethical responsibility for the non-compliant awards rests with the City D Engineer who approved them, Firm Z's engineers are not entirely insulated from ethical scrutiny, and their continued performance under those contracts after any point at which the procurement irregularity became or should have become apparent to them warrants examination under the Code's non-aiding provision.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.156499
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_108
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 108
conclusion text: From a systemic perspective that the Board did not develop, Engineer B's report and Engineer A's investigation together illustrate that peer reporting by competing engineers is a structurally important mechanism for detecting procurement violations in public agencies, particularly where the violations are concealed within internal administrative records that external auditors may not routinely examine. The counterfactual in which Engineer B remains silent — whether from fear of retaliation, professional awkwardness, or uncertainty about the outcome — is one in which the Firm Z non-compliance likely continues indefinitely, compounding the harm to competitive fairness and public procurement integrity with each successive non-compliant contract. This systemic observation supports a reading of Code Section II.1.f. that treats the reporting obligation not merely as a personal ethical duty but as a collective professional responsibility: the engineering profession's self-regulatory legitimacy depends in part on practitioners being willing to surface violations even when doing so is professionally uncomfortable or competitively motivated. The Board's conclusions, while framed in individual terms, implicitly endorse this systemic function of peer reporting.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.156584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 305
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: It was ethical for Engineer A to investigate City D’s contracting practices, both as a part of A’s own familiarization process and to follow up on Engineer B’s complaints.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.155774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Engineer B was not ethically required to exhaust direct reporting channels to City D's governing council or a state licensing board before approaching Engineer A. The NSPE Code does not impose a strict sequencing requirement that compels a reporting engineer to bypass the most accessible and appropriate internal authority. Engineer A, as the newly appointed Assistant City Engineer with direct oversight responsibility for contracting practices, was precisely the correct initial recipient of Engineer B's concerns. Moreover, Engineer B's competitive interest in City D contracts does not disqualify the report or transform it into an improper act. The Code's provisions on injuring the reputation of other engineers apply to malicious or false statements, not to factually grounded concerns about statutory procurement violations. Because Engineer B's allegations were ultimately confirmed through independent investigation, the competitive motivation does not retroactively taint the ethical validity of the report. Engineer B's approach was both procedurally appropriate and ethically sound as a first step.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.156662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: III.8.a.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: II.1.e.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: The engineers at Firm Z bear an independent ethical obligation under the NSPE Code that is distinct from City D's internal procurement failures. By accepting contracts that were awarded without the required RFQ process and without City Council authorization, Firm Z's engineers participated in an arrangement that they, as licensed professionals with knowledge of QBS procurement law in their jurisdiction, should have recognized as non-compliant. The Code requires engineers to conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering and to conduct themselves lawfully. Accepting a public contract procured in violation of state QBS statutes is not a passive act; it is an affirmative participation in a non-compliant process. Firm Z's engineers were not obligated to refuse work categorically, but they were obligated to raise the procurement irregularity with City D before executing the contracts. Their failure to do so represents a breach of the obligation to act lawfully and to avoid aiding arrangements that circumvent statutory requirements.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.156770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: The City D Engineer's status as a licensed professional engineer significantly amplifies the ethical gravity of the decision to approve the two non-compliant Firm Z contracts and subsequently refuse corrective action. A licensed engineer occupying a senior public agency role is held to a heightened standard of lawful conduct precisely because their licensure signals to the public and to governing bodies that procurement decisions carry professional integrity. When the City D Engineer acknowledged the non-compliance but dismissed the need for corrective action on grounds of convenience and relationship, that rationalization constituted a knowing violation of QBS procurement law by a licensed professional. This triggers a self-reporting obligation under the Code's provision requiring engineers with knowledge of violations to report to appropriate professional bodies. While self-reporting is uncomfortable, the Code does not exempt licensed engineers from this obligation when they are themselves the source of the violation. The City D Engineer's failure to self-report compounds the original procurement violation with a secondary ethical failure.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.156858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 3
cited provision1: II.1.e.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: Engineer A's continued employment at City D after the City D Engineer's refusal to act does not immediately constitute aiding or abetting the unlawful procurement practice, provided Engineer A takes active steps to escalate the matter through appropriate channels. The Code's prohibition on aiding unlawful practice is directed at affirmative facilitation, not at the mere fact of continued employment while pursuing legitimate remediation. However, this protection is conditional and time-limited. If Engineer A remains employed, takes no further action, and allows the non-compliant Firm Z contracts to continue without escalation, the passive acceptance of that arrangement would eventually cross into complicity. The ethical calculus favors remaining employed and escalating internally to the City Manager, City Attorney, or City Council before resorting to external reporting, because internal escalation preserves the opportunity for the most direct and least disruptive correction. Engineer A's strategic value in remaining positioned to escalate is real, but it does not justify indefinite delay. The obligation to escalate becomes urgent and non-deferrable once internal channels are exhausted.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.156961
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 3
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: Engineer A's duty to the public takes categorical precedence over the duty of faithful agency to City D when the City D Engineer, as Engineer A's direct superior, explicitly refuses to correct documented statutory violations. The NSPE Code establishes public welfare as the paramount obligation, and the faithful agent duty is expressly bounded by that paramount obligation. The Code does not require engineers to subordinate lawful public contracting requirements to employer preferences. When the employer's representative — here the City D Engineer — directs by inaction that a statutory violation persist, the employer-client relationship itself becomes the vehicle for the violation, and Engineer A's loyalty obligation cannot extend to protecting that violation. Engineer A must therefore escalate beyond the City D Engineer to the City Manager, City Attorney, or City Council. This escalation is not a betrayal of the employer relationship; it is a fulfillment of Engineer A's obligation to ensure that City D, as an institution, complies with the law, even when one of its officers does not.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.157040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: Engineer B's potential financial motivation for reporting does not ethically compromise the weight that should be given to the allegations, provided the allegations are factually grounded. The principle of fairness in professional competition and the principle of procurement integrity are not undermined simply because the person raising them stands to benefit from their enforcement. The relevant ethical test is whether the allegations are true and whether the reporting mechanism was appropriate, not whether the reporter is disinterested. Engineer A was correct to investigate the concerns on their merits rather than dismissing them because of Engineer B's competitive position. However, Engineer A's investigation needed to be conducted with objectivity and without allowing Engineer B's interest to shape the findings. Because the investigation confirmed the violations independently, the competitive motivation of Engineer B is ethically irrelevant to the validity of the outcome. The Code's prohibition on malicious or false injury to competitors would have been implicated only if Engineer B's allegations had been fabricated or exaggerated, which the facts do not support.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.157127
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 1
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B fulfilled a categorical duty to report the suspected statutory violations, and that duty existed independently of any competitive benefit Engineer B might derive. The Kantian framework underlying the NSPE Code's reporting obligations treats the duty to report known or suspected violations as a universal rule: if all licensed engineers with knowledge of procurement violations remained silent to avoid professional awkwardness or competitive appearances, the entire system of QBS procurement law would be rendered unenforceable. The universalizability of the reporting obligation confirms that Engineer B acted in accordance with categorical duty. The fact that Engineer B also stood to benefit competitively does not negate the deontological validity of the act; mixed motives do not transform a categorically required action into an impermissible one. The ethical weight of the report rests on its conformity with the universal rule, not on the purity of the reporter's intentions.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.157214
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, the City D Engineer's justification of convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z does not produce net public benefit sufficient to outweigh the harms of the non-compliant procurement. The claimed benefits — administrative efficiency and continuity of service — are real but modest and achievable through lawful means, including a properly conducted RFQ that Firm Z could have won on its merits given its prior compliant contract history. Against these modest benefits, the harms are substantial: exclusion of qualified competing firms from public contracts, erosion of public trust in government procurement, violation of statutory QBS requirements that exist precisely to protect the public interest, and the precedent-setting effect of a senior licensed engineer normalizing convenience-based rationalization of legal non-compliance. The systemic harm to public procurement integrity is particularly significant because it is not confined to the two non-compliant contracts; it signals to all participants in the local engineering market that statutory requirements are negotiable when relationships are sufficiently entrenched.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.157278
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, the City D Engineer's dismissal of Engineer A's documented compliance findings represents a fundamental failure of professional character. The virtues of integrity, honesty, and practical wisdom — which the NSPE Code embodies through its requirements of honorable, responsible, and lawful conduct — demand that a licensed engineer in a position of public trust acknowledge legal non-compliance and initiate corrective action, even when doing so is inconvenient or disrupts established relationships. The City D Engineer's rationalization of convenience is not a defensible exercise of professional judgment; it is a rationalization that substitutes personal comfort for professional obligation. A person of genuine professional integrity would have recognized that the longstanding relationship with Firm Z, far from justifying the non-compliance, made it more important to correct the record and restore lawful procurement practices, both to protect the public and to protect Firm Z itself from the reputational and legal risks of contracts awarded outside statutory authority.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.157379
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 305
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: I.4.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's willingness to investigate Engineer B's concerns despite having no prior relationship with Engineer B, despite the potential risk to a new employment position, and despite the possibility that the investigation would implicate Engineer A's own superior, reflects the professional courage and integrity that the NSPE Code demands of licensed engineers in public agency roles. Professional courage is not merely the willingness to act when the path is clear; it is the willingness to pursue truth and compliance when doing so creates personal professional risk. Engineer A's conduct in this regard exemplifies the virtue of practical wisdom: recognizing that the obligation to investigate was real, conducting the investigation with objectivity, and reporting findings honestly to the appropriate superior even knowing that the findings were unwelcome. This conduct stands in direct contrast to the City D Engineer's failure of character and illustrates why the Code's emphasis on honorable and responsible conduct is not merely aspirational but operationally essential in public engineering contexts.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.157456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 306
answers question2: 3
answers question3: 104
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: I.4.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: The systemic harms to public trust in government procurement that would result from Engineer A choosing not to escalate beyond the City D Engineer substantially outweigh the short-term professional risks Engineer A faces by escalating externally. If Engineer A remains silent after the City D Engineer's refusal, the non-compliant Firm Z contracts remain in force, the statutory QBS requirements are effectively nullified for City D, qualified competing firms continue to be excluded without lawful basis, and the precedent is set that a senior engineer's personal convenience can override statutory procurement requirements. These harms compound over time: each subsequent contract cycle that proceeds without correction deepens the institutional normalization of non-compliance. By contrast, the professional risks to Engineer A from escalating — potential friction with the City D Engineer, possible employment instability — are real but manageable, particularly because Engineer A's escalation is grounded in documented findings and is directed at restoring lawful compliance rather than attacking any individual. The Code's structure, which places public welfare paramount and requires reporting of violations, reflects precisely this consequentialist judgment: the long-term public interest in procurement integrity outweighs the short-term personal costs of reporting.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.157651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: If Engineer B had not reported the contracting concerns to Engineer A, City D's procurement violations with Firm Z would very likely have continued undetected, at least in the near term. Engineer A, as a newly appointed Assistant City Engineer still in the familiarization phase, might eventually have discovered the non-compliance through routine review of contracting records, but there is no certainty of that outcome, and the discovery would have been delayed. This counterfactual underscores the systemic importance of peer reporting obligations in public engineering contexts: the distributed knowledge held by competing firms and other market participants often provides the most timely and reliable signal of procurement irregularities that internal staff may not yet have encountered. The NSPE Code's reporting obligation in Section II.1.f. is not merely an individual ethical requirement; it functions as a systemic compliance mechanism that depends on the willingness of engineers across the profession — including competitors — to report suspected violations. Engineer B's report was therefore not only individually ethical but institutionally valuable.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.157739
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 3
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: If the City D Engineer had acknowledged the Firm Z non-compliance and initiated corrective action upon Engineer A's recommendation, Engineer A's obligations under the NSPE Code would have been substantially satisfied without requiring external reporting. The Code's graduated escalation framework — which prioritizes resolution at the lowest effective level — supports the conclusion that successful internal remediation fulfills the reporting obligation when the violation is acknowledged and corrected. However, Engineer A would still have needed to assess whether the corrective action was adequate: whether the non-compliant contracts were formally addressed, whether future procurement would be conducted lawfully, and whether the City Council was appropriately informed of the prior non-compliance given that the contracts exceeded the Council authorization threshold. If the City D Engineer had corrected the process going forward but concealed the prior violations from the Council, Engineer A's obligations would not have been fully discharged, because the Council's oversight authority over contracts above the authorization threshold was itself violated and the Council had a right to know.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.157819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: If the two non-compliant Firm Z contracts had fallen below the Council authorization and RFQ threshold, the ethical landscape would have been materially different but not entirely clear. A procedural irregularity that does not rise to a statutory violation would not trigger the same mandatory reporting obligations under the NSPE Code, because the Code's reporting requirement in Section II.1.f. is keyed to violations of the Code and applicable law, not to every administrative imperfection. Engineer A would still have had an obligation to recommend corrective action as part of the faithful agent and procurement integrity duties, but the urgency and the external escalation obligation would have been reduced. Engineer B's complaint, however, would still have been ethically permissible — and arguably ethically appropriate — because the exclusion of qualified competitors from public contracts raises fairness concerns even when the dollar thresholds for statutory compliance are not met. The ethical weight of Engineer B's complaint would have rested more heavily on the fairness principle and less on the statutory violation principle, but it would not have been ethically improper.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.157904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: II.1.e.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: If Engineer A had been employed at City D for several years before discovering the Firm Z non-compliance, the extended period of unwitting participation in the non-compliant contracting environment would not, by itself, create additional ethical liability under the NSPE Code, provided the non-compliance was genuinely unknown to Engineer A during that period. The Code does not impose strict liability for unknowing participation in violations by others. However, the extended period would create heightened obligations upon discovery: the longer the violations had persisted, the more urgent the need for corrective action and the more clearly Engineer A would need to document the timeline of discovery to establish that prior participation was unwitting. Additionally, if Engineer A had signed off on any documents related to the non-compliant contracts during the period of employment — even without knowing of the procurement irregularity — Engineer A would need to assess whether any representations made in those documents required correction or disclosure. The practical lesson is that early familiarization with contracting records, as Engineer A undertook upon joining City D, is not merely good practice but an ethical obligation for engineers in public agency oversight roles.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.157986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 3
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If Engineer A had been a long-tenured employee with deep institutional loyalty and a close working relationship with the City Engineer, those relational factors would not ethically justify a more deferential or delayed response to the documented procurement violations. The underlying legal and professional obligations of a licensed engineer are not modified by tenure, personal history, or institutional loyalty. Code Section I.6 requires engineers to conduct themselves lawfully regardless of their employment history, and Code Section II.1.f requires reporting of known violations regardless of the reporter's relationship to the violator. Institutional loyalty is a legitimate professional value when it operates within the bounds of law and ethics, but it cannot function as a shield against compliance obligations. Indeed, a long-tenured engineer with deep knowledge of City D's operations would have greater, not lesser, awareness of the statutory requirements and the significance of the violations — which would heighten rather than diminish the reporting obligation. The relational factors might affect the manner and tone of internal escalation — a long-tenured engineer might reasonably attempt more extended internal dialogue before escalating externally — but they cannot alter the ultimate obligation to report if internal channels fail.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-24T22:18:11.355950
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 302
answers question3: 3
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to City D and the paramount obligation to protect public welfare was resolved decisively in favor of public welfare once internal remediation failed. The NSPE Code establishes a clear hierarchy: loyalty to an employer is a genuine and enforceable obligation, but it is explicitly subordinate to the duty to hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount. In this case, that hierarchy was not immediately triggered by the discovery of the Firm Z violations, because Engineer A's first obligation was to attempt internal correction—reporting findings to the City D Engineer and recommending remediation. Only when the City D Engineer refused corrective action did the employer-loyalty obligation reach its boundary. At that point, continued silence would have transformed Engineer A's faithful-agent role into complicity in an ongoing statutory violation. The case therefore teaches that employer loyalty is not a shield against public-welfare obligations; it is a procedural first step that, when exhausted without result, gives way to escalation. The principle prioritization is sequential, not absolute: loyalty governs the method and order of action, while public welfare governs the ultimate outcome.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158091
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 206
answers question3: 1
answers question4: 2
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.7.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The principle of fairness in professional competition, raised by Engineer B's complaint, and the principle of procurement integrity, which governs Engineer A's investigative obligations, are not in tension with each other even though Engineer B is a competitor with a potential financial interest in the outcome. The case teaches that the ethical validity of a reported concern is determined by the substance of the allegation, not the motive of the reporter. Engineer B's potential self-interest does not corrupt the underlying statutory obligation to use RFQ processes and obtain Council authorization; those requirements exist independently of Engineer B's preferences. Engineer A was therefore correct to treat Engineer B's complaint as a trigger for a fact-grounded investigation rather than as a self-interested grievance to be discounted. The principle of procurement integrity absorbed and superseded any concern about Engineer B's competitive motivation, because the investigation's purpose was to verify compliance with public law, not to adjudicate a dispute between competitors. This resolution also illustrates that fairness in professional competition is best protected not by scrutinizing the motives of those who report violations, but by rigorously enforcing the procurement rules that create a level playing field for all qualified firms.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 3
answers question3: 103
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.1.e.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
cited provision4: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The principle of professional accountability, which demands that Engineer A escalate beyond the City D Engineer after the refusal to act, and the principle of honoring the employer-client relationship, which counsels deference to organizational hierarchy, were resolved through a graduated escalation framework rather than an immediate leap to external reporting. The case teaches that these two principles are not binary opposites but points on a continuum: the engineer's accountability obligation intensifies proportionally as internal remediation options are exhausted. Engineer A's duty was first to report findings to the immediate superior, the City D Engineer; when that avenue was closed by the City D Engineer's explicit refusal, the obligation migrated upward within City D's governance structure to the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Council before reaching external bodies such as the state licensure board. This graduated approach honors the employer relationship to the maximum extent possible while ensuring that accountability is never permanently subordinated to organizational loyalty. The City D Engineer's status as a licensed professional engineer adds a further dimension: that licensed status does not grant immunity from accountability but instead amplifies it, because the City D Engineer's approval of non-compliant contracts constitutes a violation of the Code by a person whose professional license carries an independent obligation of lawful and honorable conduct. The case therefore establishes that professional accountability ultimately prevails over employer deference, but the path to that outcome must be methodical, documented, and exhaustive of internal options before external escalation is pursued.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158320
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_304
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 402
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.6.
conclusion number: 304
conclusion text: The contrast between the Firm X and Firm Z contract histories illuminates a principle that compliance history does not create a license for future non-compliance, but it does carry distinct ethical weight in diagnosing institutional character. Firm X's contract is fully compliant — procured through RFQ, extended within authorized scope, with four optional extensions remaining — and the fairness in professional competition principle is not violated by its continuation, even though it forecloses competitive access for other firms for up to four more years. Firm Z's early compliance through three competitive RFQ awards similarly demonstrates that the City D Engineer knew the correct process and chose to deviate from it in the two most recent awards. This prior knowledge of correct procedure transforms the City D Engineer's non-compliance from possible ignorance into deliberate circumvention, which is ethically more serious and undermines any claim that the longstanding relationship with Firm Z constitutes a legitimate mitigating factor. The case teaches that a history of compliance raises, rather than lowers, the ethical standard for subsequent conduct by demonstrating that compliance was achievable and known.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T22:18:11.356099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Conclusion_305
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 303
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: I.4.
conclusion number: 305
conclusion text: The City D Engineer's invocation of convenience and a longstanding relationship as justification for bypassing mandatory procurement law represents a direct collision between the principle of honorable and lawful conduct and the principle of institutional loyalty — and the case makes clear that institutional loyalty expressed through procedural shortcuts is not a recognized ethical value but a rationalization that compounds the original violation. A licensed professional engineer in a position of public trust occupies a dual fiduciary role: to the employing public entity and to the public whose interests that entity serves. When those two obligations diverge — as they do when an engineer prioritizes administrative convenience over statutory compliance — the public welfare paramount principle governs. The City D Engineer's failure to self-correct after being formally notified by Engineer A further implicates the principle of professional accountability and raises the question of whether the City D Engineer's conduct constitutes a reportable violation to the state engineering licensure board, not merely an internal management failure.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-24T22:18:11.356246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Convenience Rationalization Prohibition — City D Engineer Firm Z Dismissal
type: Convenience-BasedSoleSourceProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D's Engineer acknowledged non-compliance but dismissed corrective action citing convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z, which does not constitute a legally or ethically permissible basis for bypassing mandatory procurement procedures
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: City D's Engineer
constraintclass: Convenience-Based Sole Source Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: City D's Engineer was ethically and legally constrained from using administrative convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification for dismissing corrective action on procurement non-compliance, as such rationalizations do not constitute legally recognized exceptions to mandatory QBS procurement procedures.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; City D jurisdiction QBS procurement laws; NSPE BER Case 08-8
sourcetext: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification
temporalscope: At the time City D's Engineer dismissed Engineer A's corrective action recommendations
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.599778
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A Public Responsibility fulfill the Procurement Investigation Objectivity Obligation given the circumstances?
focus: Engineer A Public Responsibility: Procurement Investigation Objectivity Obligation
option1: Report Findings to City Engineer
option2: Alternative approach to Report Findings to City Engineer
role label: Engineer A Public Responsibility
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.154124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer fulfill the Procurement Investigation Objectivity Engineer A Investigation given the circumstances?
focus: Engineer: Procurement Investigation Objectivity Engineer A Investigation
option1: Report Findings to City Engineer
option2: Alternative approach to Report Findings to City Engineer
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.154192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer fulfill the Collegial Obligation Engineer A Response to Engineer B given the circumstances?
focus: Engineer: Collegial Obligation Engineer A Response to Engineer B
option1: Engineer B Reports Contracting Concerns
option2: Alternative approach to Engineer B Reports Contracting Concerns
role label: Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.160271
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A Public Responsibility fulfill the Graduated Internal Escalation Obligation given the circumstances?
focus: Engineer A Public Responsibility: Graduated Internal Escalation Obligation
option1: Engineer A Investigates Reported Concerns
option2: Alternative approach to Engineer A Investigates Reported Concerns
role label: Engineer A Public Responsibility
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.160365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Did Engineer A correctly distinguish between the Firm X contract situation — procured through a compliant RFQ with extensions within authorized scope — and the Firm Z situation involving unauthorized awards, and would Engineer A have been equally obligated to report Firm X violations had they existed?
focus: Distinguishing Firm X's Compliant Contract from Firm Z's Non-Compliant Awards and Applying Uniform Procurement Standards
option1: Treat Firm X and Firm Z situations as categorically distinct based on procurement compliance status, uphold the compliant Firm X contract, and apply the same objective compliance standard to all contracts including Firm X's extensions
option2: Treat Firm X's long-term contract as ethically equivalent to Firm Z's non-compliant awards on competitive fairness grounds and recommend re-bidding the Firm X engagement to restore competitive access for other firms
option3: Limit the investigation selectively to Firm Z contracts as identified in Engineer B's complaint without applying the same compliance scrutiny to Firm X's contract extensions
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-24T22:18:11.357199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Did the engineers employed by Firm Z bear ethical responsibility for knowingly entering into contracts awarded outside the required RFQ process, and were they obligated to flag the procurement irregularity or decline the engagements until proper procedures were followed?
focus: Firm Z Engineers' Ethical Responsibility for Entering Non-Compliant Contract Awards
option1: Inquire whether the required RFQ process and City Council authorization had been obtained before accepting the engagements, and flag the absence of a competitive solicitation as a recognizable anomaly given prior compliant contract history
option2: Accept the contract engagements without inquiring into the City's procurement procedures, treating compliance with contracting law as solely the client agency's responsibility
role label: Firm Z Engineers
generated at time: 2026-02-24T22:18:11.357275
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Duty to Report Engineer A Procurement Violations
type: DutytoReport
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A confirmed procurement violations and reported internally to City D's Engineer, who dismissed corrective action. The violations involve laws codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws, implicating Engineer A's professional obligations as a licensed engineer.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Assistant City Engineer)
obligationclass: Duty to Report
obligationstatement: Engineer A bore a duty to report the discovered procurement violations to appropriate authorities, having confirmed that two Firm Z contracts were awarded without required RFQ processes in violation of QBS laws codified in state professional engineering licensure law, and having received no corrective response from City D's Engineer.
sourcetext: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws.
temporalscope: Following City D's Engineer's dismissal of corrective action, on an ongoing basis
textreferences: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws.
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.599275
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Employer Loyalty Boundary Constraint — Engineer A Post-Dismissal
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidance
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faced tension between employer loyalty constraint and professional obligation to report confirmed procurement violations externally after internal escalation was dismissed
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance
constraintstatement: Engineer A's duty of loyalty to City D as employer constrained Engineer A from unilaterally acting against City D's institutional interests, but this loyalty constraint was bounded by the overriding ethical obligation not to conceal confirmed procurement law violations, preventing the loyalty constraint from functioning as a justification for suppressing external reporting.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6, III.7; NSPE BER Case 80-1
sourcetext: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification
temporalscope: Following City D's Engineer's dismissal of corrective action recommendations
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.600281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Employer Loyalty Boundary Engineer A Post-Dismissal
type: EmployerLoyaltyBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faces a tension between loyalty to City D as employer and the obligation to uphold QBS procurement laws and public interest in fair contracting, following City D's Engineer's dismissal of corrective action.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Assistant City Engineer)
obligationclass: Employer Loyalty Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's duty of loyalty to City D as employer does not extend to acquiescing in or concealing the City Engineer's refusal to take corrective action on acknowledged procurement violations; Engineer A's loyalty obligation is bounded by the paramount duty to uphold public welfare and legal compliance, requiring escalation rather than deference when the employer refuses to remedy confirmed legal violations.
sourcetext: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
temporalscope: Following City D's Engineer's dismissal of corrective action recommendations
textreferences: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws.
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.598930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Employer Loyalty Boundary Engineer A Post-Refusal
type: EmployerLoyaltyBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D Engineer refused corrective action on confirmed procurement violations; Engineer A faces tension between employer loyalty and the duty to escalate.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Employer Loyalty Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's obligation of loyalty to City D as employer does not extend to acquiescing in or concealing the City D Engineer's refusal to address confirmed procurement violations; Engineer A's loyalty is bounded by the paramount duty to uphold legal compliance and public welfare.
sourcetext: Engineer A also has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee.
temporalscope: Following the City D Engineer's refusal to take corrective action
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee.
textreferences: It is in City D's interest – legally, ethically, and politically – to procure its consultant services in accordance with the laws of the state where its engineers are licensed.
textreferences: The BER holds that per Code sections II.1.e, II.1.f, and III.8.a, appropriate action must be taken.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.605538
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Assistant City Engineer
type: AssistantCityEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'position': 'Assistant City Engineer', 'employer': 'City D'}
caseinvolvement: Joined City D's engineering department, investigated contracting irregularities after complaint from Engineer B, discovered non-compliant contracts with Firm Z, and brought findings with corrective recommendations to the City Engineer
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'City D'}
relationships: {'type': 'investigates_complaint_from', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'subordinate_to', 'target': 'City D Engineer'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Assistant City Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, joins City D's engineering department as the Assistant City Engineer
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns
textreferences: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, joins City D's engineering department as the Assistant City Engineer
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.589919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Causal Reasoning Procurement Violations
type: CausalReasoning
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Causal Reasoning
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated causal reasoning capability in tracing the chain of responsibility for procurement violations — from the City Engineer's approval of non-compliant contracts to the exclusion of qualified competing firms — and in establishing the causal relationship between the absence of RFQ processes and the violation of procurement law.
casecontext: Applied during investigation of City D contracting practices.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Investigation establishing that the two most recent Firm Z contracts were caused to be non-compliant by the City Engineer's sole approval without RFQ process, despite exceeding authorization thresholds.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process.
textreferences: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.603326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Client Relationship Established - City D
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's appointment as Assistant City Engineer through present
affectedparties: City D
affectedparties: City D's Engineer
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, joins City D's engineering department as the Assistant City Engineer, responsible for overseeing department staff, managing capital improvement programs, and supervising private development projects
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's employment relationship with City D as Assistant City Engineer
terminatedby: Not terminated; active employment relationship
textreferences: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, joins City D's engineering department as the Assistant City Engineer, responsible for overseeing department staff, managing capital improvement programs, and supervising private development projects
triggeringevent: Engineer A joins City D's engineering department as Assistant City Engineer with defined responsibilities
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.592063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Concern Response
type: CollegialConcernResponseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Concern Response Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to receive concerns from a fellow engineer — with whom there was no prior relationship — with professional respect and genuine investigative commitment, treating Engineer B's complaint as a legitimate professional concern warranting thorough investigation.
casecontext: Demonstrated when Engineer B approached Engineer A to raise concerns about City D's contracting practices.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's commitment to investigate Engineer B's concerns about exclusionary contracting practices despite having no prior relationship with Engineer B and Engineer B's status as a competitor for City D contracts.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineers A and B have no historical relationship.
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns.
textreferences: Engineers A and B have no historical relationship.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.602444
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Concern Response Engineer B Complaint
type: CollegialConcernResponseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Concern Response Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to receive Engineer B's concerns about exclusionary contracting practices with professional respect and to conduct a genuine, objective investigation in response
casecontext: Engineer A's response to Engineer B's approach regarding City D's exclusionary contracting practices
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Conducting thorough investigation of all five Firm Z contracts and Firm X contract following Engineer B's complaint, providing accurate feedback on findings
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A can in good faith report to Engineer B that there are no issues with Firm X and can also point out other avenues for Engineer B to raise concerns, for example, the state licensing agency or the City Attorney.
textreferences: Engineer A can in good faith report to Engineer B that there are no issues with Firm X and can also point out other avenues for Engineer B to raise concerns, for example, the state licensing agency or the City Attorney.
textreferences: It is reasonable to question whether Engineer A is 'the proper authority' – e.g., is there another more appropriate group or individual B should have contacted?
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.608356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Duties State
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment City D's Engineer dismissed corrective action recommendations through present
affectedparties: City D
affectedparties: City D's Engineer
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Public interest
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer A's position as Assistant City Engineer facing conflict between organizational loyalty to City D's Engineer and professional/legal obligations under QBS law
terminatedby: Not yet terminated; Engineer A must decide whether and how to escalate
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process
triggeringevent: City D's Engineer's dismissal of compliance concerns placed Engineer A in direct tension between deference to supervisory authority and obligations under professional licensure law and public interest duties
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.591908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to assess whether City D's contracting practices provided fair competitive opportunity, distinguishing between compliant competitive RFQ processes and exclusionary sole-source awards.
casecontext: Applied during investigation of Engineer B's complaint about exclusionary contracting practices.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Investigation distinguishing Firm X's compliant contract (awarded through RFQ with annual extensions within original scope) from Firm Z's non-compliant recent contracts (awarded without RFQ despite exceeding authorization thresholds).
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns.
textreferences: City D hired Firm X seven years ago through an RFQ process... The work provided by Firm X aligns with the original scope of the RFQ and the resulting contract.
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns.
textreferences: Records show the first three contracts were awarded through a competitive RFQ process that attracted, on average, four submissions per advertisement.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.601918
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Consulting Engineer BER 22-1
type: ProfessionalRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'context': 'BER Case 22-1'}
caseinvolvement: Consulting engineer who presented signed and sealed design contract documents to a state agency and discovered that the reviewing 'Transportation Engineer' was unlicensed, triggering an obligation to report unlicensed practice.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'obligated_to_report', 'target': 'Transportation Engineer B Unlicensed Engineering Reviewer'}
relationships: {'type': 'submitted_work_to', 'target': 'Transportation Engineer B Unlicensed Engineering Reviewer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Professional Role
sourcetext: Engineer A, a consulting engineer, who presented signed and sealed design contract documents to the State Agency manager
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to report 'Transportation Engineer' B for unlicensed practice
textreferences: Engineer A learned that 'Transportation Engineer' B was neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer
textreferences: Engineer A, a consulting engineer, who presented signed and sealed design contract documents to the State Agency manager
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.594170
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Employer Loyalty Boundary Recognition
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to recognize that loyalty to City D as employer does not extend to acquiescing in confirmed procurement law violations, and that public interest in lawful competitive procurement overrides the employer loyalty duty in this context.
casecontext: Manifested when City D's Engineer dismissed corrective action despite acknowledging non-compliance, placing Engineer A's employer loyalty duty in conflict with public procurement integrity obligations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: The ethical tension created when City D's Engineer dismissed corrective action, requiring Engineer A to determine whether employer loyalty or public procurement integrity takes precedence.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A's duty of loyalty to City D as employer does not extend to acquiescing in or concealing the City Engineer's refusal to take corrective action.
textreferences: Engineer A bears a paramount obligation to uphold public interest in lawful, fair, and competitive public engineering procurement.
textreferences: Engineer A's duty of loyalty to City D as employer does not extend to acquiescing in or concealing the City Engineer's refusal to take corrective action.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.602819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Ethical Perception Procurement Context
type: EthicalPerception
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethical Perception
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated ethical perception in recognizing the ethically salient features of Engineer B's complaint — including the public interest dimensions of competitive procurement fairness and the potential for procurement law violations — and in perceiving the ethical significance of the City Engineer's dismissal of corrective action.
casecontext: Applied throughout the case from initial receipt of Engineer B's complaint through the City Engineer's dismissal of corrective action.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that Engineer B's complaint raised legitimate public interest concerns warranting investigation, and subsequent recognition that the City Engineer's rationalization was ethically inadequate.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns.
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action.
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.603008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness BER 21-9
type: ForensicEngineeringExpertWitness
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer in States C, D, E', 'certification': 'Board Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering', 'context': 'BER Case 21-9'}
caseinvolvement: Licensed professional engineer in three states who agreed to provide expert testimony in State M without being licensed there, signing a report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without disclosing licensure status, which the BER found unethical when engineering credentials were implicitly claimed.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'provides_testimony_in', 'target': 'State M Court'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Attorney X'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Forensic Engineering Expert Witness
sourcetext: Engineer A was a licensed professional engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and was a Board Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
textreferences: Engineer A signed the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' and made no reference whatsoever to licensure status
textreferences: Engineer A was a licensed professional engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and was a Board Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.594467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Graduated Escalation Navigation Post-City Engineer Refusal
type: GraduatedEscalationNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Graduated Escalation Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to navigate a graduated escalation pathway after the City D Engineer refused to take corrective action, proceeding through internal channels (City Manager, City Attorney) before considering external licensure board reporting
casecontext: Post-investigation phase after City D Engineer's refusal to address confirmed Firm Z procurement violations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that escalation must proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively through approved channels while considering licensure board reporting obligations
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Such action should proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively, with a view to complying with the law and Code sections I.4, I.6, III.6, III.7, while simultaneously promoting the interests of all stakeholders to the extent possible.
textreferences: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
textreferences: Ideally, Engineer A should proceed within the City's approved channels of communication.
textreferences: It may be prudent to solicit input from other stakeholders such as the City Manager, the City Attorney, and other engineers who are knowledgeable of the situation.
textreferences: Such action should proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively, with a view to complying with the law and Code sections I.4, I.6, III.6, III.7, while simultaneously promoting the interests of all stakeholders to the extent possible.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.606380
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Internal Compliance Reporting
type: InternalComplianceReportingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Internal Compliance Reporting Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to formulate and communicate compliance findings to the City Engineer, including specific identification of non-compliant contracts and recommendations for corrective action.
casecontext: Applied after completing the investigation of City D's contracting practices.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A bringing investigation findings to City D's Engineer and recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.602287
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Internal Compliance Reporting City D Engineer Findings
type: InternalComplianceReportingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Internal Compliance Reporting Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to formulate and communicate findings of procurement non-compliance to the City D Engineer, reporting confirmed violations of QBS procurement law requirements for the two most recent Firm Z contracts
casecontext: Engineer A's reporting of confirmed Firm Z procurement violations to the City D Engineer
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Reporting investigation findings to City D Engineer with recommendation for corrective action
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Reviewing contracting procedures and notifying relevant parties about potential violations of established procedures is consistent with these Code of Ethics requirements.
textreferences: Reviewing contracting procedures and notifying relevant parties about potential violations of established procedures is consistent with these Code of Ethics requirements.
textreferences: The third question asks what steps must Engineer A take given the City D Engineer's refusal to address the contract arrangement with Firm Z.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.607857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Internal Escalation Exhausted — Firm Z Contracts
type: SuperiorAuthorityDismissalofComplianceConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From City D Engineer's refusal through Engineer A's determination of next steps
affectedparties: City Attorney
affectedparties: City D Engineer
affectedparties: City Manager
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: State licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board
stateclass: Superior Authority Dismissal of Compliance Concern State
subject: Engineer A's position after City D Engineer refused to address Firm Z non-compliance, requiring consideration of external reporting
terminatedby: Not yet terminated — Engineer A must determine whether to report to state licensure board, City Manager, or City Attorney
textreferences: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board
textreferences: It may be prudent to solicit input from other stakeholders such as the City Manager, the City Attorney, and other engineers who are knowledgeable of the situation
textreferences: appropriate action must be taken per Code sections II.1.e, II.1.f, and III.8.a
triggeringevent: City D Engineer declined corrective action, exhausting the primary internal escalation channel available to Engineer A
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.596126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Investigates Reported Concerns
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Joins City D
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment Firm Z Violations
type: LicensureBoardSelf-ReportingAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to assess whether confirmed Firm Z procurement violations — constituting violations of Code section III.8.a — rose to the level requiring reporting to the state licensure board
casecontext: Post-investigation phase following confirmation of two non-compliant Firm Z contract awards
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Consideration of licensure board reporting obligations following confirmation of non-compliant Firm Z contracts
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
textreferences: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
textreferences: For this reason, the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.606661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Licensure Misrepresentation in State M
type: LicensureMisrepresentationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From signing the report with the forensic engineering credential through BER determination of ethical violation
affectedparties: Attorney X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State M court
affectedparties: State M licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A signed the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' and made no reference whatsoever to licensure status
stateclass: Licensure Misrepresentation State
subject: Engineer A's use of 'Board Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' title in State M expert testimony without disclosing absence of State M licensure
terminatedby: BER determination that the self-presentation was unethical
textreferences: Engineer A signed the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' and made no reference whatsoever to licensure status
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specified that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M
textreferences: when Engineer A claimed status as a Board Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, Engineer A's self-presentation became unethical
triggeringevent: Engineer A signed expert report using forensic engineering credential in State M, where licensure was required for engineering expert testimony, without disclosing unlicensed status in State M
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.595961
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Recognition Firm Z
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to recognize that awareness of potential unlawful procurement practices created an obligation to not aid or abet those practices, even as a faithful agent of the employing City
casecontext: Engineer A's response to potential unlawful procurement practices involving Firm Z contracts
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that investigating and reporting procurement violations — rather than acquiescing — was required by professional obligations overriding employer loyalty
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A was made aware of potential unlawful practices, so A has an obligation to not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering.
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee.
textreferences: Engineer A was made aware of potential unlawful practices, so A has an obligation to not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.608190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Norm Competence Procurement
type: NormCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Norm Competence
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated norm competence by storing and applying QBS procurement norms, recognizing when those norms were violated in City D's contracting practices, and understanding the conflict between employer loyalty norms and public procurement integrity norms.
casecontext: Applied throughout the investigation and in responding to the City Engineer's dismissal of corrective action.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Application of QBS and RFQ norms to identify non-compliant Firm Z contracts, and recognition of the normative conflict between employer loyalty and public procurement whistleblower obligations.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws.
textreferences: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws.
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.603177
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Precedent Based Ethical Reasoning Procurement
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A required the capability to draw on prior BER decisions and professional ethics precedents regarding whistleblower obligations, employer loyalty boundaries, and public procurement integrity to reason through the novel ethical situation created by the City Engineer's dismissal of corrective action.
casecontext: Required in determining the appropriate response to the City Engineer's dismissal of corrective action.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: The ethical analysis required to determine whether Engineer A's obligations extend beyond internal reporting to external escalation, drawing on established professional ethics precedents regarding the limits of employer loyalty.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A's duty of loyalty to City D as employer does not extend to acquiescing in or concealing the City Engineer's refusal to take corrective action.
textreferences: Engineer A bears a paramount obligation to uphold public interest in lawful, fair, and competitive public engineering procurement.
textreferences: Engineer A's duty of loyalty to City D as employer does not extend to acquiescing in or concealing the City Engineer's refusal to take corrective action.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.603480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Compliance Engineer
type: ProcurementComplianceEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'position': 'Assistant City Engineer', 'employer': 'City D'}
caseinvolvement: Assistant City Engineer who investigated potential procurement law violations involving Firm X and Firm Z contracts, bearing obligations to act as faithful agent to the City, investigate irregularities, and report violations while working within approved channels.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'oversees_contracts_with', 'target': 'Firm X'}
relationships: {'type': 'oversees_contracts_with', 'target': 'Firm Z'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Engineer B Engineering Procurement Whistleblower'}
relationships: {'type': 'subordinate_to', 'target': 'Engineer D City Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Procurement Compliance Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A was made aware of potential unlawful practices, so A has an obligation to not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee
textreferences: Engineer A can in good faith report to Engineer B that there are no issues with Firm X
textreferences: Engineer A was made aware of potential unlawful practices, so A has an obligation to not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.593680
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Investigation Objectivity Firm Z Contracts
type: ProcurementIrregularityInvestigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Irregularity Investigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to conduct an objective, thorough investigation of suspected procurement violations, correctly distinguishing compliant from non-compliant contracts across all five Firm Z awards and three Firm X extensions
casecontext: Engineer A's investigation of City D contracting practices following Engineer B's complaint
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Investigation establishing no issues with Firm X or three of five Firm Z contracts, while confirming two most recent Firm Z contracts violated procurement law
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A was able to establish there were no issues with Firm X or with three of the five contracts Firm Z had with the City.
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee. Reviewing contracting procedures and notifying relevant parties about potential violations of established procedures is consistent with these Code of Ethics requirements.
textreferences: Engineer A was able to establish there were no issues with Firm X or with three of the five contracts Firm Z had with the City.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.607394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Irregularity Investigation
type: ProcurementIrregularityInvestigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Irregularity Investigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to conduct a systematic and objective investigation of City D's contracting practices, reviewing historical contract records, identifying compliant and non-compliant awards, and accurately documenting findings.
casecontext: Applied in response to Engineer B's complaint about exclusionary contracting practices at City D.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Investigation of seven years of City D contracting history, distinguishing compliant RFQ-based awards from non-compliant sole-source awards for Firm Z, and identifying the specific contracts that violated procurement thresholds.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Through the investigation, Engineer A discovers that over the past seven years, City D has awarded consultant contracts exclusively to two firms: Firm X and Firm Z.
textreferences: Records show the first three contracts were awarded through a competitive RFQ process that attracted, on average, four submissions per advertisement. However, the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process.
textreferences: Through the investigation, Engineer A discovers that over the past seven years, City D has awarded consultant contracts exclusively to two firms: Firm X and Firm Z.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.601427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Law Knowledge
type: ProcurementLawKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Law Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed knowledge of QBS procurement laws and RFQ requirements sufficient to recognize that the two most recent Firm Z contracts violated applicable procurement statutes and Council authorization thresholds.
casecontext: Applied during investigation of City D contracting practices following Engineer B's complaint about exclusionary contracting.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Investigation revealing that two Firm Z contracts exceeded dollar thresholds requiring City Council authorization and RFQ process, and were awarded without those required processes.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws.
textreferences: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws.
textreferences: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.601080
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Law Knowledge QBS Threshold Analysis
type: ProcurementLawKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Law Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to understand and apply QBS procurement law requirements — including dollar thresholds requiring City Council authorization and RFQ process mandates — to correctly identify which Firm Z contracts violated procurement law
casecontext: Engineer A's investigation of City D contracting practices
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Correct identification that two most recent Firm Z contracts exceeded thresholds requiring competitive RFQ and Council authorization, while three earlier contracts were compliant
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: This case focuses on the engineer's ethical obligation to comply with local and state procurement laws, including state registration board rules of professional conduct, that require consultant selection through a competitive QBS process.
textreferences: This case focuses on the engineer's ethical obligation to comply with local and state procurement laws, including state registration board rules of professional conduct, that require consultant selection through a competitive QBS process.
textreferences: Turning to the first question for consideration, the facts establish that whereas City D's hiring of Firm X complied with procurement law, City D's two recent contract awards to Firm Z appear to have violated the procurement law.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.608003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Precedent Application BER Case Analysis
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to apply BER case precedents — including BER Cases 08-8, 80-1, 22-1, 23-3, and 21-9 — to analyze the procurement compliance situation at City D and reach justified conclusions about obligations
casecontext: Engineer A's investigation of City D contracting practices, applying BER precedent to determine compliance status of five Firm Z contracts
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Investigation of Firm X and Firm Z contracts using BER precedent framework to distinguish compliant from non-compliant awards
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: BER Case 08-8 provides helpful precedent.
textreferences: BER Case 08-8 provides helpful precedent.
textreferences: Engineer A was able to establish there were no issues with Firm X or with three of the five contracts Firm Z had with the City.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.606208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Public Agency Contracting Ethics
type: PublicAgencyContractingEthicsCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Agency Contracting Ethics Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated ethical awareness sufficient to recognize that the City Engineer's rationalization of procurement violations on grounds of convenience and longstanding relationships was ethically inadequate and required further action.
casecontext: Manifested when City D's Engineer dismissed corrective action despite acknowledging non-compliance, placing Engineer A in a position of having to decide whether to accept the rationalization or escalate.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition that the City Engineer's dismissal of corrective action did not resolve the ethical and legal compliance issue, and the implicit obligation to escalate beyond the internal dismissal.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.601610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Public Procurement Whistleblower Escalation
type: PublicSafetyEscalationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Safety Escalation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A faced the obligation to escalate procurement violation findings beyond the internal dismissal by City D's Engineer to appropriate external authorities, requiring the capability to recognize when internal reporting has been exhausted and external escalation is required.
casecontext: Arises after City D's Engineer dismisses corrective action, leaving Engineer A with unresolved confirmed procurement violations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: The situation created by City D's Engineer's dismissal of corrective action despite acknowledged non-compliance, which triggered Engineer A's obligation to consider escalation to regulatory or oversight authorities.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action.
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action.
textreferences: Having reported procurement violation findings internally to City D's Engineer and received a dismissal of corrective action, Engineer A bears a primary obligation to escalate.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.602662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Public Responsibility
type: PublicResponsibilityRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'obligation_trigger': 'Discovery of non-compliant public contracting practices'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A bears a paramount obligation to uphold public interest in lawful, fair, and competitive public engineering procurement, which may conflict with employer directives when the City Engineer dismisses corrective action
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'conflict_with', 'target': 'City D Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'owes_duty_to', 'target': 'The Public'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Public Responsibility Role
sourcetext: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws
textreferences: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.590074
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A Stakeholder Interest Balancing Procurement Dispute
type: ConflictResolution
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Conflict Resolution
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated capability to balance competing stakeholder interests — City D's legal and political interests, public interest in lawful procurement, Engineer B's competitive fairness concerns, and Firm Z's contractual interests — while seeking a mutually acceptable solution
casecontext: Engineer A's post-investigation navigation of procurement violation response at City D
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: Framing escalation strategy to simultaneously serve City D's interests and fulfill professional obligations to public and law
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is in City D's interest – legally, ethically, and politically – to procure its consultant services in accordance with the laws of the state where its engineers are licensed.
textreferences: It is in City D's interest – legally, ethically, and politically – to procure its consultant services in accordance with the laws of the state where its engineers are licensed.
textreferences: Within this context, Engineer A will hopefully be able to influence responsible parties to follow a legal, ethical, and mutually acceptable solution.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.606512
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A joining City D meets Engineer B approaching Engineer A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.611158
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer A's investigation before Engineer A reporting findings to City Engineer
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.611125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer B Competing Engineering Firm Principal
type: CompetingEngineeringFirmPrincipal
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'position': 'Owner, local civil engineering firm'}
caseinvolvement: Approached Engineer A to raise concerns about City D's exclusionary contracting practices, alleging contracts were awarded to Firm X and Firm Z without required RFQ processes, thereby triggering Engineer A's investigation
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'complainant_to', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'excluded_from_competing_with', 'target': 'Firm X'}
relationships: {'type': 'excluded_from_competing_with', 'target': 'Firm Z'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Competing Engineering Firm Principal
sourcetext: Engineer B, also a licensed professional engineer, the owner of a local civil engineering firm, who raises concerns about City D's contracting practices
textreferences: Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process
textreferences: Engineer B expresses frustration that this practice excludes other qualified firms from competing for City D contracts
textreferences: Engineer B, also a licensed professional engineer, the owner of a local civil engineering firm, who raises concerns about City D's contracting practices
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.590397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer B Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated awareness of competitive procurement fairness requirements sufficient to identify and report exclusionary contracting patterns that denied qualified firms the opportunity to compete for public engineering contracts.
casecontext: Demonstrated when Engineer B approached Engineer A to raise concerns about City D's contracting practices.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's identification and reporting of City D's exclusive contracting practices to Engineer A, alleging that contracts were awarded without RFQ processes.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:47.572643+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process.
textreferences: Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process.
textreferences: Engineer B expresses frustration that this practice excludes other qualified firms from competing for City D contracts.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.602139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer B Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment City D Firm Z
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated capability to assess whether City D's contracting practices provided fair competitive opportunity, identifying that contracts were awarded to Firm Z without RFQ processes and raising formal concerns
casecontext: Engineer B's approach to Engineer A regarding City D's exclusionary contracting practices with Firm Z
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Identification of exclusionary contracting patterns and formal reporting to Engineer A as the appropriate authority
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B has an obligation, per Code section II.1.f, to report 'any alleged violation of this Code,' and B has done so.
textreferences: Engineer B has an obligation, per Code section II.1.f, to report 'any alleged violation of this Code,' and B has done so.
textreferences: Engineer B's actions are consistent with the BER's analysis of past cases.
textreferences: It is reasonable to question whether Engineer A is 'the proper authority' – e.g., is there another more appropriate group or individual B should have contacted?
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.607238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer B Engineering Procurement Whistleblower
type: EngineeringProcurementWhistleblower
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'affiliation': 'Competing Engineering Firm Principal'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer who identified and reported suspected procurement law violations by City D regarding contracts awarded to Firm Z outside competitive QBS processes, acting under Code section II.1.f obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Procurement Compliance Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_violations_regarding', 'target': 'City D Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'reports_violations_regarding', 'target': 'Firm Z'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Engineering Procurement Whistleblower
sourcetext: Engineer B has an obligation, per Code section II.1.f, to report 'any alleged violation of this Code,' and B has done so
textreferences: Engineer B has an obligation, per Code section II.1.f, to report 'any alleged violation of this Code,' and B has done so
textreferences: Engineer B's actions are consistent with the BER's analysis of past cases
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.593819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer B Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment Procurement Concerns
type: LicensureBoardSelf-ReportingAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B, having identified and reported suspected procurement violations, was required to assess obligations to report those violations to the state licensure board in addition to raising concerns with Engineer A
casecontext: Engineer B's role as whistleblower regarding City D's exclusionary contracting practices
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's obligation to consider licensure board reporting after raising procurement concerns with Engineer A
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
textreferences: Accordingly, Engineer B has an obligation, per Code section II.1.f, to report 'any alleged violation of this Code,' and B has done so.
textreferences: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.606818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer B Reports Contracting Concerns
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610397
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer B Reports Contracting Concerns (Action 4) → Engineer A Investigates Reported Concerns (Action 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer B Unverified Concern State - Initial Allegation
type: UnverifiedConcernState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's initial approach to Engineer A through completion of Engineer A's investigation
affectedparties: City D
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Firm X
affectedparties: Firm Z
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process
stateclass: Unverified Concern State
subject: Engineer B's initial allegations about City D's contracting practices before Engineer A's investigation
terminatedby: Engineer A's investigation confirmed the substance of Engineer B's concerns, elevating them from allegation to documented finding
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns
textreferences: Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process
triggeringevent: Engineer B raises concerns about City D exclusively awarding contracts to Firm X and Firm Z without RFQ processes
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.592236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer B approaching Engineer A with concerns before Engineer A's investigation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.611075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer D Post-Employment Conflict
type: Post-EmploymentConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer D's announcement of departure and acceptance of position at Firm AE&R onward
affectedparties: City D
affectedparties: Engineer D
affectedparties: Firm AE&R
affectedparties: Public interest
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer D announced plans to step down as the City Engineer and indicated that they accepted a position at an unnamed engineering firm in the City
stateclass: Post-Employment Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer D's transition from City Engineer to associate at Firm AE&R, which conducted substantial business with the City during Engineer D's tenure
terminatedby: Not resolved in the case — BER analysis ongoing
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: Engineer D announced plans to step down as the City Engineer and indicated that they accepted a position at an unnamed engineering firm in the City
textreferences: engineers must consider not only the letter but the spirit of the ethics code
textreferences: the City did not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
triggeringevent: Engineer D accepted employment at Firm AE&R shortly after leaving the City Engineer role, despite AE&R having completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.595803
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer D Revolving Door Engineer
type: RevolvingDoorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'prior_position': 'City Engineer', 'new_position': 'Associate at Firm AE&R'}
caseinvolvement: City Engineer who stepped down from municipal leadership and accepted a position at private firm AE&R, which had completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure, raising ethical concerns about conflicts of interest and public trust even absent a contractual revolving door prohibition.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'formerly_employed_by', 'target': 'City D'}
relationships: {'type': 'newly_employed_by', 'target': 'Firm AE&R'}
relationships: {'type': 'prior_authority_over', 'target': 'Firm AE&R contracts'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Revolving Door Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer D announced plans to step down as the City Engineer and indicated that they accepted a position at an unnamed engineering firm
textreferences: AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
textreferences: Engineer D announced plans to step down as the City Engineer and indicated that they accepted a position at an unnamed engineering firm
textreferences: the City did not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.594314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineer D announcing plans to step down before Firm AE&R announcing Engineer D as newly hired associate
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.611301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Engineering Procurement Whistleblower Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
type: EngineeringProcurementWhistleblowerObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City D contracting practices
appliedto: Firm Z non-compliant contracts
balancingwith: Employer relationship
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Professional risk
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A investigated Engineer B's allegations, confirmed procurement violations, reported findings internally to the City Engineer with recommendations for corrective action, and now faces the question of whether to escalate externally given the City Engineer's refusal to act
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Having completed the internal reporting step and received a refusal to act, Engineer A's whistleblower obligation now requires consideration of escalation to appropriate external oversight authorities, including potentially the state engineering licensing board or other oversight bodies
invokedby: Engineer A Procurement Compliance Engineer
invokedby: Engineer A Public Responsibility
principleclass: Engineering Procurement Whistleblower Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
tensionresolution: The principle requires escalation when internal remediation fails; Engineer A must weigh the obligation to report against professional risks, but the obligation is not extinguished by the City Engineer's refusal
textreferences: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws.
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.597830
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Escalate to City Manager and Attorney
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Ethical Conduct Obligation City D Engineer Procurement Rationalization
type: EthicalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D's Engineer acknowledged non-compliance with contracting requirements but rationalized inaction by citing convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z, subordinating legal and ethical obligations to organizational convenience.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City D's Engineer (City Engineer)
obligationclass: Ethical Conduct
obligationstatement: City D's Engineer was obligated to conduct themselves ethically in the administration of public engineering contracts, which precluded rationalizing acknowledged procurement violations on grounds of convenience and established relationships, and required taking corrective action consistent with applicable law and professional ethics.
sourcetext: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
temporalscope: Upon acknowledging the procurement non-compliance to Engineer A
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.599079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Expert Testimony Licensure Disclosure Constraint Engineer A State M
type: ExpertTestimonyLicensureDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, licensed in States C, D, and E but not State M, signed expert report as 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without disclosing absence of State M licensure, in a jurisdiction requiring licensure for engineering expert testimony
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 21-9)
constraintclass: Expert Testimony Licensure Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from presenting credentials as a Board Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering in State M expert testimony without disclosing the absence of State M licensure, as the State M licensing statute required licensure for engineers providing expert testimony, and use of engineering certification titles created an impermissible misleading impression of jurisdictional compliance.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State M Professional Engineering Licensure Statute; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.8.a; BER Case 21-9
sourcetext: The licensing statute in State M specified that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
temporalscope: Throughout the expert testimony engagement in State M
textreferences: Engineer A signed the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' and made no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
textreferences: The licensing statute in State M specified that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
textreferences: When Engineer A claimed status as a Board Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, Engineer A's self-presentation became unethical.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.608820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Fact-Grounded Investigation Constraint — Engineer A Response to Engineer B
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B, as owner of a competing firm excluded from City D contracts, had a potential interest in the investigation outcome, requiring Engineer A to conduct an independent, fact-based investigation before drawing conclusions or taking action
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from acting on or reporting Engineer B's allegations as established findings until completing an objective investigation, prohibiting premature conclusions or actions based on unverified concerns from a competitor firm owner with a potential interest in the outcome.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional obligation of objectivity in investigation
sourcetext: Engineers A and B have no historical relationship
temporalscope: From receipt of Engineer B's allegations through completion of the procurement investigation
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns
textreferences: Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process
textreferences: Engineers A and B have no historical relationship
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.600548
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Raised By Engineer B
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City D contracting practices
appliedto: Firm X traffic engineering contracts
appliedto: Firm Z civil engineering contracts
balancingwith: Incumbent contractor relationships
balancingwith: Organizational convenience
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B raised concerns that City D's exclusive contracting practices with Firm X and Firm Z without RFQ processes excluded other qualified engineering firms from competing for public contracts
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The RFQ and QBS processes exist precisely to ensure fair competitive access; bypassing them denies qualified firms the opportunity to compete on merit and deprives the public of the benefits of competition
invokedby: Engineer B Competing Engineering Firm Principal
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: Engineer B expresses frustration that this practice excludes other qualified firms from competing for City D contracts.
tensionresolution: Engineer B correctly identified that convenience cannot justify exclusionary practices that violate both fair competition principles and applicable law
textreferences: Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process.
textreferences: Engineer B expresses frustration that this practice excludes other qualified firms from competing for City D contracts.
textreferences: Records show the first three contracts were awarded through a competitive RFQ process that attracted, on average, four submissions per advertisement.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.597496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Upheld For Firm X
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm X traffic engineering contract
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm X was originally hired through a compliant RFQ process and continues work within the original contract scope and authorized extension provisions, representing a lawful and fair competitive selection
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Firm X's continued engagement is consistent with fairness in professional competition because it was selected through a competitive process and operates within the authorized contract scope; annual extensions within the original contract do not require new RFQ
invokedby: Engineer A Procurement Compliance Engineer
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: City D hired Firm X seven years ago through an RFQ process to maintain the citywide traffic model and review traffic studies submitted by private developers.
tensionresolution: No tension identified; Firm X's contract complies with procurement requirements and does not implicate fairness concerns
textreferences: City D hired Firm X seven years ago through an RFQ process to maintain the citywide traffic model and review traffic studies submitted by private developers.
textreferences: The contract includes an option for annual extensions for up to 10 years.
textreferences: The work provided by Firm X aligns with the original scope of the RFQ and the resulting contract, with four optional extensions remaining.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.597673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Engineer A City D
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A serves City D as Assistant City Engineer and investigated contracting irregularities, bearing the duty to serve City D's interests faithfully within the bounds of professional ethics and applicable law.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Assistant City Engineer)
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent of City D in conducting the procurement investigation and reporting findings, serving City D's legitimate interests in lawful contracting, while recognizing that faithful agency requires upholding legal compliance rather than ratifying the employer's violations.
sourcetext: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, joins City D's engineering department as the Assistant City Engineer, responsible for overseeing department staff, managing capital improvement programs, and supervising private development projects.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's tenure as Assistant City Engineer and during the procurement investigation
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns.
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
textreferences: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, joins City D's engineering department as the Assistant City Engineer, responsible for overseeing department staff, managing capital improvement programs, and supervising private development projects.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.605155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Firm X Contract Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610569
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Firm X Original RFQ Contract with Optional Extensions
type: ReferenceMaterial
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: City D and Firm X
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: City D — Firm X Traffic Engineering Services Contract (with Annual Extension Options)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:04:56.425673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:04:56.425673+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Reference Material
sourcetext: City D hired Firm X seven years ago through an RFQ process to maintain the citywide traffic model and review traffic studies submitted by private developers
textreferences: City D hired Firm X seven years ago through an RFQ process to maintain the citywide traffic model and review traffic studies submitted by private developers
textreferences: The contract includes an option for annual extensions for up to 10 years
textreferences: The work provided by Firm X aligns with the original scope of the RFQ and the resulting contract, with four optional extensions remaining
usedby: Engineer A
usedincontext: Serves as the reference document establishing the legitimate scope and duration of Firm X's engagement; Engineer A uses it to verify that Firm X's ongoing work aligns with the original RFQ scope and that remaining extensions are contractually authorized, distinguishing compliant from non-compliant contracting
version: Original contract, extended annually
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.589645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Firm X Preferred Engineering Contractor
type: PreferredEngineeringContractor
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'specialty': 'Traffic engineering, citywide traffic model maintenance, traffic study review', 'contract_status': 'Compliant — original RFQ with optional extensions'}
caseinvolvement: Awarded traffic engineering contract seven years ago through compliant RFQ process; continues work under annual extensions within original contract scope; no compliance violations identified
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'contracted_by', 'target': 'City D'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_complaint_by', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Preferred Engineering Contractor
sourcetext: City D hired Firm X seven years ago through an RFQ process to maintain the citywide traffic model and review traffic studies submitted by private developers
textreferences: City D hired Firm X seven years ago through an RFQ process to maintain the citywide traffic model and review traffic studies submitted by private developers
textreferences: The work provided by Firm X aligns with the original scope of the RFQ and the resulting contract, with four optional extensions remaining
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.590532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Firm X contract award via RFQ before Engineer A joins City D
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Firm X contract award via RFQ before Firm Z contract relationship begins
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610941
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Firm Z Engineers
type: ProfessionalRole
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'Firm Z'}
caseinvolvement: Engineers employed by Firm Z who participated in contracts awarded outside required competitive QBS procurement processes, placing them in violation of procurement law and Code section III.8.a.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'contracted_with', 'target': 'City D'}
relationships: {'type': 'in_violation_with', 'target': 'City D Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Professional Role
sourcetext: the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a
textreferences: the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.594913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Firm Z Engineers Procurement Law Conformance Deficiency
type: ProcurementLawKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Law Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineers employed by Firm Z demonstrated deficient capability to ensure that contracts they participated in with City D were awarded through compliant QBS procurement processes, resulting in violation of Code section III.8.a
casecontext: Firm Z engineers' participation in non-compliant contract awards with City D
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Participation in two contracts awarded without required RFQ processes despite exceeding dollar thresholds requiring competitive selection
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:06.337867+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm Z Engineers
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: For this reason, the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
textreferences: For this reason, the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
textreferences: per Code section III.8.a, engineers are ethically obligated to 'conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering' and they must do so in an honorable, responsible, and ethical manner.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.608516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Firm Z Preferred Engineering Contractor
type: PreferredEngineeringContractor
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'specialty': 'Civil engineering', 'contract_status': 'Partially non-compliant — two most recent contracts awarded without required RFQ'}
caseinvolvement: Awarded five civil engineering contracts over six years; first three through compliant competitive RFQ; two most recent awarded without RFQ despite exceeding Council authorization thresholds, constituting the core compliance violation
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:23.983441+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'contracted_by', 'target': 'City D'}
relationships: {'type': 'contracts_approved_by', 'target': 'City D Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_complaint_by', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Preferred Engineering Contractor
sourcetext: City D has entered into five separate contracts with Firm Z over the past six years
textreferences: City D has entered into five separate contracts with Firm Z over the past six years
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements
textreferences: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.590673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Firm Z Relationship Initiated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Firm Z six-year relationship during Firm X seven-year contract period
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.611030
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Graduated Internal Escalation Engineer A Post-City Engineer Refusal
type: GraduatedInternalEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D Engineer acknowledged non-compliance but refused corrective action; Engineer A must determine next steps within and beyond the organization.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Graduated Internal Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: After the City D Engineer refused to take corrective action on the confirmed Firm Z procurement violations, Engineer A was obligated to pursue graduated internal escalation through approved City channels — including the City Manager and City Attorney — acting advisedly and carefully while verifying all facts, before or alongside any external escalation.
sourcetext: Ideally, Engineer A should proceed within the City's approved channels of communication. Engineer D's authority should be respected, and all facts must be carefully checked and verified.
temporalscope: Following the City D Engineer's refusal to address the Firm Z contract violations
textreferences: Ideally, Engineer A should proceed within the City's approved channels of communication. Engineer D's authority should be respected, and all facts must be carefully checked and verified.
textreferences: It may be prudent to solicit input from other stakeholders such as the City Manager, the City Attorney, and other engineers who are knowledgeable of the situation.
textreferences: Such action should proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively, with a view to complying with the law and Code sections I.4, I.6, III.6, III.7, while simultaneously promoting the interests of all stakeholders to the extent possible.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.604167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Hire Firm X via RFQ
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Hire Firm X via RFQ (Action 1) and Award Three Compliant Firm Z Contracts (Action 2) → Procurement Violations Occur (Event 4) — by contrast, establishing the baseline of known compliance
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610907
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Honesty Invoked By Engineer A Reporting Findings
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Engineer consultation
appliedto: Investigation findings
balancingwith: Employer Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A honestly reported the findings of the procurement investigation to the City Engineer, including the determination that the two most recent Firm Z contracts did not comply with contracting requirements, without minimizing or concealing the violations
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Honesty required Engineer A to accurately report the full scope of the procurement violations discovered, including the non-compliant contracts, rather than softening findings to avoid conflict with the City Engineer
invokedby: Engineer A Assistant City Engineer
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
tensionresolution: Honesty prevailed; Engineer A reported findings accurately and recommended corrective action
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
textreferences: Through the investigation, Engineer A discovers that over the past seven years, City D has awarded consultant contracts exclusively to two firms: Firm X and Firm Z.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.598160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Honorable Procurement Conduct City D Engineer Violation
type: HonorableProfessionalConductinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D Engineer approved two Firm Z contracts without required RFQ processes and, upon being informed of non-compliance, refused corrective action on grounds of organizational convenience and established relationships.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: City D Engineer
obligationclass: Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: The City D Engineer was obligated to conduct procurement activities honorably, responsibly, and fairly — consistent with both the letter and spirit of the ethics code — and failed this obligation by approving non-compliant contracts and refusing corrective action.
sourcetext: This case also discusses how engineers must conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly so as to maintain the public's trust in professional procurement matters.
temporalscope: At the time of approving non-compliant contracts and upon being informed of violations
textreferences: BER Case 58-1 speaks of the 'purity of the enterprise, of avoiding 'dishonor to the profession, and how engineers must consider not only the letter but the spirit of the ethics code.
textreferences: This case also discusses how engineers must conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly so as to maintain the public's trust in professional procurement matters.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.604992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Honorable Procurement Conduct Constraint City D Engineer Rationalization
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D's Engineer awarded two Firm Z contracts without required RFQ process and City Council authorization, and subsequently refused to take corrective action when Engineer A identified the violations
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: City D's Engineer
constraintclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
constraintstatement: City D's Engineer was constrained from rationalizing non-compliant sole-source Firm Z contract awards on the basis of administrative convenience, established relationships, or familiarity, as the obligation to conduct procurement activities honorably, responsibly, and fairly required adherence to both the letter and spirit of competitive QBS procurement requirements.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canons; BER Case 08-8; State QBS procurement law
sourcetext: This case also discusses how engineers must conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly so as to maintain the public's trust in professional procurement matters.
temporalscope: Throughout the award of the two most recent Firm Z contracts and the subsequent refusal to take corrective action
textreferences: City D's Engineer was obligated to conduct themselves ethically in the administration of public engineering contracts, which precluded rationalizing non-compliant procurement awards.
textreferences: Such action should proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively, with a view to complying with the law.
textreferences: This case also discusses how engineers must conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly so as to maintain the public's trust in professional procurement matters.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610247
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

I.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.153562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

I.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.153727
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

II.1.e.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.153835
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

II.1.f.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.153881
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

III.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.153964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

III.7.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.153997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

III.8.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.154036
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Internal Compliance Escalation Constraint — Engineer A Post-Investigation
type: InternalComplianceReportingEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A completed internal reporting to City D's Engineer and received dismissal of corrective action, placing Engineer A in the Internal Escalation Exhausted State requiring consideration of external reporting obligations
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Internal Compliance Reporting Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was procedurally constrained to first report procurement non-compliance findings to City D's Engineer through internal channels before considering external escalation, while simultaneously being ethically constrained from abandoning those findings after City D's Engineer dismissed corrective action without adequate justification.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.4, I.6, III.6; NSPE BER Case 80-1
sourcetext: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process
temporalscope: From completion of investigation through City D's Engineer's dismissal of corrective action recommendations
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.599925
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Licensure Board Reporting City D Engineer Self-Reporting Obligation
type: LicensureBoardReportingObligationforProcurementViolations
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D Engineer acknowledged non-compliance with contracting requirements but refused corrective action; the case text notes that all three engineers must consider licensure board reporting obligations.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.79
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: City D Engineer
obligationclass: Licensure Board Reporting Obligation for Procurement Violations
obligationstatement: The City D Engineer, having acknowledged non-compliance with procurement requirements, was obligated to consider the duty to self-report or otherwise address the violations with the state licensure board, rather than refusing all corrective action.
sourcetext: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
temporalscope: Upon acknowledgment of procurement non-compliance
textreferences: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
textreferences: the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.604652
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Licensure Board Reporting Constraint City D Engineer Self-Reporting
type: RegulatoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D's Engineer was directly responsible for the non-compliant Firm Z contract awards and refused to take corrective action after being informed of the violations
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: City D's Engineer
constraintclass: Regulatory Constraint
constraintstatement: City D's Engineer, having acknowledged non-compliance with procurement requirements and refused to take corrective action, was constrained to consider the duty to self-report or otherwise address the confirmed violations of Code Section III.8.a with the state licensure board, as the violations implicated the engineer's own professional conduct.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.8.a; State licensure board reporting requirements
sourcetext: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
temporalscope: Following Engineer A's notification of confirmed Firm Z procurement violations
textreferences: City D's Engineer was obligated to conduct themselves ethically in the administration of public engineering contracts.
textreferences: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
textreferences: The City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.609908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Licensure Board Reporting Constraint Engineer A Firm Z Violations
type: RegulatoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A confirmed that City D's two most recent Firm Z contracts violated procurement law, implicating both City D's Engineer and Firm Z engineers in violations of Code Section III.8.a
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Regulatory Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to consider and, where warranted, fulfill the obligation to report confirmed Firm Z procurement violations — which also constituted violations of Code Section III.8.a — to the state licensure board, as the confirmed violations involved engineers in violation of both procurement law and professional ethics code provisions.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.f, III.8.a; State licensure board reporting requirements
sourcetext: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
temporalscope: Following confirmation of Firm Z procurement violations and City D Engineer's refusal to take corrective action
textreferences: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
textreferences: Per Code sections II.1.e, II.1.f, and III.8.a, appropriate action must be taken.
textreferences: The City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.609759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Licensure Board Reporting Engineer A Firm Z Violations
type: LicensureBoardReportingObligationforProcurementViolations
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A confirmed that two Firm Z contracts violated procurement law and NSPE Code III.8.a; the City D Engineer refused corrective action.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Licensure Board Reporting Obligation for Procurement Violations
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to consider and, where warranted, fulfill the duty to report the confirmed Firm Z procurement violations — which also constitute violations of state registration board rules of professional conduct — to the state licensure board.
sourcetext: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
temporalscope: Following confirmation of violations and the City D Engineer's refusal to act
textreferences: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
textreferences: the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.604349
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Licensure Board Reporting Engineer B Firm Z Violations
type: LicensureBoardReportingObligationforProcurementViolations
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B raised concerns about City D's exclusionary contracting practices with Firm Z and reported them to Engineer A; the state licensure board is an additional appropriate reporting authority.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Licensure Board Reporting Obligation for Procurement Violations
obligationstatement: Engineer B, having identified and reported suspected procurement violations, was also obligated to consider reporting those violations to the state licensure board, particularly given that the violations constitute breaches of state registration board rules of professional conduct.
sourcetext: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
temporalscope: Upon identification of suspected procurement violations and after internal reporting
textreferences: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
textreferences: Engineer B has an obligation, per Code section II.1.f, to report 'any alleged violation of this Code,' and B has done so.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.604485
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Lowest-Level Resolution Priority Constraint Engineer A Engineer B Referral
type: InternalComplianceReportingEscalationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A served as the initial internal contact for Engineer B's procurement concerns, and was able to resolve some concerns (Firm X, three Firm Z contracts) internally before identifying the two non-compliant Firm Z contracts
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Internal Compliance Reporting Escalation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to first attempt resolution of Engineer B's procurement concerns at the lowest possible organizational level — within City D's internal channels — before directing Engineer B to external authorities such as the state licensing agency or City Attorney, consistent with the principle that resolving issues at the lowest possible level is often the most effective approach.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER analysis of current case
sourcetext: Resolving issues at the lowest possible level is often an effective way to solve problems.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer B's complaint and throughout the investigation
textreferences: Engineer A can in good faith report to Engineer B that there are no issues with Firm X and can also point out other avenues for Engineer B to raise concerns, for example, the state licensing agency or the City Attorney.
textreferences: Ideally, Engineer A should proceed within the City's approved channels of communication.
textreferences: Resolving issues at the lowest possible level is often an effective way to solve problems.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.609617
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Loyalty Tension Faced By Engineer A
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City D as employer
appliedto: City Engineer's decision to dismiss corrective action
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
balancingwith: Professional Accountability
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A faces a tension between loyalty to City D as employer — which might counsel deference to the City Engineer's decision not to pursue corrective action — and the obligation to uphold public welfare and procurement integrity that overrides employer loyalty
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Loyalty to City D does not extend to acquiescing in acknowledged procurement law violations; the bounds of legitimate loyalty are defined by legal and ethical obligations
invokedby: Engineer A Assistant City Engineer
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
tensionresolution: Loyalty must yield to public welfare and legal compliance obligations; Engineer A's duty to City D does not include ratifying or concealing known violations of procurement law
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.598016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Code section III.8.a, engineers are ethically obligated to 'conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering'
textreferences: Code section III.8.a, engineers are ethically obligated to 'conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering'
textreferences: Engineer B has an obligation, per Code section II.1.f, to report 'any alleged violation of this Code'
textreferences: per Code sections II.1.e, II.1.f, and III.8.a, appropriate action must be taken
textreferences: with a view to complying with the law and Code sections I.4, I.6, III.6, III.7
usedby: Engineer A, Engineer B, City D Engineer
usedincontext: Primary normative authority cited throughout the discussion, including sections II.1.e, II.1.f, III.8.a, I.4, I.6, III.6, III.7, and Fundamental Canon 1.6, governing reporting obligations, compliance with registration laws, and honorable conduct in procurement matters
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.592417
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:04:56.425673+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:04:56.425673+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, joins City D's engineering department
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns
textreferences: Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, joins City D's engineering department
usedby: Engineer A, City D's Engineer
usedincontext: Provides the primary normative framework governing Engineer A's obligations to investigate contracting irregularities, report findings, and uphold public trust in professional practice; grounds obligations regarding honest conduct, public welfare, and professional accountability
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.589238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978)
type: AntitrustLegalPrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: U.S. Supreme Court
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:07.893566+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Antitrust Legal Precedent
sourcetext: the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in National Soc'y of Prof. Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978)
textreferences: actions by the US Justice Department, in 1977, that required NSPE and other engineering and professional organizations to remove NSPE Code of Ethics (Code) provisions related to professional selection, compensation, restrictions on competitive bidding, free engineering, supplanting, advertising, and other practices
textreferences: the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in National Soc'y of Prof. Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978)
usedby: BER in current case analysis via BER Case 08-8
usedincontext: Establishes the legal boundary that professional society codes cannot restrict competitive bidding or procurement practices, and that federal, state, and local procurement laws remain in full force regardless of professional code provisions
version: 435 U.S. 679 (1978)
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.593514
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

National Soc'y of Prof. Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T22:18:11.355058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Engineer A Investigation
type: Non-AidingUnlawfulEngineeringPracticeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A investigated Engineer B's allegations and confirmed that two Firm Z contracts were awarded outside required competitive QBS procurement processes; the City D Engineer refused corrective action.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Aiding Unlawful Engineering Practice Obligation
obligationstatement: Upon being made aware of potential unlawful procurement practices involving Firm Z contracts, Engineer A was obligated to refrain from aiding or abetting the continuation of those unlawful practices, including by not ratifying or ignoring the violations discovered during the investigation.
sourcetext: Engineer A was made aware of potential unlawful practices, so A has an obligation to not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering.
temporalscope: Upon confirmation of procurement violations and continuing through the City D Engineer's refusal to act
textreferences: Engineer A was made aware of potential unlawful practices, so A has an obligation to not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering.
textreferences: Reviewing contracting procedures and notifying relevant parties about potential violations of established procedures is consistent with these Code of Ethics requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.604007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Non-Deception Constraint — City D Engineer Procurement Rationalization
type: Non-Deception
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D's Engineer acknowledged non-compliance but offered convenience and relationship as justification, which misrepresented the legal and ethical status of the procurement practices to Engineer A and potentially to City D's institutional stakeholders
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: City D's Engineer
constraintclass: Non-Deception
constraintstatement: City D's Engineer was ethically constrained from misrepresenting convenience and relationship longevity as legitimate legal justifications for non-competitive contract awards, as such characterizations created a false impression that the procurement practices were acceptable when they were acknowledged to be non-compliant.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Non-Deception provisions; professional ethics obligations
sourcetext: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification
temporalscope: At the time of dismissing Engineer A's corrective action recommendations
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.600883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Procurement Integrity Invoked By Engineer A Investigation
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City D contracting practices
appliedto: Firm Z contracts 4 and 5
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Organizational convenience
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A investigated whether City D's contracting practices complied with applicable QBS procurement laws and discovered that two Firm Z contracts were awarded without the required RFQ process despite exceeding Council authorization thresholds
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: QBS compliance is an ethical obligation for engineers in public roles, not merely an administrative requirement; Engineer A's investigation was ethically required upon receiving credible allegations of non-compliance
invokedby: Engineer A Procurement Compliance Engineer
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws.
tensionresolution: Engineer A correctly prioritized procurement integrity by investigating and reporting findings, though the City Engineer's refusal to act left the violation unresolved
textreferences: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws.
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
textreferences: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.597018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Procurement Integrity Violated By City D Engineer Approval
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Z contracts 4 and 5
balancingwith: Longstanding contractor relationship
balancingwith: Organizational convenience
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Engineer approved two Firm Z contracts without the required RFQ process despite their dollar amounts exceeding the threshold requiring Council authorization, and then refused corrective action when the violation was identified
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Approving contracts in violation of mandatory QBS procurement laws and then refusing corrective action constitutes a serious breach of the procurement integrity principle
invokedby: City D Engineer City Engineer
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process.
tensionresolution: The City Engineer improperly allowed convenience and relationship to override statutory procurement requirements, compounding the initial violation with a refusal to remedy it
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
textreferences: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.597163
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Procurement Investigation Objectivity Engineer A Findings
type: ProcurementInvestigationObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A investigated Engineer B's allegations and confirmed violations in two of five Firm Z contracts while clearing Firm X and three Firm Z contracts, reporting findings to the City D Engineer.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Procurement Investigation Objectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct the procurement investigation objectively and thoroughly, reporting findings accurately and completely — including the determination that two Firm Z contracts violated procurement law — regardless of whether those findings were adverse to the City D Engineer or to established contractor relationships.
sourcetext: Engineer A was able to establish there were no issues with Firm X and can also point out other avenues for Engineer B to raise concerns.
temporalscope: During and upon completion of the procurement investigation
textreferences: Engineer A can in good faith report to Engineer B that there are no issues with Firm X.
textreferences: Engineer A was able to establish there were no issues with Firm X and can also point out other avenues for Engineer B to raise concerns.
textreferences: Reviewing contracting procedures and notifying relevant parties about potential violations of established procedures is consistent with these Code of Ethics requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.605363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Procurement Investigation Objectivity Engineer A Investigation
type: ProcurementInvestigationObjectivityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A investigated Engineer B's allegations about City D's contracting practices and discovered non-compliant Firm Z contracts, reporting these findings with recommendations to City D's Engineer.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Assistant City Engineer)
obligationclass: Procurement Investigation Objectivity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to conduct the investigation into City D's contracting practices objectively and thoroughly, and to report findings accurately and completely to City D's Engineer regardless of whether those findings were adverse to the employer's established contracting relationships.
sourcetext: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns.
temporalscope: During and upon completion of the procurement investigation
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns.
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
textreferences: Through the investigation, Engineer A discovers that over the past seven years, City D has awarded consultant contracts exclusively to two firms: Firm X and Firm Z.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.598797
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Procurement Law Compliance City D Engineer Firm Z Contracts
type: ProcurementLawComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D awarded two civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without the required RFQ process, despite their dollar amounts exceeding the Council authorization threshold, under QBS procurement laws codified in state professional engineering licensure law.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City D's Engineer (City Engineer)
obligationclass: Procurement Law Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: City D's Engineer was obligated to ensure that the two most recent Firm Z contracts, whose dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City Council authorization and an RFQ process, were awarded only through a compliant QBS/RFQ process with required Council authorization, and was obligated to refrain from approving those contracts unilaterally without such process.
sourcetext: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process.
temporalscope: At the time of awarding each of the two most recent Firm Z contracts
textreferences: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws.
textreferences: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.598315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Procurement Law Conformance City D Engineer Firm Z Contracts
type: ProcurementLawComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D Engineer approved two Firm Z contracts exceeding Council authorization thresholds without conducting required RFQ processes, in violation of applicable procurement law and NSPE Code III.8.a.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City D Engineer
obligationclass: Procurement Law Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: The City D Engineer was obligated to ensure that the two most recent Firm Z contracts were awarded through compliant QBS procurement processes with required RFQ and Council authorization, and to conform with state registration board rules of professional conduct requiring such compliance.
sourcetext: the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
temporalscope: At the time of awarding each of the two non-compliant Firm Z contracts
textreferences: per Code section III.8.a, engineers are ethically obligated to 'conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering'
textreferences: the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.603659
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Procurement Law Conformance Constraint Firm Z Engineers Non-Compliant Contracts
type: PublicProcurementProceduralComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The two most recent Firm Z contracts with City D were awarded without RFQ process and without City Council authorization, violating both procurement law and Code Section III.8.a, implicating Firm Z engineers as well as City D's Engineer
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineers employed by Firm Z
constraintclass: Public Procurement Procedural Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineers employed by Firm Z were constrained by procurement law and Code Section III.8.a to ensure that contracts they participated in with City D were awarded through compliant QBS procurement processes with required City Council authorization, prohibiting participation in contracts awarded through non-compliant sole-source processes.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State QBS procurement law; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.8.a; BER Case 08-8
sourcetext: The City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
temporalscope: Throughout the award and execution of the two most recent Firm Z contracts with City D
textreferences: Engineers are ethically obligated to 'conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.'
textreferences: Federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect.
textreferences: The City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Procurement Law Conformance Firm Z Engineers Non-Compliant Contracts
type: ProcurementLawComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm Z's two most recent contracts with City D were awarded without required RFQ processes despite exceeding Council authorization thresholds, placing Firm Z engineers in violation of procurement law and NSPE Code III.8.a.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Firm Z Engineers
obligationclass: Procurement Law Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineers employed by Firm Z were obligated to ensure that contracts they participated in with City D were awarded through compliant QBS procurement processes, and to refrain from participating in contracts awarded outside required competitive procurement procedures.
sourcetext: the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
temporalscope: At the time of entering into and performing the two non-compliant contracts
textreferences: the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.603815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Procurement Protest Ethical Boundary Constraint Engineer B City D Firm Z
type: ProcurementProtestEthicalBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B reported concerns about City D's contracting practices with Firm Z, which Engineer A investigated and confirmed as non-compliant with procurement law
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Procurement Protest Ethical Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was ethically permitted to report suspected procurement violations to Engineer A as a legitimate protest grounded in public interest and legal compliance concerns, but was constrained from making public statements about Firm Z's fees or likelihood of project success, as such statements would approach the boundary of unfair competitive conduct.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.f; BER Case 80-1; BER Case 08-8
sourcetext: Engineer B has an obligation, per Code section II.1.f, to report 'any alleged violation of this Code,' and B has done so.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer B's reporting of procurement concerns
textreferences: BER Case 80-1 includes an 'Additional Views' section that provides that while those authors agree with the BER conclusions, 'we feel that Firms B and C are walking a very thin line of ethical practices when they make a public statement' regarding Firm A's fees and likelihood of project success.
textreferences: Earlier BER opinions confirm that engineers may, and sometimes must, challenge procurement practices that could compromise the public interest.
textreferences: Engineer B has an obligation, per Code section II.1.f, to report 'any alleged violation of this Code,' and B has done so.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.609291
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Procurement Violation Corrective Action City D Engineer Post-Investigation
type: ProcurementViolationCorrectiveActionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D's Engineer acknowledged the non-compliance of the two most recent Firm Z contracts but refused corrective action, citing convenience and the longstanding relationship with Firm Z.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City D's Engineer (City Engineer)
obligationclass: Procurement Violation Corrective Action Obligation
obligationstatement: Upon being informed by Engineer A of the procurement non-compliance findings regarding the two most recent Firm Z contracts, City D's Engineer was obligated to take affirmative corrective action to remedy the violations rather than dismissing the need for corrective action on grounds of convenience and longstanding relationship.
sourcetext: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Engineer A's findings and recommendations regarding procurement non-compliance
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.598486
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Procurement Violation Corrective Action City D Engineer Refusal
type: ProcurementViolationCorrectiveActionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D Engineer acknowledged non-compliance with contracting requirements but refused to take corrective action, rationalizing the violation through organizational convenience.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: City D Engineer
obligationclass: Procurement Violation Corrective Action Obligation
obligationstatement: Upon being informed by Engineer A of confirmed procurement violations in the two most recent Firm Z contracts, the City D Engineer was obligated to take affirmative corrective action — including initiating retroactive compliance measures or escalating to appropriate authorities — rather than refusing corrective action on grounds of established relationships or organizational convenience.
sourcetext: The BER holds that per Code sections II.1.e, II.1.f, and III.8.a, appropriate action must be taken.
temporalscope: Upon receiving Engineer A's investigation findings confirming procurement violations
textreferences: The BER holds that per Code sections II.1.e, II.1.f, and III.8.a, appropriate action must be taken.
textreferences: the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.605851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Procurement Violations Occur
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Professional Accountability Failure By City D Engineer
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Z non-compliant contracts
balancingwith: Loyalty to Firm Z relationship
balancingwith: Organizational convenience
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Engineer acknowledged non-compliance with contracting requirements but refused to take corrective action, rationalizing the violation through appeals to convenience and longstanding relationship rather than accepting professional responsibility to remedy the identified failure
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability requires more than acknowledging a violation; it requires taking corrective action. The City Engineer's acknowledgment without remediation represents a failure of professional accountability
invokedby: City D Engineer City Engineer
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
tensionresolution: The City Engineer failed to resolve the tension in favor of professional accountability, instead rationalizing inaction through convenience
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.597302
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Protest Non-Compliant Procurement Engineer B Firm Z
type: ProtestofNon-CompliantProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B approached Engineer A to raise concerns about City D's exclusionary contracting practices, alleging contracts were awarded to Firm Z without required RFQ processes.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Protest of Non-Compliant Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated — and ethically permitted — to raise a formal protest of City D's non-compliant procurement practices with Firm Z by reporting the alleged violations to Engineer A as the appropriate internal authority, consistent with the duty under NSPE Code II.1.f to report alleged code violations.
sourcetext: Engineer B has an obligation, per Code section II.1.f, to report 'any alleged violation of this Code,' and B has done so. Engineer B's actions are consistent with the BER's analysis of past cases.
temporalscope: Upon identifying suspected non-compliant procurement practices
textreferences: Earlier BER opinions confirm that engineers may, and sometimes must, challenge procurement practices that could compromise the public interest.
textreferences: Engineer B has an obligation, per Code section II.1.f, to report 'any alleged violation of this Code,' and B has done so. Engineer B's actions are consistent with the BER's analysis of past cases.
textreferences: The BER held that lodging such a protest was not an unfair competitive act under the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.604808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Public Procurement Whistleblower Escalation Engineer A External
type: PublicProcurementWhistleblowerEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D Engineer acknowledged non-compliance but refused corrective action; Engineer A must determine whether and how to escalate beyond the immediate supervisor.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:16:08.589778+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Procurement Whistleblower Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Having confirmed procurement violations and reported them internally to the City D Engineer without corrective response, Engineer A was obligated to escalate the matter to appropriate external authorities — including the state licensing agency, City Attorney, or other oversight bodies — rather than acquiescing to the continuation of unlawful contracting practices.
sourcetext: The BER holds that per Code sections II.1.e, II.1.f, and III.8.a, appropriate action must be taken.
temporalscope: Following the City D Engineer's refusal to take corrective action on confirmed violations
textreferences: Engineer A can also point out other avenues for Engineer B to raise concerns, for example, the state licensing agency or the City Attorney.
textreferences: Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
textreferences: The BER holds that per Code sections II.1.e, II.1.f, and III.8.a, appropriate action must be taken.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.605696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Public Procurement Whistleblower Escalation Engineer A Post-Dismissal
type: PublicProcurementWhistleblowerEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A investigated and confirmed procurement violations, reported findings to City D's Engineer with recommendations, and received a dismissal of corrective action justified by convenience and relationship. The violations involve QBS laws codified in state professional engineering licensure law.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:10:09.991814+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Assistant City Engineer)
obligationclass: Public Procurement Whistleblower Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Having reported procurement violation findings internally to City D's Engineer and received a dismissal of corrective action, Engineer A bears a prima facie obligation to escalate the matter to appropriate external authorities — such as the City Council, city legal counsel, state licensing board, or other oversight body — rather than acquiescing to the continuation of non-compliant contracting practices.
sourcetext: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
temporalscope: Following City D's Engineer's dismissal of corrective action recommendations
textreferences: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws.
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.598641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Investigating Procurement
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City D contracting practices
appliedto: Firm X and Firm Z contracts
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A recognized that City D's exclusionary and non-compliant contracting practices harmed the public interest in lawful, competitive procurement and committed to investigating the allegations raised by Engineer B
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare in this context encompasses not only physical safety but also the integrity of public procurement processes that protect taxpayers and ensure fair access to public engineering contracts
invokedby: Engineer A Assistant City Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns.
tensionresolution: Engineer A prioritized public welfare by investigating and reporting findings internally, consistent with the obligation to hold public welfare paramount over employer convenience
textreferences: Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns.
textreferences: Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.596292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Violated By City D Engineer
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm Z non-compliant contracts
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Organizational convenience
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The City Engineer dismissed corrective action for acknowledged procurement violations, subordinating public welfare and legal compliance to organizational convenience and a longstanding contractor relationship
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:08:39.448126+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The City Engineer's refusal to pursue corrective action after acknowledging non-compliance constitutes a failure to uphold public welfare paramount, prioritizing convenience over lawful administration of public resources
invokedby: City D Engineer City Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
tensionresolution: The City Engineer improperly resolved the tension by allowing employer convenience to override public welfare and legal compliance obligations
textreferences: City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.596806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QBS Law Applicable State - City D Jurisdiction
type: QBSLawApplicableState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Persistent background state; QBS laws in effect at state and local levels throughout the case
affectedparties: All qualified engineering firms in the jurisdiction
affectedparties: City D
affectedparties: City D's Engineer
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Firm X
affectedparties: Firm Z
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:05:26.602661+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws
stateclass: QBS Law Applicable State
subject: City D's procurement of professional engineering services within its jurisdiction
terminatedby: Not terminated; persistent regulatory context
textreferences: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws
triggeringevent: City D operates within a jurisdiction that has enacted QBS procurement laws codified in professional engineering licensure statutes
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.591760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QBS Law Applicable to City D
type: QBSLawApplicableState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — state law in force throughout the relevant contracting period
affectedparties: City D
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Firm X
affectedparties: Firm Z
affectedparties: State licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect
stateclass: QBS Law Applicable State
subject: City D's procurement of professional engineering services
terminatedby: Not terminated — statutory requirement remains in force
textreferences: It is in City D's interest – legally, ethically, and politically – to procure its consultant services in accordance with the laws of the state where its engineers are licensed
textreferences: federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect
triggeringevent: State and local QBS laws codified within professional engineering licensure statutes applicable to City D
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.595259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QBS Procurement Law Compliance Constraint — City D Firm Z Recent Contracts
type: PublicProcurementProceduralComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City D's Engineer awarded two Firm Z contracts without RFQ process despite dollar amounts exceeding the threshold requiring both Council authorization and competitive RFQ, in violation of applicable QBS procurement statutes
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: City D's Engineer
constraintclass: Public Procurement Procedural Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: City D's Engineer was legally constrained from awarding the two most recent Firm Z contracts without conducting an RFQ process and obtaining City Council authorization, as the contract dollar amounts exceeded the statutory threshold triggering these mandatory procedural requirements under City D's jurisdiction's QBS procurement laws.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: City D jurisdiction QBS procurement laws codified within state professional engineering licensure laws; City D Council authorization and RFQ threshold requirements
sourcetext: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process
temporalscope: At the time of award of the two most recent Firm Z contracts and continuing through the investigation period
textreferences: City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws
textreferences: the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.599631
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158628
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159212
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159239
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159266
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159292
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158719
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158826
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158860
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.158903
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was it ethical for Engineer B to complain to Engineer A?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.153268
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Did Engineer B have an obligation to report the suspected procurement violations directly to City D's governing council or a state licensing board before approaching Engineer A, given that Engineer B is a competitor with a potential financial interest in the outcome?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.153434
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Do the engineers at Firm Z bear any independent ethical or legal obligation under QBS procurement laws, given that they accepted contracts awarded without the required RFQ process and Council authorization?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.153484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: What is the ethical significance of the City D Engineer being a licensed professional engineer who personally approved the non-compliant Firm Z contracts, and does that licensed status trigger a self-reporting obligation to the state engineering licensure board?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.153533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: At what point, if any, does Engineer A's continued employment with City D after the City D Engineer's refusal to act constitute aiding or abetting the unlawful procurement practice, and how should Engineer A weigh the risk of personal complicity against the strategic value of remaining in a position to escalate internally?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.154275
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Were Engineer A’s actions in investigating City D’s contracting practices ethical?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.153331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does Engineer A's obligation as a faithful agent and trustee to City D conflict with the paramount duty to protect public welfare when the City D Engineer, as Engineer A's direct superior, explicitly refuses to correct procurement violations that undermine lawful public contracting?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.154343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of fairness in professional competition, raised by Engineer B's complaint, conflict with procurement integrity when Engineer B's motivation for reporting may be self-interested pursuit of City D contracts, and how should that potential bias affect the weight given to Engineer B's allegations?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.154405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of professional accountability, which demands that Engineer A report the City D Engineer's violations, conflict with the principle of honoring the employer-client relationship when escalating beyond the City D Engineer necessarily involves reporting a superior's misconduct to external authorities such as the city council, city manager, or state licensure board?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.154471
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of fairness in professional competition, which is upheld for Firm X because its contract was properly procured through an RFQ with optional extensions, conflict with the principle of public welfare when rigidly applying QBS procurement rules to Firm X's remaining extensions could disrupt ongoing public services that the city depends on, even though no violation exists?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.154534
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_3
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 3
question text: Because City D’s Engineer refuses to change the contract arrangement with Firm Z, what steps must Engineer A take?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.153382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B fulfill a categorical duty to report suspected statutory violations, independent of whether the report would benefit Engineer B's own firm competitively?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.154591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to City D conflict with their duty to the public when the City D Engineer refuses corrective action, and which duty takes categorical precedence under the NSPE Code?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.154641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the City D Engineer's justification of convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z produce net public benefit sufficient to outweigh the harms of excluding qualified competitors and violating QBS procurement law?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.154690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did the City D Engineer demonstrate the professional virtues of integrity and honesty when dismissing Engineer A's documented compliance findings, or did the rationalization of convenience represent a fundamental failure of professional character?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.154738
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_305
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 305
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A's willingness to investigate Engineer B's concerns—despite having no prior relationship with Engineer B and potential risk to their new employment—reflect the professional courage and integrity expected of a licensed engineer in a public agency role?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.154806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_306
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 306
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, what are the systemic harms to public trust in government procurement if Engineer A chooses not to escalate beyond the City D Engineer, and do those long-term harms outweigh the short-term professional risks Engineer A faces by escalating externally?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.155171
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer B had not reported the contracting concerns to Engineer A—perhaps fearing retaliation or professional awkwardness given the competitive dynamic—would City D's procurement violations with Firm Z have continued undetected, and what does this suggest about the systemic importance of peer reporting obligations in public engineering contexts?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.155246
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: If the City D Engineer had acknowledged the Firm Z non-compliance and initiated corrective action upon Engineer A's recommendation, would Engineer A's obligations under the NSPE Code have been fully satisfied, or would additional reporting to external bodies still have been required?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.155300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the two non-compliant Firm Z contracts had fallen below the Council authorization and RFQ threshold—making them procedurally irregular but not a statutory violation—would Engineer A's ethical obligations have been materially different, and would Engineer B's complaint still have been ethically required?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.155351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A had been employed at City D for several years before discovering the Firm Z non-compliance—rather than discovering it shortly after joining—would the extended period of unwitting participation in the non-compliant contracting environment have created additional ethical obligations or personal liability concerns for Engineer A under the NSPE Code?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.155551
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Regulatory Compliance Constraint — Firm X Contract Extensions Within Scope
type: RegulatoryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's investigation found Firm X's engagement compliant because it operated within the original RFQ contract scope with contractually authorized extensions, contrasting with Firm Z's non-compliant recent contracts
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: City D
constraintclass: Regulatory Constraint
constraintstatement: City D's use of Firm X under optional annual extensions was constrained to remain within the original RFQ scope and contract terms, and was permissible only because the extensions were contractually authorized at the time of the original competitive procurement, distinguishing it from the non-compliant Firm Z awards.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:11:27.632165+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: City D jurisdiction QBS procurement laws; original Firm X RFQ contract terms
sourcetext: City D hired Firm X seven years ago through an RFQ process to maintain the citywide traffic model and review traffic studies submitted by private developers
temporalscope: Throughout the seven-year period of Firm X engagement and remaining four optional extensions
textreferences: City D hired Firm X seven years ago through an RFQ process to maintain the citywide traffic model and review traffic studies submitted by private developers
textreferences: The contract includes an option for annual extensions for up to 10 years
textreferences: The work provided by Firm X aligns with the original scope of the RFQ and the resulting contract, with four optional extensions remaining
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.600726
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Report Findings to City Engineer
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159366
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159683
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159737
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159846
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159928
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159979
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.160004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.160030
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.160068
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.160107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.160138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_27
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.160166
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_28
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.160193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_29
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T22:18:11.356931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159432
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_30
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T22:18:11.356966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_31
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T22:18:11.356997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159608
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:41:54.159650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Revolving Door Ethics Constraint Engineer D City AE&R
type: RevolvingDoorEthicsConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer D served as City Engineer with procurement and contract authority over AE firms including AE&R, then accepted a position at AE&R which planned to continue submitting proposals to the City
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer D
constraintclass: Revolving Door Ethics Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer D was ethically constrained from immediately joining Firm AE&R — which had conducted substantial business with the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer — without observing the spirit of ethics code provisions on purity of enterprise and avoidance of dishonor, even though the City's employment contract contained no explicit revolving door prohibition.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon 1.6; BER Case 23-3; BER Case 58-1
sourcetext: Engineer D had been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area, both with respect to contract negotiation and award... Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announced Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer D's departure from City Engineer role and transition to Firm AE&R
textreferences: BER Case 58-1 speaks of the 'purity of the enterprise, of avoiding 'dishonor to the profession, and how engineers must consider not only the letter but the spirit of the ethics code.
textreferences: Engineer D had been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area, both with respect to contract negotiation and award... Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announced Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
textreferences: The City did not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees... But the BER does not hold this perspective.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.608680
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Stakeholder Interest Balancing Constraint Engineer A Post-Refusal Action
type: StakeholderInterestBalancingConstraintinComplianceAction
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faced the tension between loyalty to City D as employer and the obligation to ensure procurement law compliance after the City D Engineer dismissed corrective action recommendations
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Stakeholder Interest Balancing Constraint in Compliance Action
constraintstatement: Engineer A, in taking compliance action following the City D Engineer's refusal to address Firm Z procurement violations, was constrained to proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively — consulting City Manager, City Attorney, and other knowledgeable engineers — while simultaneously fulfilling legal and ethical compliance obligations, prohibiting unnecessarily aggressive unilateral external escalation when measured multi-stakeholder approaches remained available.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.4, I.6, III.6, III.7; BER analysis of current case
sourcetext: Such action should proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively, with a view to complying with the law and Code sections I.4, I.6, III.6, III.7, while simultaneously promoting the interests of all stakeholders to the extent possible.
temporalscope: Following City D Engineer's refusal to take corrective action on Firm Z contracts
textreferences: It may be prudent to solicit input from other stakeholders such as the City Manager, the City Attorney, and other engineers who are knowledgeable of the situation.
textreferences: Such action should proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively, with a view to complying with the law and Code sections I.4, I.6, III.6, III.7, while simultaneously promoting the interests of all stakeholders to the extent possible.
textreferences: Within this context, Engineer A will hopefully be able to influence responsible parties to follow a legal, ethical, and mutually acceptable solution.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.609471
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Three Compliant Contracts Completed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Transportation Engineer B Unlicensed Engineering Reviewer
type: UnlicensedEngineeringReviewer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'None', 'title': 'Transportation Engineer', 'employer': 'State Agency'}
caseinvolvement: State agency staff member holding the title 'Transportation Engineer' who reviewed, approved, commented on, and directed changes to consultant design documents without possessing a professional engineering license or engineering degree, thereby engaging in unlawful practice of engineering.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:41.090527+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'reviewed_work_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Consulting Engineer BER 22-1'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Unlicensed Engineering Reviewer
sourcetext: 'Transportation Engineer' B, who personally reviewed those documents for final approval, made comments, and directed changes
textreferences: 'Transportation Engineer' B was neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer
textreferences: 'Transportation Engineer' B, who personally reviewed those documents for final approval, made comments, and directed changes
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.593997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Transportation Engineer B Unlicensed Practice
type: UnlicensedPracticebyThirdPartyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer A submitted sealed documents for review through discovery of unlicensed status
affectedparties: 'Transportation Engineer' B
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: State Agency
affectedparties: State licensure board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:06:48.919595+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to report 'Transportation Engineer' B for unlicensed practice
stateclass: Unlicensed Practice by Third Party State
subject: State Agency 'Transportation Engineer' B reviewing and directing changes to engineering design documents without licensure
terminatedby: BER determination that Engineer A must report the unlicensed practice
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to report 'Transportation Engineer' B for unlicensed practice
textreferences: the BER found it was unlawful and therefore not ethical for 'Transportation Engineer' B to engage in the practice of engineering without having fulfilled the requirements for licensure
triggeringevent: 'Transportation Engineer' B personally reviewed signed and sealed design documents, made comments, and directed changes — constituting practice of engineering under state law — without holding a professional engineering license
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.595596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

US Justice Department antitrust actions before US Supreme Court ruling in National Soc'y of Prof. Engineers v. United States
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.611260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Unilaterally Award Contracts Without RFQ
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610361
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Unilaterally Award Contracts Without RFQ (Action 3) → Procurement Violations Occur (Event 4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.610814
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint Engineer A Firm Z Investigation
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A as Assistant City Engineer was tasked with investigating procurement practices after Engineer B raised concerns about non-compliant Firm Z contract awards
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A (current case)
constraintclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, upon being made aware of potential unlawful procurement practices involving Firm Z contracts, was constrained from aiding or abetting unlawful engineering practice and was required to investigate and report findings, consistent with the obligation to not aid unlawful practice.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; State procurement law; BER Case 22-1 precedent
sourcetext: Engineer A was made aware of potential unlawful practices, so A has an obligation to not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A's receipt of Engineer B's complaint and throughout the investigation
textreferences: Engineer A also has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee.
textreferences: Engineer A was made aware of potential unlawful practices, so A has an obligation to not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering.
textreferences: Reviewing contracting procedures and notifying relevant parties about potential violations of established procedures is consistent with these Code of Ethics requirements.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.609118
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint Engineer A Transportation Engineer B
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Transportation Engineer B personally reviewed signed and sealed design documents, made comments, and directed changes — constituting practice of engineering under state law — without holding licensure or engineering degree
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A (BER Case 22-1)
constraintclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from passively acquiescing in Transportation Engineer B's review and direction of engineering design documents, and was affirmatively required to report Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice of engineering to the appropriate authority, as B was neither licensed nor degreed as an engineer.
discoveredincase: 6
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 6
generatedattime: 2026-02-24T07:18:25.221951+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State engineering licensure statute; NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 22-1
sourcetext: Engineer A learned that 'Transportation Engineer' B was neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer.
temporalscope: Upon Engineer A's discovery that Transportation Engineer B lacked licensure
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to report 'Transportation Engineer' B for unlicensed practice.
textreferences: Engineer A learned that 'Transportation Engineer' B was neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer.
textreferences: Engineer A was made aware of potential unlawful practices, so A has an obligation to not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering.
textreferences: The BER found it was unlawful and therefore not ethical for 'Transportation Engineer' B to engage in the practice of engineering without having fulfilled the requirements for licensure.
wasattributedto: Case 6 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.608965
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

annual extensions used by Firm X (approximately six) before four remaining optional extensions
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.611374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

first three compliant Firm Z contracts before two non-compliant Firm Z contracts
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.611000
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction

non-compliant Firm Z contracts before Engineer A joins City D
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-24T07:27:08.611332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 6 Extraction