ProEthica Case 90 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.403672
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Adopt Mixed-Practice Business Model
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.404408
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Adopt Mixed-Practice Business Model → Professional Distinction Obligation Activated
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.421204
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Antitrust-Code-Scope-Sub-Professional-Bid-PE-Firm
type: Antitrust-ConstrainedProfessionalCodeGuidanceProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm with all-PE principals invited to submit written competitive bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: PE firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services
constraintclass: Antitrust-Constrained Professional Code Guidance Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: The PE firm is constrained by antitrust law from treating engineering code competitive bidding prohibitions as applicable to its sub-professional services bid; the code's restrictions on competitive bidding do not extend to sub-professional work, and the firm may submit a price-based competitive bid without violating professional ethics.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; DOJ antitrust rulings; BER sub-professional services precedent
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
temporalscope: At the time of bid submission and throughout the sub-professional engagement
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.407113
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Antitrust Constraint on Ethics Code Restriction of Sub-Professional Bidding
type: Antitrust-ConstrainedEthicsCodeScopePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Written competitive bid submission for sub-professional services
balancingwith: Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Principle
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Any attempt by a professional engineering ethics code to prohibit or restrict PE firms from submitting competitive bids for sub-professional work would itself be constrained by antitrust law; the ethics code cannot be used to exclude PE firms from commercial markets
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The antitrust constraint means that the ethics code's reach into competitive bidding practices is limited; the firm's participation in the sub-professional bid is legally and ethically permissible as a baseline matter
invokedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
principleclass: Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
tensionresolution: Antitrust law establishes the floor of permissibility; professional ethics obligations then govern the manner of participation above that floor
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.409880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

BER-Sub-Professional-Services-Precedent
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.72
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Precedent on Sub-Professional Services by Engineering Firms
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:03:30.357722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:03:30.357722+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
textreferences: services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Analogical reasoning resource for determining whether prior BER rulings address the permissibility of PE firms bidding on or performing sub-professional work related to engineering services, providing pattern-based guidance for the current case.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.406085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Bid Invitation Received
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.404649
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Bid Invitation Received → Ethical Permissibility Determined
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.404895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Business-Form-Non-Influence-Ethics-PE-Firm-Sub-Professional-Bid
type: Business-FormNon-InfluenceonIndividualEthicsCodeConformanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm with all-PE principals operating in commercial sub-professional services market
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Individual PE principals of the firm submitting sub-professional bid
constraintclass: Business-Form Non-Influence on Individual Ethics Code Conformance Constraint
constraintstatement: The fact that the PE firm is organized as a commercial entity submitting a price-based competitive bid for sub-professional services does not reduce or eliminate the individual ethical obligations of each PE principal; each principal remains bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics in their personal conduct throughout the bid process regardless of the commercial business form.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Board of Directors directive (January 1971); NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
temporalscope: Throughout bid preparation and submission and performance of sub-professional work
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.413855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Canons of Ethics Sections 2 and 19 (as cited) before current analysis (note of their removal)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.421407
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Case 90 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.421294
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

CausalLink_Adopt Mixed-Practice Business
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

CausalLink_Establish Separate Organizatio
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182256
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

CausalLink_Implement Documentation Segreg
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

CausalLink_Submit Competitive Bid
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182226
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Client and Public Receiving Mixed Professional-Commercial Engineering Services
type: Sub-ProfessionalServicesProcurementClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'information_right': 'Must be clearly informed of whether services are professional or sub-professional', 'protection_basis': 'Public protection rationale underlying prohibition on competitive bidding for professional services', 'vulnerability': 'Risk of confusion between professional-quality-assured and commercially-bid services'}
caseinvolvement: The clients and general public who receive services from a PE firm operating in both professional and sub-professional/commercial domains, and who must be clearly informed by the engineer of which category of work they are receiving, so they understand the applicable quality standards and professional protections.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:04:57.825833+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:04:57.825833+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'protected_by', 'target': 'NSPE Canons of Ethics transparency obligations'}
relationships: {'type': 'served_by', 'target': 'PE Firm Principal Engaging in Mixed Professional and Sub-Professional Practice'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client
sourcetext: it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work
textreferences: it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work
textreferences: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.409471
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Client and Public Receiving Mixed Services Transparency Benefit
type: Mixed-PracticeFirmProfessionalIdentityTransparencyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Mixed-Practice Firm Professional Identity Transparency Capability
capabilitystatement: The client receiving the sub-professional bid benefits from the PE firm's transparency about its professional identity, enabling informed procurement decisions about whether to engage a PE firm for sub-professional work.
casecontext: Client invited a PE firm to submit a competitive bid for sub-professional services and receives transparent disclosure of the firm's professional identity
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: Client receiving accurate disclosure of the bidding firm's PE status and mixed-practice nature in the context of the sub-professional procurement
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Client and Public Receiving Mixed Professional-Commercial Engineering Services
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.415706
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Code-Ethics-Universal-Applicability-PE-Firm-Sub-Professional-Bid
type: CodeofEthicsUniversalApplicabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: All principals of the bidding firm are licensed PEs; their ethical obligations persist regardless of the sub-professional nature of the work being bid
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: PE firm principals submitting sub-professional services bid
constraintclass: Code of Ethics Universal Applicability Constraint
constraintstatement: The PE firm's principals remain bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics in their conduct during the sub-professional bid process — including obligations of honesty, non-deception, and honorable competitive conduct — even though the specific competitive bidding prohibitions of the code do not apply to sub-professional work.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE Board of Directors directive (January 1971)
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers
temporalscope: Throughout bid preparation and submission
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.412481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Competitive Bid Invitation for Sub-Professional Work
type: Sub-ProfessionalWorkCompetitiveBidEligibilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From receipt of bid invitation through submission decision
affectedparties: Competing bidders
affectedparties: Engineering firm
affectedparties: Firm principals (all PEs)
affectedparties: Inviting party/client
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:03:49.599523+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:03:49.599523+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
stateclass: Sub-Professional Work Competitive Bid Eligibility State
subject: Engineering firm invited to submit price-based bid for sub-professional work
terminatedby: Firm submits or declines the bid
textreferences: firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
triggeringevent: Firm receives invitation to submit written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.407325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Competitive Bidding Permissibility for Sub-Professional Services Based on Rationale Scope
type: CompetitiveBiddingPermissibilityRationaleScopeLimitationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Competitive bid for sub-professional services
appliedto: Procurement process for clearly specifiable non-professional work
balancingwith: Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The ethics board affirmed that the prohibition against competitive bidding is rationale-bounded: because its purpose is to prevent quality sacrifice to lowest price in professional services, it does not apply to sub-professional or non-professional services that can be clearly and accurately specified, making competitive bidding ethically permissible for the sub-professional work at issue
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The permissibility of competitive bidding for sub-professional services is not merely a formal exception but flows from the underlying rationale of the prohibition: where quality cannot be sacrificed to price because the work is clearly specifiable, the prohibition's purpose is absent and the prohibition does not apply
invokedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
invokedby: Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client Individual
principleclass: Competitive Bidding Permissibility Rationale Scope Limitation Principle
sourcetext: This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services, and this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
tensionresolution: No conflict arises: the rationale-scope analysis resolves the apparent tension between professional anti-competitive-bidding norms and commercial competitive bidding by showing the norms operate in different domains
textreferences: In applying the distinction noted above, it should be kept in mind that the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
textreferences: This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services, and this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.416533
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics-Sections-2-and-19
cited provision2: NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: The provisions of the Canons and Rules do not apply to services solely of a sub-professional nature.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board's sole explicit conclusion is an interpretive determination clarifying the scope of the NSPE Code of Ethics: the Canons and Rules governing professional engineering conduct do not extend to services that are solely sub-professional in nature. This means a PE firm may submit competitive price-based bids for sub-professional work without violating the ethics code provisions that would otherwise restrict competitive bidding for professional engineering services.
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.180872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics-Sections-2-and-19
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Although the Board correctly concludes that the Canons and Rules do not formally apply to services solely of a sub-professional nature, this conclusion does not extinguish a residual layer of baseline ethical obligations that attach to the PE firm by virtue of its principals' licensure status. Honesty, non-deception, and avoidance of misleading representations are not merely code-derived duties; they are foundational professional character obligations that persist regardless of the classification of the work being bid. A PE firm that submits a sub-professional bid containing false statements about scope, capacity, or quality would still be acting in a manner inconsistent with the professional standing of its principals, even if no specific Canon or Rule is technically triggered. The Board's conclusion therefore marks a floor of formal code applicability, not a ceiling on ethical conduct.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.180942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that the ethics code does not apply to sub-professional services creates a structurally significant loophole risk: a PE firm could, over time, systematically reclassify work that contains meaningful engineering judgment as 'sub-professional' in order to escape code-governed constraints on competitive bidding, fee negotiation, and solicitation conduct. The profession must guard against this reclassification abuse by anchoring the sub-professional designation to objective, externally verifiable criteria — such as whether the work requires the exercise of professional engineering judgment, the application of engineering principles, or the assumption of professional liability — rather than allowing the firm itself to self-classify work as sub-professional at its own discretion. Where scope ambiguity exists prior to bidding, the PE firm bears an affirmative obligation to seek clarification from the client before treating the engagement as sub-professional, because the permissibility of competitive bidding under the Board's ruling is contingent on the work being comprised solely of sub-professional services as a verified factual matter, not merely as a self-serving characterization.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics-Sections-2-and-19
cited provision2: Engineer-Solicitation-Competition-Ethics-Standard-Instance
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's ruling implicitly presupposes that the PE firm's professional identity and its sub-professional commercial identity can be cleanly separated in the marketplace, but this assumption warrants scrutiny. When a firm whose name, reputation, and market recognition are built on its principals' PE credentials submits a bid for sub-professional work under that same identity, there is a material risk that the client and the broader public will attribute to the sub-professional services a level of professional oversight, quality assurance, and engineering accountability that the firm is not, in the context of that engagement, formally obligated to provide. This perception gap creates a transparency obligation: the PE firm should, at minimum, ensure that its sub-professional bid submissions do not affirmatively invoke or implicitly trade upon its PE credentials as a quality signal for the sub-professional work. Where the volume or regularity of sub-professional work is substantial, the Board's reasoning further supports the practical advisability — and potentially the ethical obligation — of establishing a separate organizational entity to conduct that work, so that the professional engineering identity of the firm is not conflated with its commercial sub-professional operations in the minds of clients and the public.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181115
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics-Sections-2-and-19
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: Even though the Canons and Rules formally do not apply to sub-professional services, a PE firm whose principals hold active licenses retains residual ethical obligations rooted in baseline honesty and non-deception that persist regardless of the nature of the work being bid. The professional engineering license is not a hat that can be removed when commercially convenient; the principals' identities as licensed engineers follow them into every commercial transaction conducted under the firm's name. Accordingly, while the firm is free from the specific competitive-bidding restrictions that govern professional engineering solicitations, it remains bound by the general obligation not to misrepresent the nature, scope, or quality of the sub-professional services it is offering. This residual honesty obligation is not derived from the engineering code itself but from the broader professional character that licensure confers and that the public reasonably expects.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.180646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics-Sections-2-and-19
cited provision2: NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: There is a genuine and non-trivial risk that clients and the public will conflate a PE firm's professional engineering reputation and credentials with the quality assurance of sub-professional services offered under the same firm name. When a firm whose identity is built on licensed engineering expertise submits a bid for sub-professional work, the client may reasonably—if incorrectly—assume that the professional oversight, liability standards, and ethical accountability associated with licensed engineering practice attach to those services as well. This perception gap creates a disclosure obligation: the firm should make clear, in its bid documentation and any accompanying correspondence, that the services being offered are sub-professional in character and do not carry the same regulatory and ethical framework as professional engineering services. Failure to make this distinction risks a form of implicit misrepresentation even where no explicit false statement is made.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: The question of at what volume or regularity of sub-professional work it becomes ethically advisable—or obligatory—for a PE firm to establish a separate organizational entity does not admit of a precise numerical threshold, but a principled answer can be constructed. When sub-professional work transitions from an occasional ancillary activity to a regular and substantial component of the firm's revenue and market identity, the risk of public confusion about the professional standing of its services becomes systemic rather than incidental. At that point, the ethical advisability of organizational segregation crosses into something closer to an obligation, because the firm's continued use of its PE-branded identity as the vehicle for large-scale sub-professional commerce constitutes a structural form of credential exploitation even absent any single deceptive act. A separate entity would allow competitive pricing and market participation in sub-professional work without continuously trading on the professional engineering reputation of the parent firm. Short of full separation, rigorous contractual and correspondence-level segregation—clearly labeling sub-professional engagements as distinct from professional engineering services—represents the minimum acceptable practice for a mixed-mode firm.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics-Sections-2-and-19
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that the Canons and Rules do not apply to sub-professional services does create a structural vulnerability to reclassification abuse, whereby a PE firm could systematically migrate ethically constrained professional work into a sub-professional classification to escape code compliance. The profession must guard against this by anchoring the sub-professional classification to objective, substantive criteria—specifically, whether the work requires the application of professional engineering judgment, involves public safety implications, or demands the exercise of licensed competencies—rather than allowing the classification to be self-assigned by the bidding firm for competitive advantage. Where scope ambiguity exists, the ethical obligation falls on the firm to resolve that ambiguity conservatively, treating uncertain work as professional in character until clearly established otherwise. Regulators and professional bodies should also periodically audit the boundary between professional and sub-professional classifications to prevent definitional drift that would hollow out the ethical framework over time.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
cited provision2: Engineer-Solicitation-Competition-Ethics-Standard-Instance
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: The tension between free and open competition governing sub-professional bidding and the persistence of professional ethics obligations does not resolve cleanly in favor of either principle, but a workable hierarchy can be articulated. The competitive freedom principle properly governs the pricing mechanism and the permissibility of submitting a price-based bid at all—areas where the engineering code's restrictions were designed to address professional service quality, not commercial commodity pricing. However, the ethics obligation persistence principle properly governs the conduct surrounding the bid: the honesty of representations made, the accuracy of scope descriptions, and the avoidance of credential exploitation. These two principles therefore operate on different dimensions of the bidding activity rather than being in direct conflict, and a PE firm can honor both simultaneously by competing freely on price while maintaining scrupulous honesty and transparency in how it presents itself and its services.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, a PE firm does not have a categorical duty to apply the full professional engineering ethics code to all its activities merely because its principals hold PE licenses, since the code is specifically scoped to professional engineering practice and its obligations are not infinitely extensible. However, deontological reasoning does support a narrower but firm duty: the firm must not exploit its professional engineering credentials as an instrument to gain competitive advantage in sub-professional bidding, because doing so would involve using the trust and authority conferred by licensure—a public grant premised on professional accountability—in a context where that accountability framework does not apply. This constitutes a form of deception toward the client and a misuse of a public trust instrument, both of which are categorically impermissible regardless of whether a specific code provision addresses them. The duty is therefore not one of full code compliance but of credential integrity.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics standpoint, a PE firm that competes on price for sub-professional work does not automatically erode its professional character, but it risks doing so if it fails to maintain the habits of transparency, honesty, and client-centered conduct that define a virtuous engineering practice. The virtue ethics concern is not with price competition per se—which is a legitimate commercial activity—but with the disposition the firm cultivates toward its own identity and its clients. A firm that routinely treats its PE credentials as a marketing asset in sub-professional bids, that allows the boundary between professional and sub-professional work to blur in its own self-presentation, or that prioritizes competitive advantage over clarity of scope, is developing institutional habits that will eventually corrupt its professional practice as well. Virtue ethics therefore counsels proactive clarity, consistent identity integrity, and a firm internal culture that treats the professional-sub-professional distinction as meaningful rather than merely formal.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
cited provision2: BER-Sub-Professional-Services-Precedent
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: The counterfactual in which the sub-professional work bid is submitted under a separate organizational entity rather than under the PE firm's name substantially mitigates the ethical concerns about credential exploitation and public perception confusion. Under such an arrangement, the client would engage with an entity whose identity does not carry the implicit professional engineering warranty, and the competitive pricing dynamics of the sub-professional market would operate without the distorting effect of PE-branded credibility. The Board's analysis would likely have been simpler and less cautionary under this scenario, since the primary ethical tensions—credential exploitation, public confusion, and the blurring of professional and sub-professional identity—would be structurally resolved rather than merely managed through disclosure. This counterfactual reinforces the conclusion that organizational segregation, while not currently mandated, represents the most ethically clean solution for PE firms with substantial sub-professional operations.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics-Sections-2-and-19
cited provision3: NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In the counterfactual where sub-professional services are bundled or intermingled with professional engineering services rather than being comprised solely of sub-professional work, the ethics code would apply to the entire engagement. The rationale for the Board's non-applicability conclusion rests critically on the work being comprised solely of sub-professional services—a clean categorical boundary that allows the competitive bidding framework to operate without ethical code interference. Once professional engineering judgment, oversight, or deliverables are introduced into the same engagement, the entire scope becomes subject to the code because the professional elements cannot be ethically quarantined from the sub-professional elements within a single contractual relationship. The firm would be obligated to segregate its conduct, pricing, and representations by service category, and where such segregation is not feasible, to treat the entire engagement as professional in character for ethics code purposes.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics-Sections-2-and-19
cited provision3: Engineer-Solicitation-Competition-Ethics-Standard-Instance
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In the counterfactual where the PE firm explicitly advertises its professional engineering credentials and licensure status as a selling point in its sub-professional services bid, the Board's conclusion of ethics code non-applicability would become difficult to sustain in its entirety. While the underlying work remains sub-professional in character, the act of invoking PE credentials as a competitive differentiator in that context constitutes a form of misleading solicitation: it implies to the client that the professional engineering accountability framework—including ethical obligations, liability standards, and regulatory oversight—attaches to the sub-professional services being offered, when in fact it does not. This conduct would trigger provisions against misleading representations and credential exploitation regardless of the service classification, because the ethical violation lies in the solicitation conduct itself rather than in the nature of the work. The firm's freedom to compete on price for sub-professional work does not extend to a freedom to misrepresent the professional standing of that work.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
cited provision2: NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: Where the scope of sub-professional services is ambiguous enough to potentially encompass professional engineering judgment, the Board's conclusion of ethics code non-applicability would not be sustainable, and the firm would bear an affirmative obligation to resolve that ambiguity before submitting a bid. The non-applicability conclusion is predicated on the work being clearly and solely sub-professional in character—a factual predicate that must be established, not assumed. When scope ambiguity exists, the firm cannot unilaterally classify the work as sub-professional to gain competitive bidding freedom; doing so would constitute a self-serving interpretation of a boundary that exists to protect the public. The firm's obligation in such circumstances is to seek clarification from the client, and if clarification is not forthcoming or the scope remains genuinely ambiguous, to treat the engagement as professional in character and conduct itself accordingly under the full ethics code framework.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181763
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The central tension in this case—between the principle that ethics code scope is limited to professional practice and the principle that professional ethics obligations persist through all firm activities—was resolved by the Board through a domain-boundary approach rather than a character-based approach. The Board drew a hard jurisdictional line: the Canons and Rules govern professional engineering services, and where the work is solely sub-professional in character, the code simply does not reach. This resolution prioritizes formal scope limitation over the view that a PE firm's ethical identity is indivisible from its principals' licensure. The practical implication is that the ethics code is treated as a regulatory instrument tied to the nature of the work product, not as a comprehensive character standard governing every commercial act of a licensed firm. What this case teaches about principle prioritization is that when two principles conflict—one defining the outer boundary of a code's jurisdiction and one asserting the persistence of professional obligations—the Board will defer to the jurisdictional boundary principle, at least where the sub-professional character of the work is clear and unambiguous. This deference reflects a concern that overextending the code into commercial activities could itself create antitrust exposure and improperly constrain lawful market participation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The principle of free and open competition governing sub-professional bidding and the principle of PE identity non-exploitation in sub-professional bid submissions exist in a state of unresolved productive tension that the Board's ruling leaves to the firm's own judgment. The Board's conclusion that the ethics code does not apply formally removes the code as an enforcement mechanism in this space, but it does not eliminate the underlying ethical risk that a PE firm's professional reputation and credentials may implicitly color a client's perception of the quality and reliability of sub-professional services offered under the same firm name. The principle of transparency obligation in mixed professional-sub-professional firm identity therefore emerges as a residual ethical norm that persists even after the code's formal jurisdiction ends. This case teaches that when a formal code withdraws from a domain, it does not extinguish the underlying principles that animated the code—it merely shifts responsibility for honoring those principles from enforceable obligation to voluntary professional dignity. A PE firm that competes freely on price for sub-professional work while trading implicitly on its engineering reputation is not violating the code, but it is navigating a reputational and ethical gray zone that the profession has not fully resolved.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181883
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The principle of professional-sub-professional segregation obligation for a mixed-practice PE firm and the principle of sub-professional competitive bidding permissibility interact in a way that reveals an important structural lesson: permissibility of an activity does not dissolve the obligation to maintain clarity about what category of service is being rendered. The Board's ruling permits the firm to bid competitively on sub-professional work, but the broader ethical framework—including honesty in bid representations and transparency about firm identity—implies that the firm must not allow the sub-professional engagement to blur into or be mistaken for professional engineering services. This means that while no separate organizational entity is strictly required by the code, the principle of segregation remains ethically advisable as a prophylactic measure, particularly as the volume of sub-professional work grows. The tension between segregation obligation and bidding permissibility is therefore not truly resolved by the Board's ruling—it is deferred, with the implicit expectation that the firm will self-regulate the boundary through documentation, correspondence, and organizational clarity. The case thus teaches that competitive bidding permissibility and segregation obligation are complementary rather than conflicting principles: the former grants market freedom, while the latter preserves the integrity of the professional-commercial distinction that makes that freedom coherent.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should the PE firm submit the competitive bid for sub-professional services, recognizing that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding and that the work falls outside the formal scope of the Canons and Rules?
focus: A professional engineering firm whose principals are all licensed PEs has been invited to submit a written competitive bid for work that is sub-professional in character but related to professional engineering services. The firm must decide whether submitting such a bid is ethically permissible under the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct, or whether the invitation must be declined on ethical grounds.
option1: Proceed with preparing and submitting a written competitive bid for the sub-professional work, recognizing that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code prohibitions on competitive bidding and that the Canons and Rules do not govern sub-professional services, while ensuring all bid representations are honest and accurate.
option2: Refuse to submit the competitive bid on the mistaken belief that competitive bidding for any work performed by a PE firm is ethically prohibited under the Canons of Ethics, thereby forgoing a legitimate commercial opportunity based on a misapplication of the ethics code's scope.
option3: Pause the bid process and formally request an advisory opinion from the ethics adjudicatory body to confirm whether submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional services is permissible, delaying the commercial decision pending formal clarification.
role label: PE Firm (Mixed-Practice Principal Decision-Maker)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179176
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: When submitting the competitive bid for sub-professional services, should the PE firm leverage its PE licensure and professional reputation as a competitive differentiator, compete solely on commercial merit, or actively conceal its PE identity to avoid any appearance of credential exploitation?
focus: Having determined that submitting the competitive bid is permissible, the PE firm must decide how to conduct itself during the bid process with respect to its PE credentials and professional identity. There is a risk that invoking or highlighting its PE licensure status could constitute an unfair competitive advantage over non-PE competitors bidding on the same sub-professional work, while simultaneously the firm has a transparency obligation not to conceal its identity from the procuring client.
option1: Submit the bid competing solely on price, capability, and relevant experience for the sub-professional work, disclosing the firm's identity as a PE firm to the client without invoking PE licensure as an implied quality signal or competitive differentiator in a marketplace where PE credentials are not required for the work.
option2: Prominently feature the firm's PE licensure and professional engineering reputation in the bid submission as a signal of superior quality and reliability, using the professional credential to gain competitive advantage over non-PE competitors bidding on the same sub-professional work.
option3: Submit the bid without disclosing that the firm is a PE firm, omitting the firm's professional engineering identity from bid materials to prevent any possible conflation of PE credentials with the sub-professional work quality, at the cost of transparency with the procuring client.
role label: PE Firm (Bid Preparation and Submission Agent)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179250
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: How should the PE firm structurally and documentarily segregate its sub-professional commercial work from its professional engineering services to ensure clients and the public are not misled about which category of service is being rendered?
focus: The PE firm regularly engages in both professional engineering services and sub-professional commercial work. It must decide how to organize and present these two categories of work to clients and the public to satisfy the work-category segregation and client transparency obligations. The options range from establishing a fully separate organizational entity with a distinct name to implementing documentation-level segregation measures within the existing firm structure.
option1: Create a distinct organizational entity under a separate name to conduct sub-professional and commercial work, fully separating it from the PE firm's professional engineering practice so that clients and the public encounter clearly differentiated entities when engaging either category of service.
option2: Retain a single organizational structure but adopt rigorous documentation segregation measures—including distinct contracts, separate letterheads, and clearly labeled correspondence—that explicitly identify whether each engagement is professional engineering work or sub-professional commercial work, ensuring no client is misled without the cost of establishing a separate entity.
option3: Continue operating under the existing firm structure without implementing specific segregation measures, relying on clients to understand the distinction between professional and sub-professional services based on the nature of the work requested, without contractual or documentary clarification.
role label: PE Firm (Organizational Structure and Client Communication Decision-Maker)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179361
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: How should the PE firm and the ethics adjudicatory body address the structural loophole risk that the ethics code's non-application to sub-professional services could be exploited through systematic reclassification of professional engineering work as sub-professional?
focus: The Board's conclusion that the Canons and Rules do not apply to sub-professional services creates a structural vulnerability: a PE firm could, over time, systematically reclassify work that genuinely requires professional engineering judgment as sub-professional in order to escape ethics code constraints and compete on price. The firm and the ethics adjudicatory body must decide how to guard against this reclassification risk while preserving the legitimate commercial freedom recognized by the Board's ruling.
option1: Require the PE firm and the ethics body to conduct a substantive, case-by-case assessment of whether each engagement genuinely constitutes sub-professional work that can be clearly and accurately specified before treating it as outside the ethics code's scope, preventing reclassification of work that actually requires professional engineering judgment.
option2: Allow the PE firm to self-classify engagements as sub-professional based on its own judgment, without requiring independent verification by the ethics body or the procuring client, relying on the firm's good faith to avoid reclassification abuse.
option3: Reject the scope limitation principle and apply the Canons and Rules to all activities of a PE firm whose principals hold active licenses, regardless of whether the work is professional engineering or sub-professional in character, eliminating the reclassification loophole at the cost of overriding the Board's ruling and antitrust considerations.
role label: PE Firm and Ethics Adjudicatory Body (Loophole Risk Management Decision-Makers)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should the PE firm voluntarily apply baseline ethical standards rooted in honesty, non-deception, and professional dignity preservation to its sub-professional commercial activities, even though the formal Canons and Rules do not require it to do so?
focus: Even though the Canons and Rules formally do not apply to the sub-professional bid and related commercial activities, the PE firm's principals hold active PE licenses and their conduct in commercial domains can still reflect on the engineering profession as a whole. The firm must decide whether and how to apply baseline ethical standards—honesty, non-deception, professional dignity preservation—to its sub-professional commercial conduct, given that the formal ethics code does not directly govern it.
option1: Recognize that residual ethical obligations rooted in honesty, non-deception, fair competition, and professional dignity preservation persist through all commercial activities by virtue of the principals' PE licensure, and voluntarily apply these baseline standards to the sub-professional bid and related commercial work even where the formal Canons do not directly mandate it.
option2: Rely strictly on the Board's ruling that the Canons and Rules do not apply to sub-professional services, treating the firm's commercial activities as entirely free from any ethics-code-derived obligations and subject only to general commercial law and procurement regulations, without voluntarily importing any professional ethical standards.
option3: Voluntarily apply the complete Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct to all sub-professional commercial activities as a precautionary measure, treating the formal ethics code as governing all firm activities regardless of work character, in order to eliminate any risk of conduct that could discredit the profession.
role label: PE Firm Principals (Licensed PE Ethical Conduct Decision-Makers)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Deregulated-Advertising-Ethics-Non-Elimination-Sub-Professional-Bid
type: DeregulatedAdvertisingContextEthicsNon-EliminationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm operating in deregulated competitive bidding environment for sub-professional services must still comply with baseline honesty norms
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: PE firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services
constraintclass: Deregulated Advertising Context Ethics Non-Elimination Constraint
constraintstatement: The removal of code-based competitive bidding restrictions from sub-professional services does not eliminate the PE firm's ethical obligations of truthfulness and non-deception in its bid materials; the firm remains constrained to submit a bid that is honest, accurate, and non-misleading regardless of the permissive competitive environment for sub-professional work.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; antitrust and commercial free speech developments
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
temporalscope: At time of bid preparation and submission
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.412757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Dual-Category Work Segregation Obligation
type: Professional-Sub-ProfessionalWorkCategorySegregationObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Active whenever a firm simultaneously provides both professional and sub-professional services; specifically addressed in the Discussion section as a continuing obligation
affectedparties: Clients of both service categories
affectedparties: Engineering firm principals
affectedparties: General public relying on professional status signals
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:04:54.872647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:04:54.872647+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work
stateclass: Professional-Sub-Professional Work Category Segregation Obligation State
subject: Engineering firm operating in both professional engineering and sub-professional/commercial service modes under the same identity
terminatedby: Establishment of separate organizational entity with distinct name for sub-professional work, or cessation of one category of work, or implementation of adequate contractual/correspondence segregation
textreferences: It is desirable where the sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, to operate through a separate form of organization, with a distinct name
textreferences: Where this is not practicable... the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work, including references in the contract or in correspondence
textreferences: it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work
triggeringevent: Firm's engagement in both professional engineering services and sub-professional commercial activities without separate organizational structure
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.407933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Engineer-Solicitation-Competition-Ethics-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerSolicitationandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code Provisions on Engineer Solicitation and Competitive Bidding Ethics
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:03:30.357722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:03:30.357722+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
usedby: Engineering firm principals when deciding whether to submit the bid
usedincontext: Governs the ethical conditions under which the PE firm may submit a written competitive bid, including obligations of honesty, fairness, and non-deception in the procurement process for the sub-professional services contract.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.406310
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Engineering Business-Profession Duality in Sub-Professional Bid Context
type: EngineeringBusiness-ProfessionDualityIntegrityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Submission of competitive bid for sub-professional services
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The PE firm simultaneously operates as a commercial bidder in a sub-professional marketplace and as a profession-bound entity whose principals hold engineering licenses; it must navigate both dimensions — competing commercially on price and merit while maintaining professional integrity obligations in how it represents itself and its services
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The duality principle requires the firm to engage in the commercial bidding process on commercial terms while ensuring that its professional obligations — honesty, non-deception, transparency — continue to govern its conduct
invokedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
principleclass: Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Principle
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
tensionresolution: The firm may compete commercially but must not allow commercial competitive pressures to erode its professional integrity obligations in the bid submission
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.410095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Engineering Business-Profession Duality in Sub-Professional Bidding Context
type: EngineeringBusiness-ProfessionDualityIntegrityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Ethical navigation of mixed-practice engineering firm
appliedto: Firm's dual professional-commercial operational structure
balancingwith: Ethics Code Non-Applicability to Sub-Professional and Non-Professional Business Activities Principle
balancingwith: Professional Ethics Obligation Persistence in Sub-Professional Practice Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The case illustrates the duality of engineering practice as simultaneously a profession and a business: the PE firm's principals operate as licensed professionals in engineering engagements and as commercial competitors in sub-professional markets, requiring the firm to navigate both dimensions with integrity — maintaining professional obligations in engineering work while engaging in legitimate commercial competition for sub-professional services
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The duality principle requires the firm to be clear-eyed about which mode it is operating in at any given time, and to apply the appropriate norms — professional ethics for engineering work, commercial ethics and transparency for sub-professional work — without allowing either domain's norms to inappropriately colonize the other
invokedby: Dual-Mode Professional-Commercial Engineering Firm Principal
principleclass: Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Principle
sourcetext: There are two basic situations in engineering practice relative to this discussion. Virtually all contracts for professional engineering services require some sub-professional and nonprofessional work to furnish the final professional result. This situation is not relative to the present case which relates only to those contracts which are solely of a sub-professional nature.
tensionresolution: The duality principle provides the meta-framework for resolving the tension: professional and commercial norms are both legitimate in their respective domains, and the engineer's task is accurate domain classification and appropriate norm application
textreferences: There are two basic situations in engineering practice relative to this discussion.
textreferences: This situation is not relative to the present case which relates only to those contracts which are solely of a sub-professional nature.
textreferences: Virtually all contracts for professional engineering services require some sub-professional and nonprofessional work to furnish the final professional result.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.417636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Engineering Code Non-Applicability to Sub-Professional Activities
type: EngineeringCodeScopeExclusionofSub-ProfessionalActivitiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Persistent background condition governing the ethical analysis throughout the case; formally articulated in the Discussion section
affectedparties: Clients engaging firm for sub-professional work
affectedparties: Engineer/firm providing sub-professional services
affectedparties: Public relying on professional status signals
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:04:54.872647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:04:54.872647+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage
stateclass: Engineering Code Scope Exclusion of Sub-Professional Activities State
subject: Professional engineering firm engaging in sub-professional/commercial services alongside professional engineering practice
terminatedby: Not terminated within this case; persists as a standing jurisdictional rule
textreferences: the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage
textreferences: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services... is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services
textreferences: this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services
triggeringevent: NSPE Board of Ethical Review determination that Canons of Ethics apply only to professional engineering practice, not to business/commercial activities
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.405935
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Establish Separate Organizational Entity
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.404493
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Ethical Permissibility Determined
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.404692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Ethical Permissibility Determined → Professional Distinction Obligation Activated
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.421173
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Ethics Code Scope Limitation to Professional Practice in Sub-Professional Bidding Case
type: EthicsCodeNon-ApplicabilitytoSub-ProfessionalandNon-ProfessionalBusinessActivitiesPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Competitive bid submission for sub-professional services
balancingwith: Professional Ethics Obligation Persistence in Sub-Professional Practice Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The ethics board determined that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct apply only to professional engineering practice and not to the sub-professional commercial activities at issue in this case, where the firm was invited to submit a competitive bid for work solely sub-professional in character
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the ethics code's scope limitation means that provisions restricting competitive bidding for professional services do not apply to the sub-professional bid, and the firm is not in violation of those provisions by submitting a competitive bid
invokedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
principleclass: Ethics Code Non-Applicability to Sub-Professional and Non-Professional Business Activities Principle
sourcetext: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as his sole activity or in conjunction with his engineering practice.
tensionresolution: The scope limitation is categorical for formal code provisions, but residual honesty and transparency obligations persist even outside formal code jurisdiction
textreferences: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as his sole activity or in conjunction with his engineering practice.
textreferences: Sections 2 and 19 of the Canons limit the engineers' personal conduct in a general frame of reference to his professional work.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.416044
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Free-Open-Competition-Sub-Professional-Bid-PE-Firm
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionRegulatoryDeferenceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm invited to submit written competitive price-based bid for sub-professional services work
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: PE firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services
constraintclass: Free and Open Competition Regulatory Deference Constraint
constraintstatement: The PE firm must conduct its sub-professional bid in conformance with applicable laws and regulations governing free and open competition; the BER is not positioned to override those laws, and the firm's competitive bidding on sub-professional work is governed by the free competition framework rather than professional code competitive restrictions.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Local, state, and federal laws governing free and open competition; NSPE BER Case 10-8
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
temporalscope: Throughout the competitive bid process
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.412259
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Free Competition Framework Governing Sub-Professional Bid
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionLegalFrameworkActiveState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Active at time of bid invitation
affectedparties: Competing bidders
affectedparties: Engineering firm
affectedparties: Inviting party
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:03:49.599523+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:03:49.599523+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
stateclass: Free and Open Competition Legal Framework Active State
subject: Legal and regulatory environment governing the bid invitation
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
triggeringevent: Bid invitation issued under competitive (price-based) procurement
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.407531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Free and Open Competition Governs PE Firm Sub-Professional Bidding
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionasEngineeringEthicsBoundaryCondition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Written competitive bid for sub-professional services
balancingwith: Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle
balancingwith: Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The PE firm's invitation to submit a written competitive bid for sub-professional work is governed by the foundational norm of free and open competition; the firm is not ethically prohibited from participating in this commercial market simply because its principals hold PE licenses
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Free and open competition means PE firms cannot be categorically excluded from sub-professional markets, nor can ethics codes be used to restrict their participation in ways that would violate antitrust principles
invokedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
principleclass: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
tensionresolution: The firm may bid; the ethical question shifts to how it bids and what it discloses, not whether it may participate at all
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.409681
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Honesty in Sub-Professional Bid Representations
type: HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Written competitive bid for sub-professional services
balancingwith: Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Principle
balancingwith: PE Identity Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Commercial Competition Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The PE firm must ensure that all representations in its written bid for sub-professional services are truthful and accurate — including representations about its capacity to perform the work, the qualifications of personnel who will perform it, and the nature of the services being offered — without misrepresenting sub-professional work as professional engineering services or vice versa
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Honesty in this context requires accurate characterization of the work as sub-professional and accurate representation of the firm's capabilities for that specific type of work, not its engineering capabilities generally
invokedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
principleclass: Honesty in Professional Representations
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
tensionresolution: Honesty and non-exploitation are complementary: the firm must be honest about what it is (a PE firm) while not exploiting that identity to gain unfair commercial advantage
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.410503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Implement Documentation Segregation Measures
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.404580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Market Perception of Firm Altered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.404849
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

NSPE-Canons-of-Ethics-Sections-2-and-19
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Canons of Ethics, Sections 2 and 19
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:04:32.194197+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:04:32.194197+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Sections 2 and 19 of the Canons limit the engineers' personal conduct in a general frame of reference to his professional work.
textreferences: Section 2- '... and he will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and honor of his profession.' Section 19- 'The engineer will endeavor to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.'
textreferences: Sections 2 and 19 of the Canons limit the engineers' personal conduct in a general frame of reference to his professional work.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in its analysis
usedincontext: Cited as the specific provisions limiting engineers' personal conduct in relation to professional work, used to establish that the Canons apply only to professional (not sub-professional or commercial) activities
version: Historical version (sections subsequently removed from the Code)
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.405247
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:03:30.357722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:03:30.357722+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
textreferences: services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in deliberating the ethical permissibility of the firm's bid submission
usedincontext: Primary normative authority for evaluating whether a PE firm may ethically submit a competitive bid for sub-professional services work; provides Fundamental Canons and Rules of Practice governing professional conduct, competitive bidding, and the scope of permissible engineering firm activities.
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.405692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

NSPE-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Rules of Professional Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:04:32.194197+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:04:32.194197+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage
textreferences: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in its analysis
usedincontext: Referenced alongside the Canons of Ethics as the governing normative framework applicable only to professional engineering practice, not to sub-professional or commercial activities
version: Current at time of case analysis
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.408113
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE-Credential-Non-Exploitation-Sub-Professional-Bid-PE-Firm
type: PECredentialNon-ExploitationinSub-ProfessionalCompetitiveBidConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: All principals of the firm are licensed PEs; the work being bid is sub-professional in character; competing firms may not hold PE licenses
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: PE firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services
constraintclass: PE Credential Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Competitive Bid Constraint
constraintstatement: The PE firm is prohibited from invoking or leveraging its PE licensure status as a competitive differentiator in its written bid for sub-professional services; it must compete solely on commercial merit and qualifications relevant to the sub-professional work, not on the basis of professional credentials that are not qualifying criteria for the work being bid.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER sub-professional services precedent; antitrust rulings
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
temporalscope: At time of bid preparation and submission
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.413446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE-Firm-Sub-Professional-Bid-Identity-Transparency-Instance
type: PEFirmSub-ProfessionalBidIdentityTransparencyConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm with all-PE principals bidding on sub-professional work alongside potentially non-PE commercial competitors
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.78
constrainedentity: PE firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services
constraintclass: PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Identity Transparency Constraint
constraintstatement: The PE firm must be transparent with the procuring client about its nature as a professional engineering firm when submitting a bid for sub-professional services — neither obscuring its identity nor exploiting it — ensuring the client has accurate information about the bidding entity without the firm gaining improper competitive advantage from its professional status.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; BER sub-professional services precedent
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers
temporalscope: Throughout bid preparation and submission
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.413629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
type: PEFirmBiddingSub-ProfessionalServices
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'licensure': 'All principals are Professional Engineers', 'service_scope': 'Occasionally provides sub-professional services related to engineering', 'bid_type': 'Written competitive bid', 'work_character': 'Solely sub-professional in nature'}
caseinvolvement: A firm whose principals are all licensed PEs that occasionally provides sub-professional services and has been invited to submit a written competitive bid for a contract comprised solely of sub-professional services. The central ethical question concerns whether this firm may properly submit such a bid.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:03:36.509865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:03:36.509865+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'invited_by', 'target': 'Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client Individual'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: PE Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Services
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.406712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Antitrust Scope Recognition in Sub-Professional Bid
type: NSPECodeAntitrustConstraintScopeBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: NSPE Code Antitrust Constraint Scope Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm's principals recognize that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding, and that submitting a written competitive bid for sub-professional services is not ethically prohibited under the current code.
casecontext: PE firm evaluating whether to submit a competitive bid for sub-professional services in light of antitrust-modified ethics code
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Applying knowledge of antitrust-constrained NSPE code scope to determine that competitive bidding for sub-professional work is permissible
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.414428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Antitrust Scope Recognition in Sub-Professional Bid Context
type: AntitrustandProcurementLawContextualAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Antitrust and Procurement Law Contextual Awareness Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm possesses the capability to recognize that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding, and that submitting a written competitive bid for sub-professional services is permissible within this legal framework.
casecontext: PE firm evaluating whether competitive bidding for sub-professional work is permissible under post-antitrust engineering ethics framework
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Correct application of antitrust-informed understanding of competitive bidding permissibility for sub-professional services
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
textreferences: This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services, and this difference permits competitive bidding
textreferences: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.421138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Baseline Honesty Persistence in Sub-Professional Bid Despite Code Non-Application
type: DeregulatedAdvertisingContextEthicsNon-EliminationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm with all-PE principals submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services while operating under professional engineering identity
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: PE Firm (all-PE-principal engineering firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services)
constraintclass: Deregulated Advertising Context Ethics Non-Elimination Constraint
constraintstatement: Although the formal Canons of Ethics do not apply to the sub-professional bid, the PE firm's principals remain bound by baseline honesty, non-deception, and professional dignity obligations in all representations made in the bid submission.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case Discussion; NSPE Code of Ethics general principles
sourcetext: Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
temporalscope: Throughout the sub-professional bid submission process and all related commercial activities
textreferences: Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.419364
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Dual-Mode Service Operation
type: PEFirmSub-ProfessionalServiceProvisionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Persistent background condition throughout the case; the firm's dual-mode operation is the foundational fact pattern
affectedparties: Clients
affectedparties: Engineering firm
affectedparties: PE principals
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:04:54.872647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:04:54.872647+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Virtually all contracts for professional engineering services require some sub-professional and nonprofessional work to furnish the final professional result
stateclass: PE Firm Sub-Professional Service Provision State
subject: Engineering firm whose principals hold PE licenses regularly providing sub-professional commercial services as part of its business activities
terminatedby: Not terminated within this case
textreferences: Virtually all contracts for professional engineering services require some sub-professional and nonprofessional work to furnish the final professional result
textreferences: an operation in both categories by the same firm
textreferences: those contracts which are solely of a sub-professional nature
triggeringevent: Firm's established practice of providing both professional engineering and sub-professional commercial services
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.409048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Ethics Code Individual Non-Waivability Recognition
type: EthicsCodeBusiness-FormNon-WaivabilityIndividualEngineerSelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethics Code Business-Form Non-Waivability Individual Engineer Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm's principals recognize that the engineering ethics code applies to them as individual licensed engineers regardless of the business form of the firm, and that the firm's engagement in sub-professional commercial activities does not negate their individual ethical obligations.
casecontext: PE firm principals understanding that their individual ethics obligations persist in all firm activities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Recognizing that individual PE principals remain bound by the ethics code even when the firm is acting in a commercial sub-professional capacity
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: PE Firm Principal Engaging in Mixed Professional and Sub-Professional Practice
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.415498
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Ethics Code Non-Application to Sub-Professional Bid Submission
type: ProfessionalEngineeringCodeScopeLimitationtoProfessionalPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm with all-PE principals invited to submit written competitive bid for sub-professional services work
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: PE Firm (all-PE-principal engineering firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services)
constraintclass: Professional Engineering Code Scope Limitation to Professional Practice Constraint
constraintstatement: The Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to the PE firm's submission of a competitive price-based bid for sub-professional services; the firm is not constrained by professional code competitive bidding restrictions in this context.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case Discussion; Canons of Ethics Sections 2 and 19 (now superseded)
sourcetext: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as his sole activity or in conjunction with his engineering practice.
temporalscope: At the time of and throughout the sub-professional bid submission process
textreferences: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as his sole activity or in conjunction with his engineering practice.
textreferences: Sections 2 and 19 of the Canons limit the engineers' personal conduct in a general frame of reference to his professional work.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.418648
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Ethics Code Persistence in Sub-Professional Bid Conduct Instance
type: EthicsCodePersistenceAcrossService-TypeContextsCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethics Code Persistence Across Service-Type Contexts Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm's principals possess the capability to recognize that their ethical obligations under the engineering code of ethics persist in full force during the submission of a competitive bid for sub-professional services — understanding that while the code does not govern the sub-professional activity itself, the conduct of the firm's principals in all activities remains subject to professional ethics standards.
casecontext: PE firm principals submitting competitive bid for sub-professional work while maintaining professional ethics obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Maintenance of ethical conduct standards throughout the sub-professional bid process, including honest representations and transparency
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: PE Firm Principal Engaging in Mixed Professional and Sub-Professional Practice
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful
textreferences: Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful
textreferences: Sections 2 and 19 of the Canons limit the engineers' personal conduct in a general frame of reference to his professional work.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.420986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Ethics Code Scope Confinement Recognition in Sub-Professional Bid Context
type: EthicsCodeScopeConfinementtoProfessionalEngineeringPracticeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethics Code Scope Confinement to Professional Engineering Practice Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm and its principals possess the capability to correctly recognize that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct apply only to professional engineering practice and not to the sub-professional bid they are submitting, enabling them to proceed with the competitive bid without ethical violation.
casecontext: PE firm invited to submit competitive bid for work solely sub-professional in character
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the ethics code does not govern the sub-professional bid submission, and that competitive bidding for such services is ethically permissible
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage
textreferences: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage
textreferences: Sections 2 and 19 of the Canons limit the engineers' personal conduct in a general frame of reference to his professional work.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.419748
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Ethics Code Scope Non-Application to Sub-Professional Bid
type: EthicsCodeScopeLimitationtoProfessionalEngineeringPracticeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A PE firm whose principals are all licensed engineers has been invited to submit a written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character; the question is whether ethics code provisions restrict or govern that bid.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:14:04.571072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:14:04.571072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work and the ethics adjudicatory body
obligationclass: Ethics Code Scope Limitation to Professional Engineering Practice Obligation
obligationstatement: The PE firm and the ethics body are obligated to recognize that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to the sub-professional work for which the firm has been invited to bid, because that work is business/commercial in character rather than professional engineering practice.
sourcetext: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as his sole activity or in conjunction with his engineering practice.
temporalscope: At the time of evaluating whether ethics code provisions apply to the sub-professional bid invitation
textreferences: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as his sole activity or in conjunction with his engineering practice.
textreferences: This situation is not relative to the present case which relates only to those contracts which are solely of a sub-professional nature.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.417773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Honest Representation in Sub-Professional Bid Submissions
type: Sub-ProfessionalBidHonestRepresentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The PE firm submits a written competitive bid for sub-professional work; its ethical obligations of honesty and non-deception persist in full force even in the commercial bidding context.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:14:04.571072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:14:04.571072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: PE-Principal Engineering Firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services
obligationclass: Sub-Professional Bid Honest Representation Obligation
obligationstatement: The PE firm is obligated to ensure that all representations in its competitive bid for sub-professional services are truthful, accurate, and non-deceptive, consistent with its ongoing ethical obligations as a PE firm, even though the formal ethics code canons do not directly govern the sub-professional work itself.
sourcetext: Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting the competitive bid
textreferences: Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.418484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Mixed-Practice Identity Transparency in Sub-Professional Bid Instance
type: Mixed-PracticeFirmProfessionalIdentityTransparencyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Mixed-Practice Firm Professional Identity Transparency Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm possesses the capability to be transparent with the procuring client about its nature as a professional engineering firm when submitting a bid for sub-professional work, ensuring that the client can make fully informed procurement decisions and that the firm's professional identity is not obscured in commercial contexts.
casecontext: PE firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional work, required to be transparent about its dual professional-commercial nature
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Clear disclosure of PE firm status when submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services, enabling client to distinguish between professional and sub-professional service categories
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Client and Public Receiving Mixed Professional-Commercial Engineering Services
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
textreferences: it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
textreferences: the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work, including references in the contract or in correspondence.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.420853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Mixed-Practice Organizational Segregation Design
type: Sub-ProfessionalWorkOrganizationalSegregationDesignCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sub-Professional Work Organizational Segregation Design Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm principal possesses the capability to design and implement appropriate organizational or contractual mechanisms to segregate sub-professional activities from professional engineering activities, including evaluating whether a separate organizational entity is warranted and implementing contractual or correspondence-based segregation when a separate entity is not practicable.
casecontext: PE firm operating in both professional engineering and sub-professional/commercial domains, required to make clear to clients and public the distinction between the two categories
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Ability to evaluate whether to operate sub-professional activities through a separate organizational form with a distinct name, and to adopt contractual or correspondence-based segregation when that is not practicable
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: PE Firm Principal Engaging in Mixed Professional and Sub-Professional Practice
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is desirable where the sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, to operate through a separate form of organization, with a distinct name.
textreferences: It is desirable where the sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, to operate through a separate form of organization, with a distinct name.
textreferences: Where this is not practicable, and in the case of an operation in both categories by the same firm, the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work, including references in the contract or in correspondence.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.419885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Mixed-Practice Work Category Segregation and Client Transparency
type: Professional-Sub-ProfessionalWorkCategorySegregationandClientTransparencyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: A PE firm whose principals are all licensed engineers engages in both professional engineering services and sub-professional commercial activities; clients and the public must not be confused about which category of service is being rendered.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:14:04.571072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:14:04.571072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: PE-Principal Engineering Firm operating in both professional and sub-professional domains
obligationclass: Professional-Sub-Professional Work Category Segregation and Client Transparency Obligation
obligationstatement: The PE firm is obligated to be scrupulously careful to make clear to its clients and the public the distinction between its professional engineering work and its sub-professional/commercial work, using a separate organizational form with a distinct name where sub-professional work is a large part of activities, or otherwise segregating the work through contract references or correspondence.
sourcetext: it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
temporalscope: Ongoing — applies throughout all client engagements and public communications involving both categories of work
textreferences: It is desirable where the sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, to operate through a separate form of organization, with a distinct name.
textreferences: Where this is not practicable, and in the case of an operation in both categories by the same firm, the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work, including references in the contract or in correspondence.
textreferences: it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.417915
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Mixed-Practice Work Segregation Through Contract and Correspondence
type: Mixed-PracticePEFirmWorkCategorySegregationMeansConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm with all-PE principals submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services while also providing professional engineering services
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: PE Firm (all-PE-principal engineering firm operating in both professional and sub-professional categories under same identity)
constraintclass: Mixed-Practice PE Firm Work Category Segregation Means Constraint
constraintstatement: Where separate organization is not practicable, the PE firm must adopt affirmative means to segregate professional from sub-professional work, including explicit references in contracts or correspondence, to ensure clients and the public can clearly distinguish service categories.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case Discussion
sourcetext: it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
temporalscope: Ongoing; applicable throughout all client engagements involving mixed professional and sub-professional services
textreferences: Where this is not practicable, and in the case of an operation in both categories by the same firm, the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work, including references in the contract or in correspondence.
textreferences: it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.418934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Principal Engaging in Mixed Professional and Sub-Professional Practice
type: Dual-ModeProfessional-CommercialEngineeringFirmPrincipal
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'practice_mode': 'Mixed professional and sub-professional/commercial', 'segregation_obligation': 'Must use separate firm, distinct name, or contractual references to distinguish work types', 'bidding_status': 'May competitively bid for sub-professional work; may not for professional services'}
caseinvolvement: A professional engineer (or firm of PEs) that engages in both professional engineering services and sub-professional/commercial activities, required by the Discussion to segregate these work types through separate organizational structures, distinct names, or explicit contractual/correspondence references, and to communicate the distinction clearly to clients and the public.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:04:57.825833+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:04:57.825833+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'governed_by', 'target': 'NSPE Canons of Ethics (for professional work only)'}
relationships: {'type': 'obligated_to_inform', 'target': 'General Public'}
relationships: {'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Dual-Mode Professional-Commercial Engineering Firm Principal
sourcetext: it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work
textreferences: It is desirable where the sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, to operate through a separate form of organization, with a distinct name
textreferences: in the case of an operation in both categories by the same firm, the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work
textreferences: it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.409254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Professional Dignity Preservation in Sub-Professional Commercial Activities
type: ProfessionalDignityPreservationinSub-ProfessionalandNon-ProfessionalActivitiesObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The PE firm operates in both professional and sub-professional domains; the historical Canon Sections 2 and 19 (now superseded) established the general frame of reference for personal conduct relative to professional work, and their spirit persists as a residual dignity-preservation duty.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:14:04.571072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:14:04.571072+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: PE-Principal Engineering Firm and its individual PE principals
obligationclass: Professional Dignity Preservation in Sub-Professional and Non-Professional Activities Obligation
obligationstatement: Even though the formal Canons of Ethics do not directly apply to the sub-professional bid and related commercial activities, the PE firm and its principals are obligated to avoid conduct likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and honor of the engineering profession, and to protect the profession from misrepresentation and misunderstanding, in all their commercial dealings.
sourcetext: Sections 2 and 19 of the Canons limit the engineers' personal conduct in a general frame of reference to his professional work.
temporalscope: Ongoing — applies to all commercial and sub-professional activities of the PE firm and its principals
textreferences: Note: The following Code sections no longer exist: Canons of Ethics, Section 2- '... and he will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and honor of his profession.' Section 19-'The engineer will endeavor to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.'
textreferences: Sections 2 and 19 of the Canons limit the engineers' personal conduct in a general frame of reference to his professional work.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.418205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Professional Dignity Voluntary Preservation in Commercial Bid Activities
type: ProfessionalDignityNon-Formal-CodeVoluntaryPreservationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Dignity Non-Formal-Code Voluntary Preservation Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm principal possesses the capability to voluntarily preserve the dignity and honor of the engineering profession in sub-professional and commercial activities even though the formal Canons of Ethics do not technically apply to those activities — recognizing that professional identity and dignity obligations persist beyond the formal code's scope.
casecontext: PE firm engaging in sub-professional commercial activities where former Canons of Ethics Sections 2 and 19 no longer formally apply
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Maintaining professional conduct standards and transparency in sub-professional bid activities even when formal code provisions (Sections 2 and 19) no longer apply
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Public Transparency Obligated Mixed-Practice Engineer
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
textreferences: Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
textreferences: Note: The following Code sections no longer exist: Canons of Ethics, Section 2- '... and he will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and honor of his profession.'
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.420459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Separate Organization Desirability for Large Sub-Professional Operations
type: Sub-ProfessionalWorkSeparateOrganizationDesirabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm with all-PE principals operating in both professional engineering and sub-professional service categories
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: PE Firm (all-PE-principal engineering firm with large sub-professional service component)
constraintclass: Sub-Professional Work Separate Organization Desirability Constraint
constraintstatement: Where sub-professional work constitutes a large part of the PE firm's activities, it is desirable — though not absolutely required — to operate that work through a separate organizational form with a distinct name to maintain clear demarcation between professional and sub-professional services.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Case Discussion
sourcetext: It is desirable where the sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, to operate through a separate form of organization, with a distinct name.
temporalscope: Ongoing; applicable whenever sub-professional work constitutes a large portion of firm activities
textreferences: It is desirable where the sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, to operate through a separate form of organization, with a distinct name.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.418794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Antitrust Rationale Distinction Application
type: Sub-ProfessionalCompetitiveBiddingPublicProtectionRationaleDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sub-Professional Competitive Bidding Public Protection Rationale Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm possesses the capability to recognize and articulate that the prohibition on competitive bidding for professional engineering services is grounded in public protection through quality preservation, and that this rationale does not extend to sub-professional services that can be clearly and accurately specified — thereby understanding why competitive bidding for the sub-professional work is ethically permissible.
casecontext: PE firm evaluating whether competitive bidding for sub-professional work is ethically permissible under the engineering ethics code
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Correct application of the rationale-based distinction when evaluating the permissibility of submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional services
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
textreferences: This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services, and this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
textreferences: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.420018
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Antitrust Scope Recognition
type: Antitrust-ConstrainedEthicsCodeScopeRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm invited to submit written bid for sub-professional work in a competitive procurement context
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:08:16.472263+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:08:16.472263+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: PE firm (all principals are licensed professional engineers)
obligationclass: Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The PE firm must recognize that antitrust rulings have removed ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding, and that submitting a written competitive bid for sub-professional services is therefore not an ethics code violation, while procurement laws and honesty obligations remain fully applicable.
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of invitation to bid and throughout the bid process
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.411994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Business Ethics Awareness
type: EngineeringBusinessEthicsCompetitiveContextAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Business Ethics Competitive Context Awareness Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm's principals recognize and navigate the intersection of professional ethics obligations and the competitive business dimensions of submitting a bid for sub-professional services, understanding that business competition does not suspend ethical duties.
casecontext: PE firm principals managing the dual professional-commercial identity of the firm in a sub-professional procurement context
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Applying professional ethics standards to the competitive commercial context of sub-professional service bidding
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: PE Firm Principal Engaging in Mixed Professional and Sub-Professional Practice
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.415260
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Competitive Bidding Antitrust Scope Recognition Instance
type: Antitrust-ConstrainedProfessionalCodeGuidanceProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Ethics body evaluating whether PE firm with all-PE principals may submit competitive bid for sub-professional services
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: NSPE and ethics adjudicatory bodies evaluating PE firm sub-professional bid conduct
constraintclass: Antitrust-Constrained Professional Code Guidance Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: NSPE and ethics bodies are prohibited from applying competitive bidding restrictions from the Canons of Ethics to the PE firm's sub-professional bid, as antitrust rulings have removed the permissibility of such restrictions in non-professional service markets.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case Discussion; U.S. DOJ antitrust actions; U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment rulings
sourcetext: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as his sole activity or in conjunction with his engineering practice.
temporalscope: Applicable to all ethics adjudications involving sub-professional service competitive bidding
textreferences: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as his sole activity or in conjunction with his engineering practice.
textreferences: This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services, and this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.419501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Competitive Bidding Rationale-Scope Permissibility
type: Sub-ProfessionalCompetitiveBiddingRationale-ScopePermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The PE firm has been invited to submit a written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character; the ethics body must determine whether competitive bidding is permissible.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:14:04.571072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:14:04.571072+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: PE-Principal Engineering Firm and ethics adjudicatory body
obligationclass: Sub-Professional Competitive Bidding Rationale-Scope Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: The PE firm and the ethics body are obligated to recognize that competitive bidding for the sub-professional services is ethically permissible because the quality-protection rationale underlying the prohibition on competitive bidding for professional services does not apply to sub-professional work that can be clearly and accurately specified.
sourcetext: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
temporalscope: At the time of submitting the competitive bid and at the time of ethics adjudication
textreferences: This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services, and this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
textreferences: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.418051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Ethics Code Persistence
type: ProfessionalEthicsPersistenceinSub-ProfessionalBidConductObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm with all-PE principals bidding on sub-professional work related to professional engineering services
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:08:16.472263+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:08:16.472263+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: PE firm principals (licensed professional engineers)
obligationclass: Professional Ethics Persistence in Sub-Professional Bid Conduct Obligation
obligationstatement: The PE firm's principals must recognize that their ethical obligations under the engineering code of ethics persist in full force during the submission of a competitive bid for sub-professional services, and that the sub-professional character of the work does not suspend or reduce those obligations.
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
temporalscope: Throughout the bid preparation, submission, and any subsequent performance of sub-professional work
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.411373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Ethics Code Persistence Recognition
type: EthicsCodePersistenceAcrossService-TypeContextsCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethics Code Persistence Across Service-Type Contexts Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm's principals recognize that their ethical obligations under the engineering code of ethics persist in full force during the submission of a bid for sub-professional services, and that the sub-professional character of the work does not suspend or reduce those obligations.
casecontext: PE firm principals recognizing that ethics code applies to their conduct in sub-professional as well as professional service contexts
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Maintaining full ethics code compliance in all aspects of bid preparation and submission for sub-professional work
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: PE Firm Principal Engaging in Mixed Professional and Sub-Professional Practice
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.414684
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Honest Representation Ethics
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm ensures that all representations in its written bid for sub-professional services are truthful and accurate, conducting itself honorably and responsibly in the competitive procurement process.
casecontext: PE firm submitting written competitive bid for sub-professional services while maintaining full ethics code compliance
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Submitting a bid that contains only truthful representations about the firm's qualifications, capacity, and the nature of the services offered
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.414973
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Honest Representations
type: Sub-ProfessionalBidHonestRepresentationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm preparing and submitting written competitive bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:08:16.472263+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:08:16.472263+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: PE firm (all principals are licensed professional engineers)
obligationclass: Sub-Professional Bid Honest Representation Obligation
obligationstatement: The PE firm must ensure that all representations in its written bid for sub-professional services are truthful and accurate — including representations about capabilities, experience, personnel, and capacity to perform the sub-professional work — and must not make any false or misleading statements in the bid.
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the written bid
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.411557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Identity Transparency
type: Mixed-PracticeFirmIdentityTransparencyinSub-ProfessionalBidObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm invited to submit written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:08:16.472263+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:08:16.472263+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: PE firm (all principals are licensed professional engineers)
obligationclass: Mixed-Practice Firm Identity Transparency in Sub-Professional Bid Obligation
obligationstatement: The PE firm must be transparent with the procuring client about its nature as a professional engineering firm when submitting a bid for sub-professional services, neither concealing its PE identity nor exploiting it to gain unfair advantage over non-PE competitors bidding on the same sub-professional work.
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
temporalscope: During bid preparation and submission
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.411806
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid PE Credential Non-Exploitation
type: PECredentialNon-ExploitationinSub-ProfessionalBidObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm submitting written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:08:16.472263+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:08:16.472263+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: PE firm (all principals are licensed professional engineers)
obligationclass: PE Credential Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Bid Obligation
obligationstatement: The PE firm must compete for the sub-professional work on commercial merit alone and must not leverage or invoke its PE licensure status as a competitive differentiator in a marketplace where PE credentials are not required for the sub-professional work.
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
temporalscope: During preparation and submission of the competitive bid
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.411180
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid PE Credential Non-Exploitation Instance
type: PECredentialNon-ExploitationinCommercialBidCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: PE Credential Non-Exploitation in Commercial Bid Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional services possesses the capability to compete solely on commercial merit — price, capacity, and relevant experience — without leveraging or invoking its PE licensure status as a competitive differentiator in a non-professional commercial procurement context.
casecontext: PE firm submitting competitive bid for work solely sub-professional in character
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Submission of competitive bid for sub-professional work based on commercial merit without improper exploitation of PE credentials
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
textreferences: This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services
textreferences: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.420722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Permissibility Recognition
type: Sub-ProfessionalCompetitiveBidSubmissionPermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm invited to submit written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services related to professional engineering
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:08:16.472263+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:08:16.472263+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: PE firm (all principals are licensed professional engineers)
obligationclass: Sub-Professional Competitive Bid Submission Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: The PE firm is obligated to recognize that it is ethically permitted to submit the written competitive bid for the sub-professional work, and must not decline on the false ground that competitive bidding is ethically prohibited, since antitrust rulings have removed such restrictions from the ethics code.
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
temporalscope: Upon receipt of invitation to bid for sub-professional services
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.410959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Permissibility Self-Assessment
type: Sub-ProfessionalBidPermissibilitySelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sub-Professional Bid Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm possesses the capability to recognize that it is ethically permissible to submit a written competitive bid for the sub-professional work to which it has been invited, notwithstanding that all its principals are licensed PEs.
casecontext: PE firm invited to submit written competitive bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Correctly determining that antitrust-informed ethics code scope does not prohibit a PE firm from competing commercially for sub-professional services
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:10:10.428738+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.414189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Permissibility Self-Assessment Instance
type: Sub-ProfessionalBidPermissibilitySelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sub-Professional Bid Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm whose principals are all licensed PEs possesses the capability to recognize that it is ethically permissible to submit a written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character, understanding that the antitrust-driven removal of ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding applies to sub-professional as well as professional services.
casecontext: PE firm invited to submit written competitive bid for work solely sub-professional in character
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Correct determination that submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional work does not violate the engineering ethics code
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage
textreferences: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage
textreferences: This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services, and this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.420589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Specification Clarity Self-Assessment
type: Sub-ProfessionalServiceSpecificationClarityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sub-Professional Service Specification Clarity Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The PE firm possesses the capability to assess whether the sub-professional services for which it is invited to bid are clearly and accurately specified — verifying that the prerequisite condition for ethical competitive bidding is satisfied before submitting its bid.
casecontext: PE firm evaluating whether to submit competitive bid for sub-professional work
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Self-assessment of specification clarity before submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
textreferences: this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.420323
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Firm Sub-Professional Service Provision Background State
type: PEFirmSub-ProfessionalServiceProvisionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — persists as a background condition of the firm's business model
affectedparties: Clients of sub-professional services
affectedparties: Engineering firm
affectedparties: Firm principals (all PEs)
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:03:49.599523+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:03:49.599523+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services
stateclass: PE Firm Sub-Professional Service Provision State
subject: Engineering firm with all-PE principals
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts
textreferences: engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services
triggeringevent: Firm's establishment of a practice of providing sub-professional services related to engineering
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.405434
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Identity Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Bid Submission
type: PEIdentityNon-ExploitationinSub-ProfessionalCommercialCompetitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Competitive relationship with non-PE commercial service providers
appliedto: Written competitive bid for sub-professional services
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: When the PE firm submits its written bid for the sub-professional work, it must compete on commercial merit and must not leverage its PE credentials or professional engineering reputation to intimidate or disadvantage non-PE commercial competitors who are equally capable of performing the sub-professional services
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The firm's PE status is a fact that may be disclosed honestly, but it must not be foregrounded as a competitive weapon in a market where PE licensure confers no relevant quality advantage over non-PE competitors
invokedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
principleclass: PE Identity Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Commercial Competition Principle
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
tensionresolution: Honesty requires accurate disclosure of PE status if asked or if material; fairness requires that this disclosure not be weaponized to gain unfair commercial advantage
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.404019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

PE Identity Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Competitive Bid Submission
type: PEIdentityNon-ExploitationinSub-ProfessionalCommercialCompetitionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Competitive bid submission process
appliedto: Marketing and presentation of sub-professional services
balancingwith: Professional-Sub-Professional Work Segregation and Transparency Obligation Principle
balancingwith: Sub-Professional Service Competitive Bidding Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: While the PE firm may submit the competitive bid for sub-professional work, it must not exploit its PE credentials, professional reputation, or engineering licensure status to gain an unfair advantage over non-PE commercial competitors who are equally or better qualified to perform the sub-professional work
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethics code's non-applicability to sub-professional work does not license the firm to weaponize its professional status in the sub-professional marketplace; the firm must compete on equal commercial terms
invokedby: PE Firm Principal Engaging in Mixed Professional and Sub-Professional Practice
principleclass: PE Identity Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Commercial Competition Principle
sourcetext: Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
tensionresolution: The firm's right to bid is preserved while its obligation not to exploit PE status constrains how it presents itself in the sub-professional competitive context
textreferences: Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
textreferences: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as his sole activity or in conjunction with his engineering practice.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.417057
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Procurement-Competition-Honorable-Conduct-Sub-Professional-Bid
type: ProcurementCompetitionHonorableConductConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm competing against potentially non-PE firms for sub-professional services contract
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: PE firm competing for sub-professional services contract
constraintclass: Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
constraintstatement: The PE firm must conduct its competitive bid for sub-professional services honorably, responsibly, and fairly — prohibiting the use of its PE status, professional relationships, or insider knowledge to gain competitive advantage through means other than demonstrated merit and price competitiveness relevant to the sub-professional work.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code Sections II.5, III.6, III.7
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
temporalscope: Throughout the competitive bid process
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.413155
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Professional-Solicitation-Misleading-Language-Sub-Professional-Bid
type: ProfessionalSolicitationMisleadingLanguageAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Written competitive bid for sub-professional services submitted by PE firm with all-PE principals
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: PE firm submitting written competitive bid for sub-professional services
constraintclass: Professional Solicitation Misleading Language Avoidance Constraint
constraintstatement: The PE firm is constrained to ensure that its written bid for sub-professional services avoids misleading, deceptive, or untruthful language — including any representations about qualifications, capacity, or identity that could mislead the procuring client — grounded in the convergence of truthfulness, non-deception, and competence representation obligations.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:09:56.570760+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3, III.2, III.6
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
temporalscope: Throughout bid preparation and submission
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.412957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Professional-Sub-Professional Segregation Obligation for Mixed-Practice PE Firm
type: Professional-Sub-ProfessionalWorkSegregationandTransparencyObligationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client and public communications about service categories
appliedto: Mixed professional-commercial firm operations
balancingwith: PE Identity Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Commercial Competition Principle
balancingwith: Sub-Professional Service Competitive Bidding Permissibility Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Because the PE firm operates in both professional engineering and sub-professional commercial domains, it is obligated to clearly distinguish the two categories of work for clients and the public — preferably through a separate organizational entity with a distinct name, or alternatively through contractual and correspondence references
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The segregation obligation is affirmative and proactive: the engineer cannot passively allow clients or the public to conflate professional and sub-professional services; active steps of organizational or documentary separation are required
invokedby: PE Firm Principal Engaging in Mixed Professional and Sub-Professional Practice
principleclass: Professional-Sub-Professional Work Segregation and Transparency Obligation Principle
sourcetext: It is desirable where the sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, to operate through a separate form of organization, with a distinct name.
tensionresolution: Segregation and transparency obligations complement rather than conflict with competitive bidding permissibility; the firm may bid competitively while still clearly identifying the sub-professional character of the work
textreferences: Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
textreferences: It is desirable where the sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, to operate through a separate form of organization, with a distinct name.
textreferences: Where this is not practicable, and in the case of an operation in both categories by the same firm, the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work, including references in the contract or in correspondence.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.416293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Professional-vs-SubProfessional-Work-Scope-Distinction-Framework-Instance
type: Professionalvs.Sub-ProfessionalWorkScopeDistinctionFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: BER Interpretive Framework: Professional vs. Sub-Professional Work Scope and Competitive Bidding
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:04:32.194197+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:04:32.194197+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional vs. Sub-Professional Work Scope Distinction Framework
sourcetext: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price. This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services
textreferences: It is desirable where the sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, to operate through a separate form of organization, with a distinct name.
textreferences: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price. This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: Applied to determine that competitive bidding prohibitions do not extend to sub-professional or non-professional services, and to provide guidance on organizational segregation of work types
version: Articulated in this BER case discussion
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.408478
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Professional Dignity Preservation in Sub-Professional Commercial Activities
type: ProfessionalDignity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Profession's collective reputation in sub-professional markets
appliedto: Public-facing commercial activities of PE firm
balancingwith: Ethics Code Non-Applicability to Sub-Professional and Non-Professional Business Activities Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The former Canon Sections 2 and 19 — requiring avoidance of conduct likely to discredit the profession and protection of the profession from misrepresentation — reflect the underlying professional dignity obligation that persists even in sub-professional commercial contexts, informing the board's guidance that engineers must be scrupulously careful to distinguish professional from sub-professional work
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Even where formal canon provisions no longer exist or do not apply, the professional dignity and honor preservation obligation informs the engineer's conduct in all public-facing activities, including sub-professional commercial work
invokedby: PE Firm Principal Engaging in Mixed Professional and Sub-Professional Practice
principleclass: Professional Dignity
sourcetext: Section 2- '... and he will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and honor of his profession.' Section 19-'The engineer will endeavor to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.'
tensionresolution: Professional dignity operates as a background virtue obligation that survives the formal code's scope limitation; it motivates the 'scrupulously careful' standard even in non-regulated commercial activities
textreferences: Section 19-'The engineer will endeavor to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.'
textreferences: Section 2- '... and he will avoid all conduct or practice likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and honor of his profession.'
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.417460
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Professional Distinction Obligation Activated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.404732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Professional Distinction Obligation Activated → Establish Separate Organizational Entity
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.421265
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Professional Ethics Obligation Persistence Despite Sub-Professional Activity Classification
type: ProfessionalEthicsObligationPersistenceinSub-ProfessionalPracticePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client communications
appliedto: Contractual and correspondence documentation
appliedto: Public representations about service categories
balancingwith: Ethics Code Non-Applicability to Sub-Professional and Non-Professional Business Activities Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Even though the formal ethics code provisions do not apply to the sub-professional work, the PE firm retains full honesty, transparency, and integrity obligations — particularly the obligation to be scrupulously clear with clients and the public about the distinction between professional and sub-professional services
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethics code's scope limitation does not create an ethics-free zone for sub-professional activities; residual professional virtue obligations of honesty and transparency persist and are heightened by the risk of client confusion in mixed-practice contexts
invokedby: Public Transparency Obligated Mixed-Practice Engineer
principleclass: Professional Ethics Obligation Persistence in Sub-Professional Practice Principle
sourcetext: Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
tensionresolution: The tension is resolved by distinguishing formal code provisions (inapplicable) from residual professional virtue obligations (persistent); the engineer must be 'scrupulously careful' precisely because the formal code does not govern
textreferences: Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
textreferences: Where this is not practicable, and in the case of an operation in both categories by the same firm, the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work, including references in the contract or in correspondence.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.417289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Professional Ethics Obligation Persistence Through Sub-Professional Bid
type: ProfessionalEthicsObligationPersistenceinSub-ProfessionalPracticePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: All representations made in the bid document
appliedto: Written competitive bid for sub-professional services
balancingwith: Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The PE firm's submission of a bid for sub-professional work does not suspend its ethical obligations under the engineering code of ethics; honesty, transparency, and non-deception obligations continue to govern the content and manner of the bid submission regardless of the sub-professional character of the work being bid upon
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The firm's principals remain bound by professional ethics in all their professional activities, including commercial bidding for sub-professional work; the sub-professional nature of the work does not create an ethics-free zone
invokedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
principleclass: Professional Ethics Obligation Persistence in Sub-Professional Practice Principle
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
tensionresolution: Antitrust law limits what the ethics code can prescribe about bidding practices, but it does not eliminate the engineer's character-based obligations of honesty and non-deception that persist independently of code provisions
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.404312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182083
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182163
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.178742
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.178802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.178844
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.178894
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182524
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182375
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182418
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.181991
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182022
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Do the provisions of the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct, apply in the case of such sub-professional services?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179571
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Even if the Canons and Rules technically do not apply to sub-professional services, does a PE firm whose principals hold active licenses retain any residual ethical obligations—such as honesty and non-deception—that persist regardless of the nature of the work being bid?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: When a PE firm submits a competitive bid for sub-professional work, is there a risk that the client or public will conflate the firm's professional engineering reputation and credentials with the quality assurance of the sub-professional services being offered, and if so, what disclosure obligations arise?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: At what volume or regularity of sub-professional work does it become ethically advisable—or even obligatory—for a PE firm to establish a separate organizational entity to conduct that work, in order to prevent confusion about the professional standing of its services?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Does the Board's conclusion that the Canons and Rules do not apply to sub-professional services create a loophole whereby a PE firm could systematically migrate ethically constrained professional work into a 'sub-professional' classification to avoid code compliance, and how should the profession guard against such reclassification abuse?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle that free and open competition governs PE firm sub-professional bidding conflict with the principle that professional ethics obligations persist through sub-professional bids, and if so, which should take precedence when a firm's competitive pricing strategy in a sub-professional bid could undermine the perceived integrity of its professional engineering practice?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of PE identity non-exploitation in sub-professional bid submissions conflict with the principle of transparency obligation in mixed professional-sub-professional firm identity, given that full transparency about the firm's PE credentials could itself constitute an implicit exploitation of those credentials in a competitive bidding context?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle of ethics code scope limitation to professional practice conflict with the principle of professional dignity preservation in sub-professional commercial activities, and how should a PE firm reconcile the freedom from code constraints in sub-professional work with the expectation that it still conduct itself in a manner befitting a licensed engineering organization?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.180040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle of professional-sub-professional segregation obligation for a mixed-practice PE firm conflict with the principle of sub-professional competitive bidding permissibility, in that rigorous segregation requirements could impose burdens that effectively deter PE firms from participating in otherwise permissible sub-professional markets?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.180121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, does a PE firm have a categorical duty to apply professional ethical standards to all its activities simply by virtue of its principals holding PE licenses, regardless of whether the specific work is classified as sub-professional?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.180198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a virtue ethics standpoint, does a PE firm that voluntarily chooses to compete on price for sub-professional work risk eroding the professional character and dignity that defines its identity as an engineering firm, even if no formal ethical rule is technically violated?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.180255
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the Board's ruling that the ethics code does not apply to sub-professional services produce better outcomes for the public and profession overall, or does it create a harmful precedent that allows PE firms to use the sub-professional classification as a loophole to escape ethical accountability?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.180307
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the PE firm have a duty not to exploit its professional engineering credentials and reputation to gain a competitive advantage when submitting bids for sub-professional work, even when the ethics code formally does not apply to that work?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.180436
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If the sub-professional work bid had been submitted under a separate organizational entity rather than under the PE firm's name and identity, would the ethical concerns about PE credential exploitation and public perception have been substantially mitigated, and would the Board's analysis have differed?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.180511
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if the sub-professional services bid had been bundled or intermingled with professional engineering services rather than being comprised solely of sub-professional work — would the ethics code have applied to the entire engagement, and how would the firm have been obligated to segregate its conduct?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.180571
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the PE firm had explicitly advertised its professional engineering credentials and licensure status as a selling point in its sub-professional services bid, would the Board's conclusion of ethics code non-applicability still hold, or would that conduct trigger provisions against misleading solicitation and credential exploitation?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.180702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If the sub-professional services in question had not been clearly specified in advance by the client, and the scope was ambiguous enough to potentially encompass professional engineering judgment, would the Board's conclusion of ethics code non-applicability have been sustainable, and what obligation would the firm have had to clarify the scope before bidding?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.180784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182554
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.178977
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179068
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.179097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182816
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182847
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.183321
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.183354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182582
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182611
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.182787
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:30:38.178943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Sub-Professional-Services-Bidding-Ethics-Standard-Instance
type: Sub-ProfessionalServicesBiddingEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review through accumulated case decisions and code interpretation
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing PE Firm Participation in Sub-Professional Services Bidding
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:03:30.357722+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:03:30.357722+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Sub-Professional Services Bidding Ethics Standard
sourcetext: services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
textreferences: services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review; engineering firm principals
usedincontext: Directly addresses the core ethical question of whether a firm whose principals are all licensed PEs may ethically bid on and perform work that is sub-professional in character but related to engineering, grounding the analysis in professional identity, competitive fairness, and the integrity of the engineering profession.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.406499
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Sub-Professional Bid Services Clear Specification Prerequisite Verification
type: Sub-ProfessionalServiceSpecificationClarityPrerequisiteforCompetitiveBiddingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The PE firm has been invited to submit a written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character; the ethics board's permissibility determination is conditioned on the work being clearly and accurately specifiable.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:14:04.571072+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:14:04.571072+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client and PE-Principal Engineering Firm
obligationclass: Sub-Professional Service Specification Clarity Prerequisite for Competitive Bidding Obligation
obligationstatement: The procuring client and the PE firm are obligated to ensure that the sub-professional services for which competitive bidding is invited are clearly and accurately specified, as a prerequisite condition for the ethical permissibility of competitive bidding on those services.
sourcetext: this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
temporalscope: Prior to and at the time of issuing and responding to the competitive bid invitation
textreferences: this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.418338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Sub-Professional Bid Services Clear Specification Prerequisite for Competitive Bidding Permissibility
type: Sub-ProfessionalServiceSpecificationClarityCompetitiveBiddingPrerequisiteConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: PE firm invited to submit written competitive bid for sub-professional services work
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Procuring client and PE firm submitting competitive bid for sub-professional services
constraintclass: Sub-Professional Service Specification Clarity Competitive Bidding Prerequisite Constraint
constraintstatement: Competitive price-based bidding for sub-professional services is ethically permissible only where those services can be clearly and accurately specified; vaguely or incompletely defined sub-professional services cannot be the subject of ethical competitive bidding.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case Discussion
sourcetext: this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
temporalscope: Prior to and at the time of bid invitation and submission
textreferences: this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.419231
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Sub-Professional Bidding Permissibility for PE Firm
type: Sub-ProfessionalServiceCompetitiveBiddingPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Written competitive bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
balancingwith: PE Identity Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Commercial Competition Principle
balancingwith: Professional Ethics Obligation Persistence in Sub-Professional Practice Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The PE firm is ethically permitted to submit the written competitive bid for the sub-professional work because: (a) the work is related to professional engineering services, (b) the firm has demonstrated capacity to perform such work on occasion, and (c) competitive bidding in this context is lawful and consistent with free market norms
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Permissibility is conditional on the firm's honest representation of its capabilities and its refraining from exploiting PE credentials to gain unfair advantage over non-PE commercial competitors
invokedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
principleclass: Sub-Professional Service Competitive Bidding Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
tensionresolution: The firm may bid; the ethical obligations that follow concern the manner of bidding and the accuracy of representations made in the bid
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.410301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Sub-Professional Competitive Bidding Permissibility for All-PE-Principal Firm
type: Sub-ProfessionalServiceCompetitiveBiddingPermissibilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Written competitive bid for sub-professional services
balancingwith: PE Identity Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Commercial Competition Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The PE firm whose principals are all licensed engineers is ethically permitted to submit the competitive bid for sub-professional work because the ethics code's competitive bidding prohibition does not apply to sub-professional services, and the firm's PE status does not disqualify it from participating in commercial competitive bidding for clearly specifiable non-professional work
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:12:18.785384+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: PE licensure does not create a competitive bidding prohibition for sub-professional work; the prohibition is scope-limited to professional engineering services
invokedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
principleclass: Sub-Professional Service Competitive Bidding Permissibility Principle
sourcetext: This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services, and this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
tensionresolution: Permissibility of bidding is affirmed, subject to the constraint that the firm must not exploit its PE credentials to gain unfair advantage over non-PE competitors in the sub-professional marketplace
textreferences: It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as his sole activity or in conjunction with his engineering practice.
textreferences: This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services, and this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.416811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Sub-Professional Competitive Bidding Quality-Sacrifice Rationale Non-Extension
type: Sub-ProfessionalCompetitiveBiddingQuality-SacrificeRationaleNon-ApplicabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Ethics body evaluating whether PE firm may submit competitive bid for sub-professional services
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Ethics bodies, professional societies, and procuring agencies
constraintclass: Sub-Professional Competitive Bidding Quality-Sacrifice Rationale Non-Applicability Constraint
constraintstatement: The public-protection rationale for prohibiting competitive bidding for professional services — avoidance of quality sacrifice to lowest price — does not apply to sub-professional or non-professional services, and therefore cannot be used to restrict competitive bidding for such services.
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:15:57.237169+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Case Discussion
sourcetext: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
temporalscope: Applicable to all sub-professional service procurement decisions
textreferences: This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services, and this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
textreferences: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.419096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Sub-Professional Services Competitive Bidding Permissibility
type: Sub-ProfessionalWorkCompetitiveBidEligibilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Active throughout the case analysis; confirmed as permissible in the Discussion section
affectedparties: Clients procuring sub-professional services
affectedparties: Competing firms
affectedparties: Engineering firm
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:04:54.872647+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:04:54.872647+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified
stateclass: Sub-Professional Work Competitive Bid Eligibility State
subject: Sub-professional and non-professional services offered by engineering firm subject to competitive price-based bidding
terminatedby: Not terminated; persists as a standing rule for sub-professional work
textreferences: the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price. This principle is not applicable to sub-professional or nonprofessional services
textreferences: this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified
triggeringevent: Determination that sub-professional services can be clearly and accurately specified, removing the quality-sacrifice rationale for anti-competitive-bidding rules
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.408732
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client Individual
type: Sub-ProfessionalServicesProcurementClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'procurement_method': 'Written competitive bid', 'work_type': 'Solely sub-professional services related to engineering'}
caseinvolvement: The entity that invites the PE firm to submit a written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character, thereby triggering the ethical question about whether a PE firm may properly compete for such work.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:03:36.509865+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:03:36.509865+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'invites', 'target': 'PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client
sourcetext: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.406945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client Specification Clarity Verification
type: Sub-ProfessionalServiceSpecificationClarityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Sub-Professional Service Specification Clarity Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: The procuring client possesses the capability to assess whether the sub-professional services for which competitive bidding is invited can be clearly and accurately specified — a prerequisite condition for the ethical permissibility of the competitive bidding process — and to ensure that specifications are sufficiently precise to enable meaningful price competition.
casecontext: Client inviting PE firm to submit competitive bid for work solely sub-professional in character
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Preparation of sufficiently clear and accurate specifications for sub-professional services to enable competitive bidding
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:16:06.904854+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client Individual
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
textreferences: this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.420195
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Submit Competitive Bid
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.404453
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Submit Competitive Bid → Market Perception of Firm Altered
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.421235
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

Transparency Obligation in Mixed Professional-Sub-Professional Firm Identity
type: TransparencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client Individual
appliedto: Written competitive bid submission
balancingwith: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
balancingwith: PE Identity Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Commercial Competition Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The PE firm must be transparent with the procuring client about its nature as a professional engineering firm when submitting a bid for sub-professional work, ensuring the client understands the character of the entity it is engaging and can make an informed procurement decision
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 90
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 90
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T16:06:53.623243+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Transparency enables the client to assess whether engaging a PE firm for sub-professional work is appropriate for its needs, whether it triggers any additional obligations, and whether the pricing reflects the firm's actual cost structure for sub-professional versus professional work
invokedby: PE-Principal Engineering Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Work
principleclass: Transparency Principle
sourcetext: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
tensionresolution: Transparency about firm identity is required; exploitation of that identity for competitive advantage is prohibited — the two obligations are compatible and mutually reinforcing
textreferences: An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
textreferences: The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
wasattributedto: Case 90 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.410720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

ethical obligation to distinguish professional from sub-professional work during any period in which the firm operates in both categories simultaneously
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.421373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

receipt of invitation to submit competitive bid (for sub-professional work) after firm's prior provision of sub-professional services on occasion
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.421331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction

sub-professional services contract during firm's broader professional engineering practice
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T16:20:56.421437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 90 Extraction