ProEthica Case 99 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.578730
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Appearance of Impropriety - Engineer A Prior Relationship Firm B QBS Decision
type: AppearanceofImproprietyAvoidanceinPublicProcurementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has a documented prior positive professional experience with Firm B on City X projects and is the point of contact on the QBS review team, creating a structural risk of biased leniency in the procurement decision regarding Firm B's late submission
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must avoid any action regarding Firm B's late submission that could create a reasonable appearance of favoritism arising from Firm B's prior favorable performance on City X projects, including any unilateral exercise of discretion to accept the late submission or to route it into the evaluation process.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.4, III.6; BER Cases 82-2, 15-7, 16-3
sourcetext: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
temporalscope: Throughout the QBS evaluation process for the City X public building project
textreferences: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project
textreferences: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B
textreferences: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.586643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

BER_Case_10-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 10-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:34.902316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:34.902316+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has previously examined ethical issues relating to the selection of engineering services in the public arena. For example, in BER Case 10-8...
textreferences: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has previously examined ethical issues relating to the selection of engineering services in the public arena. For example, in BER Case 10-8...
textreferences: Turning to the facts of the present case, it is the Board's view, consistent with BER Case 10-8, that a balance needs to be struck between the objective of selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to the relevant public procurement rules and policies.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning to the present case
usedincontext: Cited as controlling precedent establishing the balance between open public procurement objectives and strict adherence to procurement rules, including the ethical permissibility of FOIA requests in QBS procurement contexts and the importance of avoiding appearances of impropriety
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.582467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

BER Case 10-8 FOIA Competitor Intelligence Acquisition
type: FOIA-BasedCompetitorIntelligenceAcquisitionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's submission of the FOIA request through the Board's ethical review and determination
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: State agency
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intended to respond to the same RFQ, submitted a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
stateclass: FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Acquisition State
subject: Engineer B's use of a state FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's submitted qualifications before Engineer B's own firm submitted its RFQ response
terminatedby: Board determination that the FOIA request was permissible but that timing (before own submission) created an appearance of impropriety
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intended to respond to the same RFQ, submitted a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: the NSPE Board of Ethical Review determined that it was ethical for Engineer B to make the FOIA request in connection with the state's procurement of engineering services, pursuant to the State's RFQ procedures, but that in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, Engineer B should have made the FOIA request subsequent to and not before Engineer B's firm submitted its RFQ
triggeringevent: Engineer B submitting a state FOIA request for Engineer A's qualifications prior to Engineer B's firm submitting its own RFQ response
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.584140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Case 99 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

CausalLink_City Establishes Submission Ru
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Decides on Late Sub
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

CausalLink_Firm B Submits SOQ Late
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

City Establishes Submission Rules
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.595744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

City Establishes Submission Rules → Deadline Passes Unmet
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596027
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

City Manager Administrative Assistant Non-Facilitation Misdirected Submittal
type: HonorableProfessionalConductinProcurementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The city manager's administrative assistant received Firm B's envelope at the city manager's office at 2:05 pm on January 30 — after the deadline and at the wrong location — and then presented it to Engineer A; the Board found this action, however well-intentioned, did not cure the procedural defect.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: City Manager Administrative Assistant (City X)
obligationclass: Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
obligationstatement: The city manager's administrative assistant was obligated to refrain from receiving and forwarding Firm B's misdirected QBS submittal to Engineer A, recognizing that accepting a submittal at the wrong location — even with good intent — introduced a procedural irregularity into the procurement process that compromised its integrity.
sourcetext: the city manager's administrative assistant's act of receiving Firm B's misdirected envelope and presenting it to Engineer A — however well-intentioned
temporalscope: At the time Firm B's envelope was delivered to the city manager's office on January 30
textreferences: the city manager's administrative assistant's act of receiving Firm B's misdirected envelope and presenting it to Engineer A — however well-intentioned
textreferences: while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.593221
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

City Manager Administrative Assistant Non-Facilitation Misdirected Submittal Constraint
type: Wrong-OfficeDeliveryNon-AcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm B delivered its SOQ to the city manager's office rather than the designated submission location, and the city manager's administrative assistant received and forwarded the submission to Engineer A, thereby introducing a non-compliant submission into the procurement process.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: City manager's administrative assistant
constraintclass: Wrong-Office Delivery Non-Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: The city manager's administrative assistant was constrained from receiving and forwarding Firm B's misdirected QBS submittal to Engineer A — because accepting and routing a submission delivered to the wrong city office into the procurement process would facilitate non-compliance with published procurement rules and undermine procurement integrity.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: City X QBS procurement rules; NSPE Code of Ethics principles applicable to procurement integrity
sourcetext: Firm B's SOQ was delivered to the city manager's office rather than the designated submission location
temporalscope: At the time Firm B's SOQ was delivered to the city manager's office
textreferences: Firm B's SOQ was delivered to the city manager's office rather than the designated submission location
textreferences: the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.595420
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

City Manager Administrative Assistant Non-Facilitation Misdirected Submittal Honorable Conduct
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: The city manager's administrative assistant needed to recognize that receiving and forwarding Firm B's misdirected QBS submittal to Engineer A — after the deadline had passed — was inconsistent with honorable conduct in the procurement process
casecontext: The city manager's administrative assistant received Firm B's misdirected QBS submittal at the city manager's office at 2:05 pm on January 30 — after the 2:00 pm deadline — and forwarded it to Engineer A
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: The BER's identification that the administrative assistant was obligated to refrain from receiving and forwarding the misdirected submittal to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: City Manager Administrative Assistant
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
textreferences: Such a situation would not reflect well on that process, the city, or the engineering profession
textreferences: the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.594390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

City Manager Administrative Assistant Submittal Intermediary
type: CityManagerAdministrativeStaffProcurementIntermediary
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'role_type': 'Administrative assistant to city manager', 'licensure': 'Non-engineer', 'action': 'Received and routed misdirected submittal to Engineer A'}
caseinvolvement: The city manager's administrative assistant received Firm B's misdirected QBS submittal at the city manager's office at 2:05 pm on January 30 — after the published deadline and at the wrong location. The assistant intercepted Engineer A upon his return to the office and presented the envelope, creating the ethical dilemma about late submittal acceptance. The date- and time-stamp on the envelope establishes the evidentiary record of non-compliant receipt.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:08.853822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:08.853822+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'City X Municipal Infrastructure Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'intermediary_to', 'target': 'Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact'}
relationships: {'type': 'received_submittal_from', 'target': 'Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: City Manager Administrative Staff Procurement Intermediary
sourcetext: intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B
textreferences: intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B
textreferences: the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.582156
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

City Manager Administrative Assistant Submittal Intermediary Procurement Awareness
type: ProcurementFairnessAppearanceManagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Fairness Appearance Management Capability
capabilitystatement: The city manager's administrative assistant possesses — or should possess — the capability to recognize that forwarding a misdirected QBS submittal to the designated point of contact engineer rather than to the city clerk's office creates an appearance of impropriety and informal preferential handling that could compromise procurement integrity.
casecontext: The city manager's administrative assistant received Firm B's misdirected submittal and delivered it personally to Engineer A rather than routing it through proper procurement channels
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.78
demonstratedthrough: The act of intercepting Engineer A and delivering Firm B's envelope to him personally rather than directing it to the city clerk's office or returning it to Firm B as non-compliant
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: intermediate
possessedby: City Manager Administrative Staff Procurement Intermediary
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B.
textreferences: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.589010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

City X Municipal Infrastructure Client
type: MunicipalInfrastructureClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'procurement_method': 'Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS)', 'project_type': 'New public building design', 'initial_interest': '14 firms participated in pre-submittal meeting', 'published_requirements': "10:00 am deadline, city clerk's office submission location"}
caseinvolvement: City X is the procuring public agency seeking qualified engineering firm services for a new public building using QBS. Published submittal requirements including deadline (10:00 am, January 30), location (city clerk's office), and conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting. Bears obligations of fair and impartial procurement administration and equitable treatment of all competing firms.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:08.853822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:08.853822+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact'}
relationships: {'type': 'procurement_authority_over', 'target': 'Firm B Late Submittal'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Municipal Infrastructure Client
sourcetext: The city is seeking the services of a qualified engineering firm and is using QBS for the design of the new public building
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal
textreferences: The city is seeking the services of a qualified engineering firm and is using QBS for the design of the new public building
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.581997
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

City X RFQ and Pre-Submittal Meeting Documentation
type: ReferenceMaterial
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: City X
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: City X Request for Qualifications and Pre-Submittal Meeting Agenda
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:53:45.258292+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:53:45.258292+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Reference Material
sourcetext: The date, time, and location were also listed in the city's RFQ webpage and appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting
textreferences: The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms
textreferences: The date, time, and location were also listed in the city's RFQ webpage and appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting
usedby: All competing firms including Firm B; Engineer A in evaluating compliance
usedincontext: Establishes the published procedural requirements communicated to all 14 firms, including the specific deadline of 10:00 am on January 30 and the designated submission location of the city clerk's office, forming the evidentiary basis for assessing whether Firm B had adequate notice of requirements
version: January 30 submittal cycle
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.580798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Client Relationship Established - Engineer A and City X
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing employment relationship active throughout the procurement process
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:07.036410+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:07.036410+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A works for a public agency in City X
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's employment relationship with City X as public agency engineer and point of contact on QBS review team
terminatedby: Change in employment or reassignment
textreferences: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project
textreferences: Engineer A works for a public agency in City X
triggeringevent: Engineer A's employment with City X and assignment as QBS review team point of contact
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.581810
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Competitive Procurement Fairness - 14 Firm Equal Treatment QBS City X
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 14 firms participated in the mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received the same published deadline and delivery location requirements; accepting Firm B's late submission would create an unfair advantage over the 13 firms that complied with the published requirements
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must ensure that all 14 firms that participated in the pre-submittal meeting are treated equally under the published QBS procurement rules, including uniform enforcement of the 10:00 am January 30 deadline and the city clerk's office delivery requirement, prohibiting any preferential treatment of Firm B that would disadvantage the 13 other competing firms.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: QBS Law applicable to City X; NSPE Code of Ethics; Public Procurement Fairness Standard
sourcetext: The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms
temporalscope: Throughout the QBS procurement process for the City X public building project
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
textreferences: The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms
textreferences: The date, time, and location were also listed in the city's RFQ webpage and appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.586928
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.1.
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A should return the submittal to Firm B unopened with the explanation that the bid was received late.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board's sole explicit conclusion is a formal recommendation that Engineer A must reject Firm B's late submittal by returning it unopened, citing the submission's receipt after the deadline and at the wrong office location. This determination is grounded in procurement integrity obligations, equal treatment of all competing firms, and the principle that good intent or prior favorable relationships cannot cure procedural non-compliance with published QBS submission rules.
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.609130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: III.1.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A should return the submittal unopened, Engineer A's prior favorable relationship with Firm B creates an independent and unaddressed obligation to disclose that relationship to a supervisor or procurement authority before taking any action on the envelope — even the ministerial act of returning it. The structural conflict between Engineer A's role as an objective QBS evaluator and his documented positive history with Firm B means that any unilateral disposition of the envelope, however procedurally correct, carries an appearance of impropriety that disclosure alone can cure. The Board's conclusion addresses what Engineer A should do with the envelope but does not address whether Engineer A was the appropriate person to make that determination at all. Strict procurement integrity requires not only correct outcomes but demonstrably impartial processes, and Engineer A's failure to recuse or disclose before acting — even when acting correctly — leaves the procurement vulnerable to a legitimate challenge from any of the 13 other competing firms who might reasonably question whether the decision was made by a conflicted evaluator.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.609219
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 104
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.1.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion focuses exclusively on Engineer A's obligations but leaves unexamined a materially complicating factor: the city manager's administrative assistant accepted, held, and forwarded a misdirected procurement submittal for over four hours before it reached Engineer A. This chain of custody through a non-designated city office is not ethically or legally neutral. The administrative assistant's acceptance of the envelope — even passively — may constitute city-side facilitation of a procedurally defective submission, and that facilitation creates a factual record that Firm B could plausibly use to argue that the city bore partial responsibility for the submission's misdirection. The Board's recommendation to return the envelope unopened is correct as a substantive matter, but it does not address the documentation Engineer A must create to establish a clear, contemporaneous record of when the envelope was received by the city manager's office, when it reached Engineer A, what actions were taken, and on what basis. Without that formal record, the city's legal exposure from a Firm B challenge is substantially increased, and Engineer A's own professional conduct becomes difficult to verify after the fact. The absence of a documented record of these events would itself constitute a lapse in Engineer A's obligation to serve faithfully as a public procurement administrator.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.609304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: III.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's recommendation correctly rejects any consequentialist rationale for accepting Firm B's late submittal — such as Firm B's demonstrated competence on prior City X projects — but the Board does not fully articulate why that rejection is ethically mandatory rather than merely procedurally convenient. The deeper principle is that QBS procurement integrity is itself a public welfare instrument: the entire QBS framework exists to ensure that public agencies select engineering firms through a process that is transparent, competitive, and resistant to favoritism. Allowing Engineer A to weigh Firm B's prior performance as a mitigating factor would not merely bend a procedural rule; it would fundamentally corrupt the mechanism by which public welfare is protected in engineering procurement. The 13 other competing firms that complied with the published deadline and location requirements would be materially disadvantaged by any exception granted to Firm B, regardless of Firm B's qualifications. Furthermore, accepting the submittal would establish a precedent that deadline and location requirements are negotiable when a firm has a favorable track record with the evaluating engineer — a precedent that would undermine every future QBS procurement administered by City X. The Board's conclusion is therefore not merely about this envelope; it is about the structural integrity of the public procurement system that Engineer A is obligated to protect as a faithful agent of City X and as a professional engineer serving the public interest.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.609402
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: III.1.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A's prior favorable relationship with Firm B creates a structural appearance-of-impropriety risk that, while not necessarily requiring full recusal from the entire QBS process, does obligate Engineer A to proactively disclose the relationship to a supervisor or procurement authority before taking any unilateral action on the late submittal envelope. The decision to return the envelope unopened — though substantively correct — carries greater institutional legitimacy and legal defensibility when made transparently through a supervisory chain rather than by Engineer A acting alone. The prior relationship does not disqualify Engineer A from making the correct procedural call, but the combination of a known favorable relationship and a discretionary procedural decision creates precisely the conditions under which disclosure is ethically mandatory, not merely advisable. Failure to disclose, even when the ultimate action taken is proper, leaves Engineer A and City X vulnerable to a credible appearance-of-favoritism challenge from any of the 13 other competing firms.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.609482
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: The city manager's administrative assistant bears an independent procedural and quasi-ethical responsibility for the manner in which the misdirected envelope was handled. By accepting the envelope, retaining it for over four hours, and then routing it to Engineer A rather than immediately notifying Firm B of the delivery error or returning it to the courier, the administrative assistant became an inadvertent participant in a procurement irregularity. While the assistant is not a licensed engineer and is not directly bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics, public procurement integrity norms impose on all city employees handling procurement materials an obligation to avoid actions that could compromise the fairness of a competitive process. The correct action upon receiving a clearly procurement-related envelope addressed to a specific city official would have been to immediately contact the city clerk's office, notify Firm B of the misdirected delivery, and decline to hold the envelope in an unofficial location. The four-hour retention period in the city manager's office is itself a procedural irregularity that complicates the chain-of-custody record and could form the basis of a legal challenge by Firm B arguing city-side complicity in the late delivery.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.609567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: Engineer A does not have an affirmative ethical obligation to proactively notify all 13 other pre-submittal firms that Firm B's late submittal was received and returned unopened, but Engineer A does have an obligation to ensure that an accurate record of the disposition is created and maintained in a manner accessible through normal procurement transparency mechanisms. Proactive notification to all 13 firms could itself introduce a new procedural irregularity by drawing attention to a competitor's failure in a manner not contemplated by the QBS process rules. However, if any competing firm inquires about the number of SOQs received or the status of the procurement, Engineer A is obligated to respond truthfully and in accordance with applicable public records requirements. The transparency obligation is satisfied by accurate record-keeping and honest response to inquiry, not by unsolicited broadcast of Firm B's procedural failure to the competitive field.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.609643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: III.1.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: Engineer A has a clear and non-discretionary documentation obligation regarding the receipt, handling, and return of Firm B's late submittal. At minimum, Engineer A should create a contemporaneous written record establishing: the exact date and time the envelope was received by Engineer A, the date-time stamp already affixed by the city manager's office, the identity of the administrative assistant who transferred the envelope, the fact that the envelope was returned unopened, the method and date of return, and any communication made to Firm B regarding the rejection. Failure to create this formal record is itself an ethical lapse in public procurement administration because it leaves the city without a defensible evidentiary basis if Firm B challenges the rejection, and it undermines the transparency obligations that attach to all public procurement decisions. The documentation obligation is not merely administrative best practice — it is an extension of Engineer A's faithful agent duty to City X and of the broader public procurement integrity standard that requires all procurement actions to be fully accountable.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.609715
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: III.1.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The tension between Procurement Integrity and Public Welfare Paramount does not resolve in favor of accepting Firm B's late submittal, even in a public safety-critical building context. The public welfare is itself served by procurement integrity: a QBS process that enforces deadlines uniformly protects the public from favoritism, bid manipulation, and legal challenges that could delay or derail the project entirely. Accepting a late submittal on the grounds that the submitting firm is more qualified would require Engineer A to make a unilateral merit judgment before evaluating any of the 13 compliant submittals — a judgment that is both procedurally improper and substantively premature. Furthermore, the premise that strict rejection necessarily produces a less capable outcome is speculative; one or more of the 13 compliant firms may be equally or more qualified than Firm B. The public welfare argument for leniency is therefore both procedurally impermissible and factually unsupported at the time of Engineer A's decision.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.609784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: III.1.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The tension between Fairness in Professional Competition and the principle that Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety is sharpened — but not resolved differently — by the possibility that city-side administrative failure contributed to Firm B's late delivery. Even if the city manager's administrative assistant's acceptance of the envelope created a misleading impression that the delivery was valid, the published submission rules were unambiguous: submittals were required at the city clerk's office by 10:00 am. Firm B bore the responsibility to ensure delivery to the correct location by the correct time. The administrative assistant's acceptance of the envelope does not constitute city ratification of a late or misdirected submittal. However, this city-side irregularity does create a legitimate basis for Firm B to seek administrative review or legal remedy, and it strengthens the argument that Engineer A must document the full chain of custody meticulously. The fairness obligation to the 13 compliant firms outweighs any equitable sympathy for Firm B arising from the administrative assistant's conduct.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.609861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: III.1.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The apparent conflict between Engineer A's Faithful Agent Obligation to City X and the Prior Performance Non-Consideration principle dissolves upon closer analysis. City X's institutional interest in Firm B's continued participation, to the extent it exists, is properly expressed through the procurement process itself — by inviting Firm B to compete — not by waiving procedural requirements after a deadline violation. Engineer A's faithful agent duty requires serving City X's lawful procurement interests, which include maintaining a legally defensible QBS process. Accepting Firm B's late submittal in deference to the city's prior positive experience with Firm B would expose City X to legal challenge from the 13 compliant firms and could invalidate the entire procurement. The faithful agent obligation therefore aligns with, rather than conflicts with, strict deadline enforcement: both require Engineer A to protect City X's legal and institutional integrity by rejecting the late submittal.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.609951
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: II.3.a.
cited provision3: III.1.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The tension between the Transparency Principle and the Misdirected Submittal Non-Acceptance Obligation does not justify concealing the full chain of custody of Firm B's envelope. While Engineer A and City X may be concerned that full transparency about the administrative assistant's four-hour retention of the envelope could expose the city to legal challenge, the ethical obligation of transparency is not contingent on whether disclosure is legally convenient. Engineer A's duty under the NSPE Code to be objective and truthful requires that any formal record of the submittal disposition accurately reflect the complete sequence of events, including the city manager's office receipt. Attempting to minimize or omit the administrative assistant's role in order to insulate the city from legal risk would itself constitute a form of deception that violates Engineer A's professional obligations. The appropriate response to the legal exposure risk is not concealment but rather consultation with City X's legal counsel about how to document and communicate the chain of custody accurately while managing the city's legal position.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: III.1.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A fulfilled the categorical duty of equal treatment by returning Firm B's late submittal unopened. The Kantian universalizability test is instructive: if Engineer A were to accept Firm B's late submittal on the basis of prior favorable performance, the maxim underlying that action — 'accept late submittals from firms with whom you have had positive prior experience' — could not be universalized without destroying the integrity of competitive procurement entirely. Every evaluator would then be entitled to apply personal relationship history as a criterion for procedural leniency, which would render published deadlines meaningless. The deontological analysis therefore strongly supports the Board's conclusion: the duty to treat all competing firms equally is categorical and is not overridden by consequentialist considerations about Firm B's relative competence or prior performance.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: III.1.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A demonstrated the professional virtues of impartiality and integrity precisely by resisting the rationalization that Firm B's good intent or the administrative confusion surrounding the misdirected envelope justified acceptance. Virtue ethics asks what a person of good professional character would do, and the answer here is that a virtuous procurement official would recognize that the temptation to accommodate a known and trusted firm is exactly the kind of bias that procurement rules are designed to neutralize. The virtue of impartiality is not merely the absence of active favoritism — it includes the active resistance of sympathetic impulses that, however well-intentioned, would compromise the fairness of the competitive process. Engineer A's prior favorable relationship with Firm B makes the demonstration of impartiality more difficult and therefore more ethically significant, not less required.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610174
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: III.1.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a consequentialist perspective, the argument that accepting Firm B's late submittal would produce a better overall outcome for the public interest is both speculative and institutionally dangerous. The consequentialist calculus must account not only for the potential benefit of Firm B's participation but also for the systemic costs of deadline non-enforcement: erosion of procurement integrity, legal vulnerability for City X, unfairness to the 13 compliant firms who invested resources in meeting the deadline, and the precedent-setting effect of rewarding procedural non-compliance. When these systemic costs are properly weighted, the consequentialist analysis does not clearly favor acceptance. Moreover, Engineer A is not positioned at the time of the decision to make a reliable comparative quality judgment between Firm B and the 13 compliant submittals. The consequentialist calculus therefore has no legitimate weight in Engineer A's ethical decision-making at this procedural juncture, and reliance on it would constitute precisely the kind of rationalization that procurement rules are designed to prevent.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: III.1.
cited provision2: II.3.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's prior favorable relationship with Firm B does create an independent duty to disclose that relationship to City X procurement authorities before making any determination about Firm B's late submittal, separate from the substantive rejection decision itself. This duty arises from the categorical obligation of honesty and transparency that attaches to all public officials exercising discretionary procurement authority. Even if the substantive decision — returning the envelope unopened — is the only ethically permissible action, the process by which that decision is made must itself be transparent and accountable. A deontological framework does not permit Engineer A to rely on the correctness of the outcome to excuse the absence of procedural disclosure. The duty to disclose the prior relationship is therefore not contingent on whether Engineer A believes the relationship influenced the decision; it is triggered by the structural fact of the relationship itself in combination with the exercise of procurement authority.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401: If Firm B's submittal had been delivered to the city clerk's office on time and Engineer A had personally received it rather than the clerk, Engineer A would have had no obligation to return it — the submittal would have been timely and properly directed. The chain of custody through the city manager's administrative assistant does materially change the ethical analysis in one important respect: it introduces a city-side procedural irregularity that complicates the factual record and creates a potential basis for Firm B to argue that the city's own conduct contributed to the late and misdirected delivery. However, this city-side irregularity does not change Engineer A's substantive obligation to reject the late submittal, because the published rules placed the burden of timely and correctly directed delivery entirely on the submitting firm. The chain of custody irregularity is ethically significant primarily for its documentation and legal implications, not for the substantive rejection decision.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.3.
cited provision2: III.1.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If Engineer A had inadvertently opened the envelope before noticing the late timestamp, the ethical obligations would expand significantly. Engineer A would then possess knowledge of Firm B's qualifications that no other evaluator should have at that stage of the process, creating an informational asymmetry that compromises Engineer A's ability to serve as an objective evaluator. In that scenario, Engineer A would be obligated to: immediately disclose the inadvertent opening to procurement supervisors; recuse from any comparative evaluation of Firm B's qualifications against compliant submittals; and consider whether the inadvertent disclosure requires notification to all competing firms or formal documentation in the procurement record. The inadvertent opening would not change the obligation to reject Firm B's late submittal, but it would create a secondary ethical obligation to quarantine the improperly acquired information and prevent it from influencing the evaluation of compliant submittals.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q403: Engineer A's ethical obligations regarding Firm B's late submittal would not materially differ if none of the 13 other competing firms had attended the mandatory pre-submittal meeting, because the submission deadline and location were published through multiple independent channels — the pre-submittal meeting agenda, the city's RFQ webpage, and the published RFQ documentation. The pre-submittal meeting attendance is relevant to establishing notice, but it is not the sole or even primary mechanism by which submission requirements were communicated. All 14 firms, including Firm B, had constructive notice of the deadline and location through the publicly available RFQ documentation. The equal notice question would only become ethically significant if Engineer A had reason to believe that the submission requirements had been communicated exclusively through the pre-submittal meeting and that some firms lacked access to that information — a factual scenario not present in this case.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610535
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: III.1.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If Engineer A had proactively contacted Firm B before the January 30 deadline to informally remind them of the submission requirements, that action would constitute improper favoritism regardless of Engineer A's benign intent. Engineer A's role as QBS review team point of contact carries an obligation of strict impartiality in all pre-evaluation communications with competing firms. Selectively reminding one of 14 competing firms of submission requirements — even if motivated by genuine concern for procurement completeness rather than by a desire to advantage Firm B — would provide Firm B with a form of individualized attention and implicit assurance not available to the other 13 firms. The prior favorable relationship between Engineer A and Firm B makes such a proactive contact particularly problematic, because it would be indistinguishable from preferential treatment to any outside observer. Engineer A's informal information sharing restraint capability must be exercised to avoid exactly this kind of well-intentioned but structurally improper contact.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 303
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The central principle tension in this case — Procurement Integrity Over Qualification Merit Balancing versus Public Welfare Paramount — was resolved by recognizing that these two principles are not genuinely in conflict but are instead mutually reinforcing in the QBS context. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A must return the submittal unopened reflects the understanding that public welfare is best served by a procurement system whose integrity is structurally reliable, not by case-by-case merit assessments that invite favoritism and legal challenge. Allowing Firm B's late submittal on the grounds of demonstrated competence would undermine the very framework that protects the public from arbitrary or corrupt procurement decisions. The case teaches that when a principle appears to conflict with public welfare, the analyst must ask whether the principle itself exists to serve public welfare at a systemic level — and in public procurement, procedural integrity is precisely such a systemic public welfare mechanism. Qualification merit is properly evaluated only after procedural eligibility is established; it cannot be used to cure procedural non-compliance without collapsing the distinction between the two stages of QBS evaluation.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 102
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between Fairness in Professional Competition for all 14 pre-submittal firms and the principle that Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety was resolved decisively in favor of equal treatment, but the case reveals an underexamined asymmetry: the city manager's administrative assistant's acceptance and four-hour retention of Firm B's envelope introduced a city-side procedural failure that complicates a clean assignment of fault solely to Firm B. Despite this complication, the Board's resolution is ethically sound because the Fairness in Professional Competition principle operates at the level of the competitive field as a whole — all 13 other firms that complied with the deadline and location requirements would be materially disadvantaged if a firm that failed both requirements were granted an exception, regardless of why that failure occurred. The principle that good intent does not cure procedural impropriety applies with equal force to city-side administrative confusion: the assistant's acceptance of the envelope did not transform a non-compliant submittal into a compliant one. This case teaches that procedural fairness principles are not merely formal rules but are the structural guarantees that make competitive procurement trustworthy, and they must be enforced even when doing so is uncomfortable and even when city-side conduct contributed to the ambiguity.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610734
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 204
cited provision1: III.1.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The case surfaces a largely unresolved tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation requiring Engineer A to serve City X's interests and the Prior Performance Non-Consideration principle, and it teaches an important lesson about how these principles interact with Engineer A's structural conflict of interest. City X has an institutional interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services for a public building, and Firm B's strong track record on prior city projects is a documented fact. However, the Faithful Agent Obligation cannot be interpreted to authorize Engineer A to exercise discretionary leniency toward Firm B on the grounds that doing so serves City X's long-term interest in retaining a high-performing firm — because that interpretation would allow Engineer A's prior favorable relationship with Firm B to masquerade as faithful agency. The Prior Performance Non-Consideration principle exists precisely to prevent this rationalization. Furthermore, the Transparency Principle and the Appearance of Impropriety constraint together create an independent obligation: Engineer A's prior favorable relationship with Firm B should have been disclosed to a supervisor or procurement authority before Engineer A took any action on the envelope, not because the substantive rejection decision was wrong, but because the integrity of that decision — and City X's legal defensibility — required that it be made or ratified by someone without a prior relationship with Firm B. The case thus teaches that faithful agency in public procurement includes the duty to protect the agency from the appearance of biased decision-making, which may require disclosure or recusal even when the engineer is confident in their own impartiality.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conflict of Interest - Engineer A Evaluator Prior Favorable Relationship Firm B
type: PriorFavorableRelationshipProcurementRecusalorDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's prior positive professional experience with Firm B creates a structural conflict of interest that must be managed through disclosure and recusal rather than individual self-assessment, particularly given that Engineer A is the point of contact with authority over the QBS review process
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Prior Favorable Relationship Procurement Recusal or Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must disclose to the city manager or procurement supervisor the prior favorable professional relationship with Firm B and must recuse from any unilateral decision regarding Firm B's submission, deferring to a neutral institutional decision-maker on whether the late submission can be accepted.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest provisions; Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard; City X procurement integrity obligations
sourcetext: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Firm B's envelope on January 30 and throughout any evaluation decision affecting Firm B
textreferences: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project
textreferences: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.586784
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Conflict of Interest - Engineer A QBS Evaluator with Known Firm
type: ConflictofInterestState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A received the late envelope from Firm B through resolution of the procurement decision
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Competing firms
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:07.036410+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:07.036410+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
stateclass: Conflict of Interest State
subject: Engineer A's structural conflict between role as objective QBS evaluator and prior favorable relationship with Firm B
terminatedby: Formal recusal, disclosure to governing authority, or conclusion of procurement
textreferences: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project
textreferences: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
textreferences: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm
triggeringevent: Engineer A being intercepted with Firm B's late submission while serving as QBS review team point of contact for a procurement in which Firm B is competing
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.581470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A return Firm B's late and misdirected submittal unopened, or accept it into the QBS evaluation on the grounds that the procedural error was minor and Firm B has a strong prior performance record with City X?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to strictly enforce the published QBS submittal deadline and location requirements by returning Firm B's misdirected and late submittal unopened, regardless of Firm B's prior satisfactory performance on City X projects or the apparent harmlessness of the procedural error.
option1: Return Firm B's submittal unopened with written notice to Firm B that the SOQ was received after the published deadline and at the wrong location, and document the rejection in the procurement record
option2: Accept Firm B's submittal into the evaluation pool on the grounds that the envelope arrived within the same governmental entity on the same day, treating the misdirection as a minor administrative irregularity that caused no demonstrable harm to other competing firms
option3: Escalate the disposition decision to the city attorney or procurement officer rather than acting unilaterally, presenting the full chain-of-custody facts and requesting an official ruling on whether the city manager's office acceptance constitutes a valid city receipt that tolls the deadline
role label: Engineer A - QBS Point of Contact
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.607690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Before taking any action on Firm B's envelope, should Engineer A disclose his prior favorable relationship with Firm B to a supervisor or procurement authority, or is Engineer A's confidence in his own impartiality sufficient to proceed with the rejection decision unilaterally?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to disclose his prior favorable professional relationship with Firm B to a supervisor or procurement authority before taking any unilateral action on the misdirected envelope — even the ministerial act of returning it — given that the structural conflict between Engineer A's role as an objective QBS evaluator and his documented positive history with Firm B creates an appearance of impropriety that disclosure alone can cure.
option1: Immediately disclose the prior favorable relationship with Firm B to a procurement supervisor or the city attorney before taking any action on the envelope, and request supervisory ratification of the rejection decision
option2: Proceed with returning the envelope unopened based on the unambiguous published rules, then document the prior relationship and the action taken in the procurement record as a contemporaneous disclosure, treating the correct substantive outcome as sufficient to demonstrate impartiality
option3: Recuse entirely from any further involvement in the Firm B submittal disposition and all subsequent QBS evaluation steps involving Firm B, transferring the envelope and the rejection decision to another city official without taking any personal action on it
role label: Engineer A - QBS Evaluator with Prior Relationship
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.612759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: What level of formal documentation must Engineer A create regarding the receipt, chain of custody, and return of Firm B's late submittal, and does the four-hour retention by the city manager's administrative assistant create additional documentation obligations beyond a standard rejection record?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to create a formal, contemporaneous documentation record of the full chain of custody of Firm B's envelope — including the city manager's office receipt time, the administrative assistant's identity, the basis for rejection, the fact that the envelope was returned unopened, and communication to Firm B — so that the procurement record is transparent, defensible, and consistent with equal treatment of all competing firms.
option1: Create a comprehensive contemporaneous written record documenting the full chain of custody — including the city manager's office receipt timestamp, the administrative assistant's identity and role, the basis for rejection, the unopened return, and written notification to Firm B — and consult City X's legal counsel about how to communicate the chain of custody accurately while managing the city's legal position
option2: Create a standard rejection record documenting the deadline non-compliance and the return of the envelope unopened, without separately documenting the administrative assistant's four-hour retention on the grounds that the city manager's office conduct is an internal administrative matter outside the scope of the QBS procurement record
option3: Document the rejection and return of the envelope, then proactively notify all 13 other pre-submittal firms in writing that one SOQ was received after the deadline and at the wrong location and was returned unopened, treating broad notification as the transparency mechanism that satisfies the equal treatment obligation
role label: Engineer A - Public Procurement Administrator
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.612858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Does the city manager's administrative assistant bear independent procedural responsibility for the manner in which Firm B's misdirected envelope was handled, and does the assistant's four-hour retention of the envelope constitute city-side facilitation of a procurement irregularity that complicates the clean assignment of fault solely to Firm B?
focus: The city manager's administrative assistant's independent procedural and quasi-ethical responsibility for accepting, retaining for over four hours, and forwarding a misdirected procurement submittal to Engineer A rather than immediately notifying Firm B of the delivery error, returning the envelope, or contacting the city clerk's office — and whether that city-side conduct materially alters the ethical analysis of Firm B's non-compliance.
option1: Upon receiving the procurement envelope, immediately contact the city clerk's office to report the misdirected delivery, notify Firm B's representative that the envelope was delivered to the wrong location and cannot be accepted at the city manager's office, and decline to retain or forward the envelope
option2: Route the envelope to Engineer A as the named recipient on the envelope, treating the delivery as internal city mail routing and deferring any procurement compliance determination to Engineer A as the designated QBS point of contact with authority over submittal handling
option3: Physically transport the envelope to the city clerk's office immediately upon receipt, treating the delivery as a misdirected submittal that can be corrected by internal city transfer, on the grounds that delivery within the same governmental entity on the same day satisfies the spirit of the submission requirement
role label: City Manager Administrative Assistant
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.612940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Does Engineer A's obligation to serve the public interest permit him to weigh Firm B's prior strong performance on City X projects as a factor in deciding whether to accept the late submittal, or does the QBS framework categorically exclude prior performance from the procedural compliance determination?
focus: The resolution of the apparent tension between the Procurement Integrity Over Qualification Merit Balancing Principle and the Public Welfare Paramount principle — specifically whether Engineer A may weigh Firm B's demonstrated competence on prior City X projects as a mitigating factor in the compliance determination, and whether the consequentialist argument for acceptance has any legitimate weight in Engineer A's ethical decision-making at the procedural stage.
option1: Reject Firm B's submittal as procedurally non-compliant without considering Firm B's prior performance record, treating the compliance determination as categorically separate from the merit evaluation stage and returning the envelope unopened
option2: Accept Firm B's submittal into the evaluation pool while documenting the procedural irregularity, treating Firm B's demonstrated competence on prior City X projects as a mitigating factor that, in combination with the apparent harmlessness of the error, justifies a public-interest exception to strict deadline enforcement for this safety-critical building project
option3: Reject Firm B's submittal as procedurally non-compliant but simultaneously recommend to City X procurement authorities that the RFQ be re-issued with an extended deadline to allow all interested firms — including Firm B — to resubmit, on the grounds that the city manager's office acceptance of the envelope created a city-side irregularity that compromises the fairness of proceeding solely on the 13 compliant submittals
role label: Engineer A - QBS Administrator Balancing Procurement Integrity and Public Welfare
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.613021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Does Engineer A's transparency obligation require proactive notification to all 13 other pre-submittal firms that Firm B's late submittal was received and returned unopened, or is the obligation satisfied by accurate procurement record-keeping and truthful response to direct inquiry — and how should Engineer A handle the tension between full transparency and City X's legal exposure from the chain-of-custody irregularity?
focus: Engineer A's transparency obligation regarding the disposition of Firm B's submittal — specifically whether Engineer A must proactively notify all 13 other pre-submittal firms of the rejection, or whether the transparency obligation is satisfied by accurate record-keeping and honest response to direct inquiry — and how this obligation interacts with the risk that full transparency about the city manager's office chain of custody could expose City X to legal challenge from Firm B.
option1: Create an accurate and complete procurement record documenting the full chain of custody including the city manager's office receipt, consult City X's legal counsel about communication strategy, and respond truthfully to any direct inquiry from competing firms or public records requestors — without proactively broadcasting Firm B's procedural failure to the competitive field
option2: Proactively notify all 13 other pre-submittal firms in writing that one SOQ was received after the deadline and at the wrong location and was returned unopened, treating broad notification as the mechanism that best satisfies the equal treatment and transparency obligations owed to the full competitive field
option3: Document the rejection and return of the envelope in the procurement record without separately documenting the city manager's office chain of custody, on the grounds that the administrative assistant's conduct is an internal city matter outside the scope of the QBS procurement record and that full disclosure of the four-hour retention period would unnecessarily expose City X to legal challenge from Firm B without serving any legitimate procurement transparency purpose
role label: Engineer A - Transparency and Equal Treatment Obligor
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.613105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Deadline Passes Unmet
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.595889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to assess whether accepting Firm B's late and misdirected submittal would undermine the fairness and integrity of the QBS process for the 13 other firms that participated in the pre-submittal meeting and submitted compliant qualifications on time.
casecontext: City X received initial interest from 14 different firms; accepting Firm B's late submittal would affect the competitive fairness of the process for all other participating firms
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that accepting a late submittal would disadvantage the other 13 firms that complied with published requirements and create an unfair competitive advantage for Firm B
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms.
textreferences: The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms.
textreferences: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.588063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment City X QBS
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed to assess whether accepting Firm B's misdirected submittal would provide Firm B with an unfair competitive advantage over other firms that complied with the published submittal requirements
casecontext: Engineer A administered the City X QBS process and was required to evaluate the fairness implications of accepting a submittal that did not comply with published location and deadline requirements
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that accepting the non-compliant submittal would undermine the fairness of the QBS process for all competing firms
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
textreferences: The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost
textreferences: any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.594251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Information Self-Exclusion Public Procurement Submission
type: PublicProcurementQualificationsConfidentialitySelf-ProtectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted firm qualifications to a state agency in response to a public RFQ, and the BER cautioned that engineers should avoid including confidential or proprietary information in such submissions given FOIA exposure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Procurement Qualifications Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from including confidential or proprietary information in the firm's qualifications submission to the state agency, because such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable FOIA laws and regulations, and the engineer bears responsibility for ensuring that public procurement submissions do not contain information the engineer would not wish to be publicly disclosed.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 10-8; State FOIA Law
sourcetext: The Board would caution engineers that, in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting qualifications to the state agency
textreferences: The Board would caution engineers that, in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.595258
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Confidential Submission Self-Protection State RFQ
type: ConfidentialSubmissionSelf-ProtectioninPublicProcurementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Confidential Submission Self-Protection in Public Procurement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A, as a firm that submitted qualifications to a state agency in response to a public RFQ, needed to recognize that those qualifications could be subject to FOIA disclosure and to exercise judgment about what confidential or proprietary information to include
casecontext: Engineer A submitted firm qualifications to a state agency in response to a public RFQ; Engineer B subsequently obtained those qualifications via FOIA request before submitting his own firm's qualifications
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's qualifications were obtained by Engineer B through a FOIA request — illustrating the need for self-protective judgment about submission content
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The Board would caution engineers that, in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
textreferences: The Board would caution engineers that, in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.593967
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Decides on Late Submittal
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.595817
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Discovers Submittal
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.595959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Discovers Submittal → QBS Evaluation Period Affected
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596088
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Good Intent Non-Justification Firm B Sympathy Procurement
type: GoodIntentNon-JustificationforPolicyViolationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A may have been sympathetic to Firm B's situation and mindful of Firm B's prior satisfactory performance; the Board found that good intent and sympathy cannot cure a procedural impropriety in public procurement.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (QBS Review Team Point of Contact, City X)
obligationclass: Good Intent Non-Justification for Policy Violation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that sympathy for Firm B's situation and awareness of Firm B's prior good performance — however well-intentioned — did not ethically justify accepting Firm B's non-compliant submittal or deviating from strict procurement rules.
sourcetext: While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error, any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
temporalscope: At the time of evaluating Firm B's non-compliant submittal
textreferences: While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error, any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.592855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Harmless Error Non-Exception Firm B Submittal
type: HarmlessErrorNon-ExceptioninQBSProcurementComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The Board found no nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver to the correct office by the required time, but nonetheless concluded that accepting the submittal would undermine procurement integrity.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (QBS Review Team Point of Contact, City X)
obligationclass: Harmless Error Non-Exception in QBS Procurement Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to reject Firm B's submittal notwithstanding the apparent absence of nefarious intent or actual harm to the procurement process, recognizing that accepting a harmless-appearing procedural error would create a climate tolerating non-adherence to procurement rules and expose the process to challenge.
sourcetext: while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
temporalscope: Upon receipt and evaluation of Firm B's non-compliant submittal
textreferences: Such a situation would not reflect well on that process, the city, or the engineering profession
textreferences: while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.591374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Harmless Error Non-Waiver Firm B Late Submission
type: AppearanceofImproprietyAvoidanceinPublicProcurementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, as point of contact on the QBS review team for City X's new public building project, received Firm B's SOQ delivered to the city manager's office 4 hours and 5 minutes after the 10:00 am deadline, and was constrained from accepting it despite Firm B's prior satisfactory performance on other city contracts.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from accepting or treating as validly submitted Firm B's Statement of Qualifications delivered to the wrong city office after the deadline, even though the non-compliance appeared to be a harmless error without nefarious cause — because accepting the submission would open the procurement to challenge and create a climate of tolerated non-adherence to public procurement rules.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 10-8; City X QBS procurement rules
sourcetext: any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
temporalscope: At the time of the procurement deadline and submission evaluation
textreferences: Engineer A may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error
textreferences: any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
textreferences: the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.594562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Informal Information Sharing Restraint
type: InformalInformationSharingRestraintCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Informal Information Sharing Restraint Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that informally accepting or processing Firm B's misdirected submittal — rather than directing it through formal institutional channels — creates an appearance of impropriety and selective advantage, and to restrain from such informal handling by directing the matter to proper procurement channels.
casecontext: Engineer A was personally intercepted with Firm B's envelope, creating a situation where informal handling of the submittal was possible but would be ethically problematic
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that personally receiving and processing a competing firm's submittal outside of the designated city clerk's office process would constitute informal handling that undermines procurement integrity
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B.
textreferences: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.589280
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Misdirected Submittal Procedural Triage
type: MisdirectedSubmittalProceduralTriageCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Misdirected Submittal Procedural Triage Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that Firm B's submittal was misdirected to the city manager's office rather than the designated city clerk's office, and to correctly determine that this misdirection — combined with the late receipt time — renders the submittal procedurally non-compliant regardless of whether the envelope eventually reached an agency employee.
casecontext: Engineer A was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant with Firm B's misdirected envelope after returning to his office in the afternoon on January 30
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Assessment of the procedural implications of a submittal received at the city manager's office rather than the city clerk's office, after the published deadline
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B.
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
textreferences: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.587744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Prior Favorable Relationship Firm B Procurement Recusal Disclosure Constraint
type: PriorFavorableRelationshipProcurementRecusalorDisclosureConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A had a documented prior positive professional experience with Firm B on City X projects while serving as QBS review team point of contact, creating a structural conflict of interest that required recusal or disclosure rather than individual self-assessment of the procurement decision.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Prior Favorable Relationship Procurement Recusal or Disclosure Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained, by virtue of the prior favorable professional relationship with Firm B, to either recuse from evaluation decisions affecting Firm B or make full disclosure of the relationship to procurement supervisors — prohibiting Engineer A from exercising unilateral discretion over the procedural decision of whether to accept Firm B's late, misdirected submission without institutional oversight.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Conflict of Interest Avoidance provisions; BER Case 10-8
sourcetext: Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B
temporalscope: At the time of the procurement decision regarding Firm B's non-compliant submission
textreferences: Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B
textreferences: any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.595702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Prior Favorable Relationship with Firm B
type: PriorFavorableRelationshipwithCompetingFirmState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout Engineer A's evaluation of the procurement submissions, including the decision on Firm B's late submission
affectedparties: All other competing firms
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error
stateclass: Prior Favorable Relationship with Competing Firm State
subject: Engineer A's documented positive professional experience with Firm B creating structural risk of biased leniency in the procurement decision
terminatedby: Conclusion of the procurement process
textreferences: Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error
triggeringevent: Engineer A's awareness of Firm B's past performance and favorable view of that firm at the time of the procurement decision
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.583807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Prior Performance Non-Consideration Firm B Compliance Determination
type: PriorPerformanceNon-ConsiderationinQBSComplianceDeterminationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A was aware of Firm B's prior good performance on several other engineering design projects for the city; the Board found this awareness could not ethically justify accepting Firm B's non-compliant submittal.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (QBS Review Team Point of Contact, City X)
obligationclass: Prior Performance Non-Consideration in QBS Compliance Determination Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from allowing Firm B's prior satisfactory performance on other city engineering contracts to influence the determination that Firm B's submittal was non-compliant with the published deadline and location requirements.
sourcetext: While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error
temporalscope: At the time of making the compliance determination regarding Firm B's submittal
textreferences: While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.591232
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Prior Performance Non-Consideration Firm B Procurement Decision
type: AppearanceofImproprietyAvoidanceinPublicProcurementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A had prior positive professional experience with Firm B on City X projects, creating a structural risk that this relationship could improperly influence the decision to accept or reject Firm B's non-compliant submission.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from allowing Firm B's prior satisfactory performance on other City X engineering contracts to influence the determination of whether Firm B's late, misdirected SOQ submission should be accepted — because permitting prior performance to override procedural compliance requirements would create an appearance of favoritism and undermine procurement integrity.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; City X QBS procurement rules; BER Case 10-8
sourcetext: Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B
temporalscope: During the QBS evaluation process for City X's new public building project
textreferences: Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B
textreferences: Such a situation would not reflect well on that process, the city, or the engineering profession
textreferences: any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.594820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Prior RFQ Submitter
type: PublicRFQSubmittingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'context': 'BER Case 10-8 referenced precedent', 'procurement_type': 'State public RFQ'}
caseinvolvement: Submitted firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency in response to a public RFQ; the submitted qualifications were subsequently obtained by competitor Engineer B via a FOIA request prior to Engineer B's own submission.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:49.481626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:49.481626+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'competitor_of', 'target': 'Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Public RFQ Submitting Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his firm's engineering qualifications for a public project to a state agency using the state's public procurement procedures.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his firm's engineering qualifications for a public project to a state agency using the state's public procurement procedures.
textreferences: the state then provided the information to Engineer B
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.583193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Prior Relationship Non-Favoritism Assessment
type: PriorRelationshipNon-FavoritisminQBSEvaluationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Prior Relationship Non-Favoritism in QBS Evaluation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that Firm B's favorable prior performance history with City X does not justify making an exception to the published submittal deadline requirements, and to apply procurement rules consistently regardless of Firm B's established relationship with the agency.
casecontext: Firm B had performed well on several other engineering design projects for City X, creating potential pressure on Engineer A to accommodate the late submittal
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that Firm B's prior good performance on city engineering projects creates pressure toward favoritism that must be resisted in applying deadline requirements
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city.
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
textreferences: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.587907
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Challenge Vulnerability Assessment City X QBS
type: ProcurementProcessChallengeVulnerabilityAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Process Challenge Vulnerability Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed to assess that accepting Firm B's misdirected submittal would expose the City X procurement to legal challenge and create a climate of non-adherence to procurement rules
casecontext: Engineer A administered the City X QBS process and was required to evaluate the consequences of accepting a procedurally non-compliant submittal
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that accepting the late submittal would open the procurement to challenge and reflect negatively on the city and the engineering profession
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
textreferences: Such a situation would not reflect well on that process, the city, or the engineering profession
textreferences: the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.593503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Fairness Appearance Management
type: ProcurementFairnessAppearanceManagementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Fairness Appearance Management Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that his personal receipt of Firm B's envelope — delivered to him by name rather than to the city clerk's office — creates an appearance of impropriety that must be managed by ensuring the submittal is handled through proper institutional channels rather than through informal personal action.
casecontext: The envelope bore Engineer A's name and was delivered to him personally by the city manager's administrative assistant, creating an appearance of informal preferential handling
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the envelope was addressed to Engineer A personally and delivered through informal channels, creating an appearance concern that requires formal procedural handling
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B.
textreferences: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.588331
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Integrity Balance Judgment City X QBS
type: ProcurementIntegrityBalanceJudgmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Integrity Balance Judgment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to balance sympathy for Firm B's prior good performance and the apparent harmlessness of the misdirected submittal against the obligation to strictly enforce QBS procurement rules to preserve process integrity
casecontext: Engineer A served as QBS review team point of contact for City X's new public building project and was required to determine whether to accept Firm B's misdirected, late submittal
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Decision to reject Firm B's Statement of Qualifications delivered to the city manager's office rather than the designated point of contact by the required deadline
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: it is the Board's view, consistent with BER Case 10-8, that a balance needs to be struck between the objective of selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to the relevant public procurement rules and policies
textreferences: While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error, any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
textreferences: it is the Board's view, consistent with BER Case 10-8, that a balance needs to be struck between the objective of selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to the relevant public procurement rules and policies
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.593365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Integrity Public Interest QBS Administration
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A served as the point of contact on City X's QBS review team for a new public building project; 14 firms participated in the mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received identical notice of requirements; the Board grounded its analysis in the public interest served by QBS integrity.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (QBS Review Team Point of Contact, City X)
obligationclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to administer the City X QBS process in a manner that preserved the integrity of the public procurement system — ensuring equal treatment of all 14 competing firms, strict adherence to published requirements, and protection of the public's interest in obtaining high-quality engineering services through a fair and open competitive process.
sourcetext: The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost
temporalscope: Throughout the administration of the QBS process, from pre-submittal meeting through submittal evaluation
textreferences: The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost
textreferences: The public QBS system seeks to advance this goal, establishing procedures and policies that provide appropriate protections for the public while at the same time recognizing the rights and responsibilities of the professional engineers and engineering firms that participate in the procurement processes
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.593064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Law Knowledge Application
type: ProcurementLawKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Law Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to understand, interpret, and apply the QBS procurement requirements applicable to City X's public building project — including knowledge of the published deadline, location, and procedural requirements — and to correctly determine the legal and ethical implications of a late and misdirected submittal.
casecontext: Engineer A served as the point of contact on City X's QBS review team and administered the pre-submittal meeting, demonstrating knowledge of applicable procurement requirements
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Administration of the pre-submittal meeting and management of the QBS process for City X's new public building project, including knowledge of the published submittal requirements
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project.
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
textreferences: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project.
textreferences: The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.589149
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Process Integrity Preservation
type: ProcurementProcessIntegrityPreservationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that accepting Firm B's late and misdirected submittal — even informally or with good intentions — would compromise the integrity, fairness, and objectivity of the QBS process, and to refrain from such acceptance to ensure the selection process is conducted on the basis of qualifications and merit under equal procedural conditions.
casecontext: Engineer A must decide how to handle the envelope received from the city manager's administrative assistant without compromising the QBS process integrity
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the integrity of the QBS process requires consistent application of published submittal requirements to all competing firms
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B.
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
textreferences: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.588200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Rationalization Resistance
type: ProcurementRationalizationResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Rationalization Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize and resist rationalization of accepting Firm B's non-compliant submittal — including arguments based on Firm B's prior good performance, the administrative nature of the misdirection, or the desire to have a larger pool of qualified firms — and to maintain ethical and legal standards in the face of such rationalizations.
casecontext: The combination of Firm B's prior good performance and the seemingly innocent administrative misdirection creates conditions for rationalization that Engineer A must resist
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.84
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that Firm B's prior good performance and the administrative nature of the misdirection do not justify accepting a non-compliant late submittal
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city.
textreferences: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city.
textreferences: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.589442
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Procurement Rationalization Resistance Firm B Sympathy
type: ProcurementRationalizationResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Procurement Rationalization Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed to resist rationalizing acceptance of Firm B's non-compliant submittal based on sympathy for Firm B's situation, awareness of Firm B's prior good performance, and the apparent harmlessness of the procedural error
casecontext: Engineer A administered the City X QBS process and faced pressure to overlook Firm B's procedural non-compliance based on prior relationship and apparent harmlessness
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: The BER's determination that Engineer A was obligated to reject Firm B's submittal notwithstanding sympathetic circumstances and apparent absence of nefarious intent
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge
textreferences: While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error
textreferences: while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.594111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Public Procurement Integrity Public Interest Articulation City X
type: PublicProcurementIntegrityPublicInterestArticulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Procurement Integrity Public Interest Articulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed to understand and apply the public interest rationale for strict QBS enforcement — that the procurement system exists to assure the public receives high-quality engineering services at fair cost and that non-adherence undermines public confidence
casecontext: Engineer A administered the City X QBS process and was required to enforce procurement rules in a manner consistent with their public interest purpose
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Application of strict QBS rules to reject Firm B's submittal, grounded in the understanding that procurement integrity serves the public interest
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost
textreferences: The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost
textreferences: The public QBS system seeks to advance this goal, establishing procedures and policies that provide appropriate protections for the public
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.593802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A Public Procurement Qualifications Confidentiality Self-Protection State RFQ
type: PublicProcurementQualificationsConfidentialitySelf-ProtectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A submitted firm qualifications to a state agency in response to a public RFQ; Engineer B subsequently obtained those qualifications through a FOIA request before submitting the competing firm's own qualifications; the Board cautioned engineers to avoid including confidential information in such submissions.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (Public RFQ Submitting Engineer)
obligationclass: Public Procurement Qualifications Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to avoid including confidential or proprietary information in the firm's qualifications submission to the state agency, recognizing that such submissions are subject to public disclosure under applicable FOIA laws and that Engineer B was able to obtain the submission through a FOIA request.
sourcetext: the Board would caution engineers that, in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
temporalscope: At the time of preparing and submitting qualifications to the public agency
textreferences: the Board would caution engineers that, in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.592597
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A QBS Balance Strict Adherence Qualification Objective City X
type: CompetitiveProcurementFairnessConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A administered the City X QBS process for a new public building design contract, with 14 competing firms, and was required to balance procurement integrity against the goal of selecting the most qualified firm when Firm B submitted a late, misdirected SOQ.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to strike the appropriate balance between the objective of selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to City X's public procurement rules — with the balance resolving in favor of strict rule adherence when Firm B's non-compliance would open the process to challenge, regardless of Firm B's qualifications.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 10-8; City X QBS procurement law
sourcetext: it is the Board's view, consistent with BER Case 10-8, that a balance needs to be struck between the objective of selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to the relevant public procurement rules and policies
temporalscope: Throughout administration of the City X QBS procurement process
textreferences: The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost
textreferences: it is the Board's view, consistent with BER Case 10-8, that a balance needs to be struck between the objective of selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to the relevant public procurement rules and policies
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.594976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A QBS Deadline Strict Enforcement Firm B Rejection
type: QBSSubmittalDeadlineStrictEnforcementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City X QBS procurement for a new public building; Firm B delivered its submittal to the city manager's office at 2:05 pm on January 30, after the 10:00 am deadline and at the wrong location; Engineer A served as the point of contact on the QBS review team.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (QBS Review Team Point of Contact, City X)
obligationclass: QBS Submittal Deadline Strict Enforcement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to reject Firm B's Statement of Qualifications because it was delivered to the city manager's office rather than the designated city clerk's office, and was received at 2:05 pm rather than by the 10:00 am deadline — regardless of Firm B's prior satisfactory performance or the apparent harmlessness of the error.
sourcetext: any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Firm B's misdirected and late submittal on January 30
textreferences: a balance needs to be struck between the objective of selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to the relevant public procurement rules and policies
textreferences: any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.591090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
type: QBSReviewTeamPointofContactEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'employer': 'City X public agency', 'role_type': 'QBS review team point of contact', 'licensure': 'Licensed professional engineer (implied by public agency engineering role)', 'procurement_authority': 'Administers QBS process and submittal review'}
caseinvolvement: Serves as the designated point of contact on City X's QBS review team for the new public building project. Administered the pre-submittal meeting process and published submission requirements. Confronted with a late, misdirected submittal from Firm B received at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office rather than by 10:00 am in the city clerk's office, generating an ethical dilemma about whether to accept or reject the submittal given Firm B's prior successful project history.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:08.853822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:08.853822+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'colleague', 'target': 'City Manager Administrative Assistant'}
relationships: {'type': 'employer', 'target': 'City X'}
relationships: {'type': 'procurement_administrator', 'target': 'Firm B Late Submittal'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: QBS Review Team Point of Contact Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project
textreferences: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project
textreferences: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.583062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer A QBS Submittal Deadline Enforcement
type: QBSSubmittalDeadlineEnforcementCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: QBS Submittal Deadline Enforcement Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A, as the designated point of contact on City X's QBS review team, possesses the capability to recognize that Firm B's submittal received at 2:05 pm on January 30 — more than four hours after the published 10:00 am deadline — is non-compliant and must be rejected to preserve procurement fairness.
casecontext: Engineer A must determine how to handle Firm B's late-received submittal in the City X QBS process for the new public building
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that the date- and time-stamped envelope showing 2:05 pm receipt at the city manager's office is procedurally non-compliant with the published 10:00 am deadline at the city clerk's office
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
textreferences: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.587488
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA Post-Submission Timing Obligation State RFQ
type: FOIACompetitorIntelligencePost-SubmissionTimingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before Engineer B's own firm submitted its qualifications to the same state agency for the same public project; the Board found this timing created an appearance of impropriety.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:02:03.113089+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (FOIA-Requesting Competing Engineer)
obligationclass: FOIA Competitor Intelligence Post-Submission Timing Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to submit the FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications only after Engineer B's own firm had submitted its qualifications to the state agency for the same RFQ, so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety arising from using competitor intelligence to inform the firm's own submission.
sourcetext: Engineer B should have made the FOIA request subsequent to and not before Engineer B's firm submitted its RFQ
temporalscope: Prior to submitting the FOIA request; the obligation required deferring the request until after the firm's own submission
textreferences: Engineer B should have made the FOIA request subsequent to and not before Engineer B's firm submitted its RFQ
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intended to respond to the same RFQ, submitted a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state. The state then provided the information to Engineer B. Thereafter, Engineer B submitted his firm's engineering qualifications to the state agency for the same public project.
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which was of concern to the Board
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.591542
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA Pre-Submission Timing Appearance of Impropriety State RFQ
type: FOIA-AcquiredCompetitorIntelligenceEthicalUseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B submitted a state FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before Engineer B's own firm submitted its RFQ response for the same public project, which the BER determined created an appearance of impropriety even though the FOIA request itself was lawful.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: FOIA-Acquired Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from submitting a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualification submission before Engineer B's own firm had submitted its RFQ response — because pre-submission FOIA requests create an appearance of impropriety suggesting that the requesting firm sought to tailor its own submission based on advance knowledge of a competitor's qualifications.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 10-8; State FOIA Law
sourcetext: in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, Engineer B should have made the FOIA request subsequent to and not before Engineer B's firm submitted its RFQ
temporalscope: Prior to Engineer B's firm's submission of its own RFQ response
textreferences: in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, Engineer B should have made the FOIA request subsequent to and not before Engineer B's firm submitted its RFQ
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which was of concern to the Board
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.595121
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA Request Competitive Ethics Assessment
type: FOIARequestCompetitiveEthicsAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: FOIA Request Competitive Ethics Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B possesses — or should possess — the capability to assess whether submitting a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's previously submitted qualifications constitutes an ethically permissible competitive practice, including recognizing when legal permissibility does not equal ethical permissibility and when access to a competitor's proprietary qualification materials creates an improper competitive advantage.
casecontext: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The act of submitting a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor -- Submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency
textreferences: Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor -- Submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.588462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor
type: FOIA-RequestingCompetingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'context': 'BER Case 10-8 referenced precedent', 'ethical_finding': 'FOIA request ethical but timing was improper — should have submitted own qualifications first'}
caseinvolvement: Submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency for the same RFQ; the Board found the FOIA request ethical but cautioned that it should have been made after Engineer B's own submission.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:49.481626+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:49.481626+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Prior RFQ Submitter'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: FOIA-Requesting Competing Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intended to respond to the same RFQ, submitted a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Engineer B should have made the FOIA request subsequent to and not before Engineer B's firm submitted its RFQ
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intended to respond to the same RFQ, submitted a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.583325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer B FOIA Timing Ethics Compliance State RFQ
type: FOIARequestCompetitiveTimingEthicsComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: FOIA Request Competitive Timing Ethics Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B was required to recognize that submitting a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own firm's qualifications created an appearance of impropriety, and that the FOIA request should have been submitted only after his own firm's submittal
casecontext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications prior to submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency RFQ
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B submitted the FOIA request before his own firm submitted its qualifications to the state agency — a timing violation identified by the BER as creating an appearance of impropriety
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:24.653133+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the NSPE Board of Ethical Review determined that it was ethical for Engineer B to make the FOIA request in connection with the state's procurement of engineering services, pursuant to the State's RFQ procedures, but that in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, Engineer B should have made the FOIA request subsequent to and not before Engineer B's firm submitted its RFQ
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which was of concern to the Board
textreferences: the NSPE Board of Ethical Review determined that it was ethical for Engineer B to make the FOIA request in connection with the state's procurement of engineering services, pursuant to the State's RFQ procedures, but that in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, Engineer B should have made the FOIA request subsequent to and not before Engineer B's firm submitted its RFQ
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.593641
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer B Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation
type: HonorableProcurementConductSelf-RegulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B possesses — or should possess — the capability to recognize and fulfill the obligation to conduct himself honorably in all matters related to procurement — including refraining from exploiting FOIA mechanisms to access competitor qualification materials before submitting his own qualifications — and to compete on the basis of his firm's own demonstrated technical competence rather than through access to competitor proprietary information.
casecontext: Engineer B's FOIA request for Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own raises questions about whether his competitive conduct was consistent with professional ethics obligations of honorable procurement conduct
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The decision to submit a FOIA request for a competitor's qualifications before preparing his own submission, which raises questions about honorable procurement conduct
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor -- Submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency
textreferences: Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor -- Submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.588740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer B Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition
type: ImproperCompetitiveAdvantageRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B possesses — or should possess — the capability to recognize that using a FOIA request to access a competitor's qualification submission before preparing his own submission creates an improper competitive advantage, and that exploiting such an advantage constitutes conduct that is improper under professional ethics codes prohibiting advancement through improper methods.
casecontext: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency, suggesting strategic use of the FOIA mechanism for competitive advantage
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The strategic timing of the FOIA request — submitted before Engineer B's own qualifications were submitted to the same state agency — indicating awareness of the competitive advantage the information would provide
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor -- Submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency
textreferences: Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor -- Submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.588591
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer B's FOIA request (BER Case 10-8) before Engineer B's RFQ submission (BER Case 10-8)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Engineer B's FOIA request (BER Case 10-8) before interview process (BER Case 10-8)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596316
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Equal Access to Bid Information Invoked in QBS Deadline Enforcement
type: EqualAccesstoBidInformationinPublicProcurement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: All 14 pre-submittal meeting participants
appliedto: Firm B late submittal
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The published submittal deadline and location requirements were equally and publicly communicated to all 14 firms that participated in the pre-submittal meeting, appearing on the RFQ webpage and the hard copy agenda — enforcement of these requirements equally for all firms is the corollary obligation to the equal access that was provided
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Equal access to procurement information creates a corresponding obligation to apply procurement requirements equally — firms that received equal notice of the deadline are entitled to equal enforcement of that deadline against all competitors
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Equal Access to Bid Information in Public Procurement
sourcetext: The date, time, and location were also listed in the city's RFQ webpage and appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting.
tensionresolution: Equal treatment of all competing firms requires uniform deadline enforcement; allowing Firm B's late submittal would disadvantage the other firms that complied with the published requirements
textreferences: The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms.
textreferences: The date, time, and location were also listed in the city's RFQ webpage and appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.584678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint Invoked by Engineer B
type: FOIA-BasedCompetitorIntelligenceEthicalUseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Prior RFQ Submitter
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency — while the FOIA request may be lawful, Engineer B must use the obtained qualifications only for legitimate competitive assessment and must not misappropriate Engineer A's proprietary methodologies, project descriptions, or other competitively sensitive content
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The ethical constraint on FOIA-obtained competitor intelligence requires that Engineer B use the information only to understand the competitive landscape, not to copy or reverse-engineer Engineer A's qualifications content
invokedby: Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor
principleclass: FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
sourcetext: Submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency
tensionresolution: Lawful FOIA access does not confer ethical license to misappropriate competitor content; Engineer B must use the information within the bounds of fair competition
textreferences: Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor -- Submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.585788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

FOIA Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use - Engineer B RFQ Response
type: FOIA-AcquiredCompetitorIntelligenceEthicalUseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B used a state FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's submitted qualifications before Engineer B's own firm submitted its RFQ response, raising questions about the ethical use of publicly available procurement information in a competitive context
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: FOIA-Acquired Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B's use of a state FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's submitted qualifications before submitting Engineer B's own firm's RFQ response must be limited to legitimate competitive intelligence purposes and must not be used to misrepresent Engineer B's qualifications or gain an unfair advantage that undermines QBS integrity.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: State FOIA Law; NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 10-8
sourcetext: Engineer B's use of a state FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's submitted qualifications before Engineer B's own firm submitted its RFQ response
temporalscope: At the time of Engineer B's FOIA request and RFQ response submission
textreferences: Engineer B's use of a state FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's submitted qualifications before Engineer B's own firm submitted its RFQ response
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.587206
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

FOIA Procurement Timing Integrity — Engineer B Pre-Submission Request
type: FOIA-BasedCompetitorIntelligenceEthicalUseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Prior RFQ Submitter
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's submission of a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications before Engineer B's own firm submitted its qualifications created an appearance of impropriety, even though the FOIA request itself was lawful — the Board held that the request should have been made after Engineer B's own submission
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The timing of a FOIA request relative to the requesting engineer's own submission determines whether the request creates an appearance of impropriety; post-submission requests avoid the appearance of using competitor intelligence to tailor one's own submission
invokedby: Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor
principleclass: FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
sourcetext: in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, Engineer B should have made the FOIA request subsequent to and not before Engineer B's firm submitted its RFQ
tensionresolution: The Board held that the FOIA request was lawful but that its pre-submission timing created an appearance of impropriety that Engineer B should have avoided by waiting until after submitting
textreferences: overlooking the timing of Engineer B's request, which was of concern to the Board, Engineer B appeared to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations
textreferences: the NSPE Board of Ethical Review determined that it was ethical for Engineer B to make the FOIA request in connection with the state's procurement of engineering services, pursuant to the State's RFQ procedures, but that in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, Engineer B should have made the FOIA request subsequent to and not before Engineer B's firm submitted its RFQ
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.590280
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked for All 14 Pre-Submittal Firms
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: All 14 pre-submittal meeting participants
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: All 14 firms that participated in the mandatory pre-submittal meeting received identical notice of the submittal deadline and location requirements; fairness to those firms — particularly any that may have submitted timely and to the correct location — requires that Engineer A enforce the published requirements uniformly and not accept Firm B's late, misdirected submittal
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Accepting Firm B's late submittal would disadvantage all other firms that complied with the published requirements, creating an unfair competitive advantage for Firm B and undermining the integrity of the QBS process
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms.
tensionresolution: Fairness to all competing firms requires uniform enforcement of published requirements; the competitive fairness obligation overrides any sympathy for Firm B's misdirection circumstances
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
textreferences: The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms.
textreferences: The date, time, and location were also listed in the city's RFQ webpage and appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.585640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked for Engineer A QBS Administration Role
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X Municipal Infrastructure Client
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as the point of contact on City X's QBS review team, bears a faithful agent obligation to administer the QBS process in accordance with the city's published requirements and applicable procurement law — including enforcing the published deadline and location requirements — while retaining the professional authority to flag the Firm B situation to appropriate city officials for a final institutional determination
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation requires Engineer A to administer the process as published, but also to escalate the unusual misdirection situation to appropriate city officials — such as the city attorney or procurement officer — for a final determination, rather than making a unilateral discretionary decision to accept or reject
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation is discharged by following published requirements and escalating the unusual situation to appropriate institutional authority for final determination
textreferences: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project.
textreferences: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.585956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Firm B Late Submission Procurement Integrity Tension
type: ProcurementRuleStrictAdherencevs.HarmlessErrorTensionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A became aware that Firm B's SOQ was received late and at the wrong location through the procurement decision on whether to consider Firm B's submission
affectedparties: All other competing firms
affectedparties: City procurement authority
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error, any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question.
stateclass: Procurement Rule Strict Adherence vs. Harmless Error Tension State
subject: Engineer A's decision whether to accept or reject Firm B's late submission delivered to the wrong city office
terminatedby: Board determination that strict adherence to procurement rules was required and Firm B's submission should not be considered
textreferences: While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error, any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question.
textreferences: allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
triggeringevent: Firm B's failure to deliver its Statement of Qualifications to the correct city office by the required hour
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.583651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
type: LateSubmittalQBSCompetingFirm
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'submittal_receipt_time': '2:05 pm, January 30', 'submittal_receipt_location': "City manager's office (not city clerk's office as required)", 'deadline': '10:00 am, January 30', 'prior_relationship': 'Performed well on several other engineering design projects for City X', 'pre_submittal_participation': 'Participated in mandatory pre-submittal meeting'}
caseinvolvement: Firm B participated in the mandatory pre-submittal meeting and submitted a Statement of Qualifications for the City X public building QBS. The submittal was received at 2:05 pm on January 30 in the city manager's office — four hours and five minutes after the published 10:00 am deadline and at the wrong office. Firm B had previously performed well on several engineering design projects for the city, creating a prior relationship that heightens the ethical tension around preferential treatment.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:08.853822+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:08.853822+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competing_for_contract_with', 'target': 'City X Municipal Infrastructure Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'submittal_routed_by', 'target': 'City Manager Administrative Assistant Procurement Intermediary'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Late Submittal QBS Competing Firm
sourcetext: Firm B, one of the firms that had participated in the pre-submittal meeting
textreferences: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
textreferences: Firm B, one of the firms that had participated in the pre-submittal meeting
textreferences: the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.583468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Firm B QBS Submittal Location Requirement Compliance
type: QBSSubmittalLocationRequirementComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: QBS Submittal Location Requirement Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: Firm B possessed — or should have possessed — the capability to correctly identify and comply with the published submittal location requirement specifying delivery to the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30, and to recognize that delivery to the city manager's office at 2:05 pm does not constitute compliant submission.
casecontext: Firm B delivered its SOQ to the city manager's office at 2:05 pm on January 30, rather than to the city clerk's office by 10:00 am as required by the published RFQ requirements
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Firm B's failure to deliver its SOQ to the designated city clerk's office by the published deadline, instead delivering it to the city manager's office more than four hours after the deadline
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:36.473806+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
textreferences: The date, time, and location were also listed in the city's RFQ webpage and appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting.
textreferences: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.588879
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Firm B Submits SOQ Late
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.595782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Firm B Submits SOQ Late → Submittal Arrives Wrong Office
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Firm B submittal receipt (2:05 PM, January 30) before Engineer A's return to office (afternoon, January 30)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Firm B's past engineering design projects for the city before current QBS process for new public building
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596431
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Formal Channel Requirement Invoked for QBS Submittal Receipt
type: FormalChannelRequirementforInformationSharinginPublicProcurement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X QBS process
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The city clerk's office is the formally designated and publicly announced channel for receiving QBS submittals; Firm B's delivery to the city manager's office bypassed this formal channel, and Engineer A must not treat the informal routing through the administrative assistant as equivalent to formal receipt through the designated channel
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Formal channel requirements in public procurement exist to ensure equal treatment and process integrity; informal routing of submittals through non-designated offices undermines these purposes and must not be treated as compliant
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Formal Channel Requirement for Information Sharing in Public Procurement
sourcetext: all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
tensionresolution: The formal channel requirement controls; Engineer A must reject the submittal and cannot treat informal delivery to a non-designated office as equivalent to formal delivery to the city clerk's office
textreferences: The date, time, and location were also listed in the city's RFQ webpage and appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting.
textreferences: all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.585465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety Invoked for Administrative Assistant Action
type: GoodIntentDoesNotCureProceduralImpropriety
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The city manager's administrative assistant's act of receiving Firm B's misdirected envelope and presenting it to Engineer A — however well-intentioned as an effort to ensure the submittal reached the right person — does not cure the procedural defect of the submittal having been delivered to the wrong office after the deadline
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The administrative assistant's good-faith effort to route the envelope to Engineer A does not transform a non-compliant submittal into a compliant one; procedural integrity in public procurement must be maintained regardless of the subjective benign intent of the intermediary
invokedby: City Manager Administrative Assistant Submittal Intermediary
principleclass: Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety
sourcetext: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B, one of the firms that had participated in the pre-submittal meeting.
tensionresolution: Procedural integrity controls; the administrative assistant should have declined to accept the envelope or immediately flagged it as non-compliant rather than routing it to Engineer A as if it were a valid submittal
textreferences: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B
textreferences: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.585313
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety — Engineer A Sympathy for Firm B
type: GoodIntentDoesNotCureProceduralImpropriety
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Harmless Error Non-Exception in Public Procurement Compliance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's possible sympathy for Firm B's situation and recognition of Firm B's prior good performance did not ethically justify accepting the non-compliant submittal, because benign intent cannot cure the procedural impropriety of accepting a late, misdirected submission
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The absence of nefarious intent on Firm B's part, and Engineer A's constructive view of Firm B's prior performance, are irrelevant to the ethical analysis of whether the non-compliant submittal should be accepted
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety
sourcetext: while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge
tensionresolution: The Board held that the absence of nefarious cause does not justify accepting the non-compliant submittal, affirming that good intent cannot cure procedural impropriety
textreferences: Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error
textreferences: while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.590752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

II.3.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.607749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

II.3.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.607786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

III.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.607818
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Late SOQ Submission - Firm B
type: LateSOQSubmissionReceivedOutsideFormalProcessState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From 2:05 pm on January 30 when envelope was intercepted by city manager's administrative assistant, through Engineer A's determination of how to handle it
affectedparties: All other competing firms that submitted on time
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: City manager's office
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:07.036410+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:07.036410+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office
stateclass: Late SOQ Submission Received Outside Formal Process State
subject: Firm B's SOQ submission received 4 hours and 5 minutes after deadline at non-designated location
terminatedby: Formal procurement determination to accept or reject the late submission
textreferences: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant
textreferences: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office
textreferences: all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
triggeringevent: City manager's administrative assistant intercepting envelope from Firm B bearing Engineer A's name, date-stamped 2:05 pm — 4 hours and 5 minutes after the 10:00 am deadline and delivered to city manager's office rather than city clerk's office
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.581126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Late SOQ Submission Outside Formal Process
type: LateSOQSubmissionReceivedOutsideFormalProcessState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From receipt of Firm B's late submission through the procurement authority's decision on its eligibility
affectedparties: All other competing firms
affectedparties: City procurement authority
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour
stateclass: Late SOQ Submission Received Outside Formal Process State
subject: Firm B's Statement of Qualifications received after the deadline and at the wrong city office location
terminatedby: Formal determination that the submission could not be considered under strict procurement rules
textreferences: Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour
textreferences: there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour
triggeringevent: Firm B's failure to deliver its SOQ to the correct city office by the required hour
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.583959
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Misdirected Submittal Non-Acceptance Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
type: MisdirectedSubmittalNon-AcceptanceObligationinPublicProcurement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City Manager Administrative Assistant Submittal Intermediary
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Firm B's envelope was delivered to the city manager's office rather than the city clerk's office as required, and was then presented to Engineer A by the city manager's administrative assistant — Engineer A must not treat this misdirected delivery as compliant with the published location requirement, even though the envelope ultimately reached a city employee
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The city manager's office is not the designated submittal location; receipt there does not constitute receipt by the city clerk's office, and the subsequent physical transfer of the envelope to Engineer A does not cure the location defect or the time defect
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Misdirected Submittal Non-Acceptance Obligation in Public Procurement
sourcetext: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B, one of the firms that had participated in the pre-submittal meeting.
tensionresolution: The non-acceptance obligation controls; Engineer A should not accept the submittal and should document the incident, notifying Firm B and the procurement record
textreferences: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B
textreferences: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office.
textreferences: all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.585000
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Misdirected Submittal Non-Acceptance — City Manager Office Receipt
type: MisdirectedSubmittalNon-AcceptanceObligationinPublicProcurement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Harmless Error Non-Exception in Public Procurement Compliance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The city manager's administrative assistant received Firm B's submittal at the city manager's office at 2:05 pm — after the deadline and at the wrong location — creating an obligation on Engineer A not to treat this as a compliant submission even though it arrived within the same governmental entity
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Delivery to the wrong office within the same governmental entity does not constitute compliance with the published submission location requirement; the designated submission location is a material procurement term
invokedby: City Manager Administrative Assistant Submittal Intermediary
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Misdirected Submittal Non-Acceptance Obligation in Public Procurement
sourcetext: while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge
tensionresolution: The Board confirmed that the misdirected submittal could not be accepted, notwithstanding the absence of nefarious intent
textreferences: Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error
textreferences: while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.589943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:53:45.258292+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:53:45.258292+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A works for a public agency in City X
textreferences: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project
textreferences: Engineer A works for a public agency in City X
usedby: Engineer A in determining how to handle the late submittal from Firm B
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations as a public agency engineer administering a QBS procurement process, including duties of fairness, impartiality, and equitable treatment of all competing firms
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.579279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Pre-Submittal Meeting Held
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.595854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Pre-Submittal Meeting Held → Engineer A Discovers Submittal
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Prior Favorable Relationship - Engineer A and Firm B
type: PriorFavorableRelationshipwithCompetingFirmState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing from prior project completions through current QBS procurement process
affectedparties: All other competing firms
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:07.036410+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:07.036410+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
stateclass: Prior Favorable Relationship with Competing Firm State
subject: Engineer A's prior positive professional experience with Firm B on City X projects, while serving as QBS review team point of contact
terminatedby: Engineer A's recusal, disclosure, or conclusion of procurement process
textreferences: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project
textreferences: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
triggeringevent: Firm B's participation in the pre-submittal meeting and submission of SOQ in a procurement where Engineer A serves as point of contact on the review team
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.581305
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Prior Performance Non-Consideration Invoked in Firm B Compliance Determination
type: PriorPerformanceNon-ConsiderationinProcurementComplianceDeterminations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The fact that Firm B had performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city must not influence Engineer A's determination of whether Firm B's late and misdirected submittal complies with the published QBS requirements — the compliance determination must be made solely on the basis of the published requirements
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Firm B's prior satisfactory performance is irrelevant to the compliance determination; allowing it to influence the decision would constitute favoritism and undermine the integrity of the competitive process
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Prior Performance Non-Consideration in Procurement Compliance Determinations
sourcetext: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city.
tensionresolution: The impartiality obligation in procurement compliance determinations overrides any sympathetic consideration of prior performance; all firms must be treated identically under the published requirements
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
textreferences: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.585157
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Prior Performance Non-Consideration — Engineer A Awareness of Firm B History
type: PriorPerformanceNon-ConsiderationinProcurementComplianceDeterminations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity Over Qualification Merit Balancing Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's awareness of Firm B's prior satisfactory performance on other contracts could not ethically be used to justify accepting Firm B's non-compliant submittal in the current QBS process
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Prior satisfactory performance is irrelevant to the determination of whether a current submittal complies with published procurement requirements; compliance determinations must be made solely on the basis of the current submittal's conformity with published rules
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Prior Performance Non-Consideration in Procurement Compliance Determinations
sourcetext: Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error
tensionresolution: The Board implicitly rejected the use of prior performance as a basis for excusing procedural non-compliance by affirming that strict adherence to procurement rules is required
textreferences: Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.590113
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Procurement Honorable Conduct - Engineer A QBS Administration
type: ProcurementCompetitionHonorableConductConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's dual role as QBS review team point of contact and as a professional with prior favorable experience with Firm B creates a structural tension requiring that all procurement administration be conducted through formally authorized channels rather than through personal discretion
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A must administer the City X QBS procurement process honorably, responsibly, and fairly — prohibiting any exercise of discretion over Firm B's late submission that could be characterized as preferential treatment arising from prior favorable professional relationships, and requiring that all competitive activities be conducted through formally authorized institutional channels.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5, III.6, III.7; Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project
temporalscope: Throughout the QBS procurement process for the City X public building project
textreferences: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project
textreferences: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B
textreferences: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.587350
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Procurement Integrity Invoked by Engineer A QBS Administration
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X QBS process for new public building
appliedto: Firm B late submittal decision
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as point of contact on the City X QBS review team, bears an obligation to ensure that the QBS process is administered through lawful, fair, and qualification-based selection procedures — including enforcing the published submittal deadline and location requirements uniformly for all 14 firms that participated in the pre-submittal meeting
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Procurement integrity in this context requires that the published deadline of 10:00 am on January 30 at the city clerk's office be treated as a binding requirement, and that Firm B's submittal received at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office be treated as non-compliant regardless of the firm's prior performance record
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
tensionresolution: Procurement integrity and equal treatment of all competing firms overrides any discretionary consideration of Firm B's prior satisfactory performance or the sympathetic circumstances of misdirection
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
textreferences: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project.
textreferences: The date, time, and location were also listed in the city's RFQ webpage and appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.584497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Procurement Integrity Over Qualification Merit Balancing — Engineer A QBS Administration
type: ProcurementIntegrityOverQualificationMeritBalancingPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X Municipal Infrastructure Client
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: QBS Submittal Deadline Integrity and Equal Treatment Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, as the QBS review team point of contact, faced the obligation to balance the goal of selecting the most qualified engineering firm against strict adherence to published procurement rules when Firm B's submittal arrived late and at the wrong office
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle requires Engineer A to recognize that procedural integrity and merit-based selection are co-equal values, and that accepting Firm B's non-compliant submittal — however qualified Firm B may be — would sacrifice procedural integrity for substantive merit in a manner the ethics code does not permit
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Procurement Integrity Over Qualification Merit Balancing Principle
sourcetext: it is the Board's view, consistent with BER Case 10-8, that a balance needs to be struck between the objective of selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to the relevant public procurement rules and policies
tensionresolution: The Board resolved the tension in favor of procedural integrity, holding that strict adherence to procurement rules must prevail even when the non-compliance appears harmless and the firm is otherwise qualified
textreferences: The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost
textreferences: a balance needs to be struck between the objective of selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to the relevant public procurement rules and policies
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.589625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering — QBS Process Administration
type: ProcurementIntegrityinPublicEngineering
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X Municipal Infrastructure Client
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity Over Qualification Merit Balancing Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The QBS process administered by Engineer A for City X's public building project required lawful, competitive, qualification-based selection through fair procedures, and Engineer A's obligation to maintain that integrity was implicated by Firm B's non-compliant submittal
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The integrity of the public engineering procurement process is a foundational professional obligation; Engineer A's role as the QBS point of contact created a direct responsibility to ensure the process was conducted lawfully and fairly
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
sourcetext: The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost
tensionresolution: The Board affirmed that procurement integrity requires strict adherence to published rules, even when flexibility might appear to serve the goal of obtaining the most qualified firm
textreferences: Such a situation would not reflect well on that process, the city, or the engineering profession
textreferences: The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.590586
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard - QBS Administration
type: PublicOfficialConflictofInterestStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Professional engineering societies and state licensing boards
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:53:45.258292+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:53:45.258292+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
sourcetext: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
textreferences: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project
textreferences: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating whether prior positive experience with Firm B should influence handling of the late submittal
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's obligation to act impartially as a public agency official administering the QBS process, particularly given that Firm B had performed well on prior city projects, creating a potential bias toward favorable treatment of a known and previously successful firm
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.580630
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Public Procurement Confidentiality Self-Protection — Engineer A Qualifications Submission
type: PublicProcurementConfidentialitySelf-ProtectionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Prior RFQ Submitter
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Honesty in Professional Representations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board cautioned that engineers submitting qualifications to public agencies should avoid including confidential or proprietary information in those submissions, since such information may be subject to mandatory public disclosure under applicable FOIA laws
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Engineers bear responsibility for protecting their own confidential information by choosing not to include it in public procurement submissions that are subject to FOIA disclosure; the public character of the submission is a known risk that the engineer must manage through submission content decisions
invokedby: Engineer A Prior RFQ Submitter
principleclass: Public Procurement Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation
sourcetext: an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
tensionresolution: The Board resolved the tension by placing the responsibility for confidentiality protection on the submitting engineer rather than on the public agency or the FOIA process
textreferences: The Board would caution engineers that, in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.590433
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Public Procurement Fairness Standard - QBS Deadline Enforcement
type: PublicProcurementFairnessStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Professional engineering societies and procurement regulatory bodies
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Procurement Fairness Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:53:45.258292+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:53:45.258292+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Public Procurement Fairness Standard
sourcetext: all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
textreferences: The date, time, and location were also listed in the city's RFQ webpage and appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting
textreferences: all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
textreferences: the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office
usedby: Engineer A when deciding whether to accept, forward, or reject Firm B's late submittal
usedincontext: Establishes the obligation to treat all 14 competing firms equitably by enforcing the published SOQ deadline uniformly, prohibiting preferential treatment of Firm B whose late submittal arrived at the wrong office four hours after the deadline
version: Current professional norms
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.579886
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Public Procurement Open Free Process Non-Deception Constraint City X QBS
type: Non-Deception
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER noted that the public procurement process's open and free character serves to prevent misleading or deceptive representations that could undermine the public interest, establishing a non-deception constraint applicable to all participating firms.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: All participating firms in City X QBS process
constraintclass: Non-Deception
constraintstatement: All firms participating in the City X QBS procurement process were constrained from making misleading or deceptive representations in their qualification submissions — because the public procurement process was intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants, and a review of party representations provides the public with assurance that deceptive representations undermining the public interest are not made.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:03:33.107841+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 10-8; City X QBS procurement rules
sourcetext: in view of the fact that the public procurement process was intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants, a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of assurance that misleading or deceptive representations that could undermine the public interest are not made
temporalscope: Throughout the City X QBS procurement process
textreferences: in view of the fact that the public procurement process was intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants, a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of assurance that misleading or deceptive representations that could undermine the public interest are not made
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.595557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Public Procurement Procedural Compliance - City X QBS Statutory Requirements
type: PublicProcurementProceduralComplianceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: City X is conducting a QBS procurement under applicable law that establishes procedural requirements including the RFQ advertisement, mandatory pre-submittal meeting, and published deadline and delivery location requirements
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: City X and Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Procurement Procedural Compliance Constraint
constraintstatement: City X and Engineer A must comply with all statutory QBS procurement procedures, including the published deadline and designated submission location, prohibiting acceptance of submissions that do not comply with these formally mandated requirements regardless of the submitting firm's qualifications or prior performance.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law - City X; City X RFQ and Pre-Submittal Meeting Documentation
sourcetext: The city is seeking the services of a qualified engineering firm and is using QBS for the design of the new public building
temporalscope: Throughout the QBS procurement process for the City X public building project
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
textreferences: The city is seeking the services of a qualified engineering firm and is using QBS for the design of the new public building
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.587070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Public QBS Procurement Integrity Context
type: QBSLawApplicableState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the procurement process from RFQ issuance through contract award
affectedparties: All competing firms
affectedparties: City
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm B
affectedparties: General public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:55:02.625415+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost.
stateclass: QBS Law Applicable State
subject: The public qualification-based selection system governing the engineering procurement at issue, establishing the procedural framework within which all parties' conduct is evaluated
terminatedby: Conclusion of the procurement and contract award
textreferences: The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost.
textreferences: The public QBS system seeks to advance this goal, establishing procedures and policies that provide appropriate protections for the public while at the same time recognizing the rights and responsibilities of the professional engineers and engineering firms that participate in the procurement processes.
triggeringevent: City's initiation of a public QBS procurement process for engineering services
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.584309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount — QBS Process Integrity Serves Public Interest
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X Municipal Infrastructure Client
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity Over Qualification Merit Balancing Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board grounded its analysis in the recognition that the QBS process exists to serve the public interest in obtaining high-quality engineering services at fair cost, and that compromising the integrity of that process — even for seemingly benign reasons — undermines the public welfare purpose the process is designed to serve
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The public welfare obligation extends to protecting the integrity of the procurement processes through which engineering services are obtained for public projects; a compromised procurement process is itself a harm to public welfare
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost
tensionresolution: The Board affirmed that public welfare is served by strict procurement integrity, not by flexibility that might appear to serve individual fairness
textreferences: The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost
textreferences: The public QBS system seeks to advance this goal, establishing procedures and policies that provide appropriate protections for the public while at the same time recognizing the rights and responsibilities of the professional engineers and engineering firms that participate in the procurement processes
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.590934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QBS Evaluation Period Affected
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.595994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QBS Law Applicable - City X Public Building Project
type: QBSLawApplicableState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From initiation of procurement through contract award
affectedparties: All 14 firms that participated in pre-submittal meeting
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:07.036410+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:07.036410+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The city is seeking the services of a qualified engineering firm and is using QBS for the design of the new public building
stateclass: QBS Law Applicable State
subject: City X procurement process for new public building engineering services
terminatedby: Completion of QBS selection process and contract award
textreferences: The city is seeking the services of a qualified engineering firm and is using QBS for the design of the new public building
triggeringevent: City X decision to use QBS for selection of engineering firm for new public building design
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.580955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QBS_Public_Procurement_Framework
type: Qualification-BasedSelectionProcurementLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: State and local legislative and regulatory bodies
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Qualification-Based Selection Public Procurement Rules and Policies
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:34.902316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:34.902316+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
sourcetext: The public QBS system seeks to advance this goal, establishing procedures and policies that provide appropriate protections for the public while at the same time recognizing the rights and responsibilities of the professional engineers and engineering firms that participate in the procurement processes.
textreferences: The public QBS system seeks to advance this goal, establishing procedures and policies that provide appropriate protections for the public while at the same time recognizing the rights and responsibilities of the professional engineers and engineering firms that participate in the procurement processes.
textreferences: the laws and regulations pertaining to that system were put into place to achieve that result
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as the governing framework for evaluating all parties' conduct
usedincontext: Legal and regulatory framework establishing the procedures, policies, and protections governing public QBS procurement of engineering services, including submittal requirements, open competition principles, and the public interest objectives of the selection process
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.582916
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QBS Submittal Deadline Integrity Invoked for Firm B Late Submittal
type: QBSSubmittalDeadlineIntegrityandEqualTreatmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X QBS process
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The published deadline of 10:00 am on January 30 at the city clerk's office is a material procurement requirement; Firm B's submittal received at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office is non-compliant on both the time dimension (4 hours and 5 minutes late) and the location dimension (wrong office), and Engineer A must treat it as such regardless of Firm B's prior performance
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The deadline integrity obligation requires Engineer A to reject the late submittal and notify Firm B, without exercising discretion to accept it based on the sympathetic misdirection circumstances or Firm B's prior good performance
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: QBS Submittal Deadline Integrity and Equal Treatment Obligation
sourcetext: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office.
tensionresolution: Deadline integrity and equal treatment of all competing firms is the controlling obligation; the misdirection to the city manager's office does not constitute delivery to the city clerk's office as required
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
textreferences: Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city.
textreferences: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.584842
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QBS Submittal Deadline Integrity — Firm B Misdirected Submittal Rejection
type: QBSSubmittalDeadlineIntegrityandEqualTreatmentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X Municipal Infrastructure Client
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity Over Qualification Merit Balancing Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A was obligated to reject Firm B's Statement of Qualifications because it was delivered to the city manager's office rather than the designated city engineer's office, and arrived after the 2:00 pm deadline, regardless of whether the error was intentional or harmless
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T23:00:33.641222+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The published deadline and submission location are material procurement requirements; uniform enforcement is required to preserve competitive equality and process integrity
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: QBS Submittal Deadline Integrity and Equal Treatment Obligation
sourcetext: any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
tensionresolution: The Board held that strict enforcement of the deadline and location requirements was required, notwithstanding Engineer A's possible sympathy for Firm B's prior performance record
textreferences: allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
textreferences: any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.589774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law - City X
type: Qualification-BasedSelectionProcurementLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: State legislature and/or local government
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Qualification-Based Selection Statutory and Regulatory Framework
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:53:45.258292+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:53:45.258292+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
sourcetext: The city is seeking the services of a qualified engineering firm and is using QBS for the design of the new public building
textreferences: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs)
textreferences: The city is seeking the services of a qualified engineering firm and is using QBS for the design of the new public building
usedby: City X QBS review team including Engineer A
usedincontext: Governs the QBS process being administered by City X for the new public building design contract, establishing procedural requirements including RFQ publication, pre-submittal meetings, SOQ submission requirements, and deadline enforcement
version: Applicable state/local provisions
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.579581
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610965
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611279
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611359
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.610994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611023
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611083
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611144
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611174
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611206
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: What are Engineer A’s ethical responsibilities under the circumstances?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608025
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Given Engineer A's prior favorable relationship with Firm B and documented positive experience on City X projects, should Engineer A have proactively recused himself from handling the late submittal decision entirely, or at minimum disclosed the relationship to a supervisor before taking any action on the envelope?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608085
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does the city manager's administrative assistant bear any independent ethical or procedural responsibility for accepting and forwarding a misdirected procurement submittal to Engineer A rather than immediately notifying Firm B of the error or returning the envelope?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Is Engineer A obligated to notify all 13 other pre-submittal firms that Firm B's late submittal was received, rejected, and returned unopened, in order to preserve transparency and equal treatment across the competitive field?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608195
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: What documentation obligations does Engineer A have regarding the receipt, handling, and return of Firm B's late submittal, and does failure to create a formal record of these actions itself constitute an ethical lapse in public procurement administration?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608252
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of Procurement Integrity Over Qualification Merit Balancing conflict with the principle of Public Welfare Paramount, in cases where the most qualified firm for a public safety-critical building project submitted late due to a minor procedural error, and strict rejection may result in a less capable firm being selected?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608310
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle of Fairness in Professional Competition for all 14 pre-submittal firms conflict with the principle of Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety when Firm B's late delivery may have resulted from a city-side administrative failure — specifically the city manager's office accepting and holding the envelope — rather than solely from Firm B's own negligence?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608366
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Faithful Agent Obligation requiring Engineer A to serve City X's interests conflict with the Prior Performance Non-Consideration principle, given that City X itself has a documented institutional interest in Firm B's continued participation based on Firm B's strong track record on prior city projects?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Transparency Principle requiring Engineer A to openly account for Firm B's submittal disposition conflict with the Misdirected Submittal Non-Acceptance Obligation, in that full transparency about the city manager's office having received and held the envelope for over four hours could expose the city to legal challenge from Firm B arguing city-side complicity in the procedural failure?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty to treat all competing firms equally by returning Firm B's late submittal unopened, regardless of Firm B's prior strong performance on City X projects?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of impartiality and integrity by resisting the temptation to rationalize acceptance of Firm B's submittal on the grounds of good intent or administrative confusion, given Engineer A's prior favorable relationship with Firm B?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, would accepting Firm B's late submittal — given Firm B's demonstrated competence on prior City X projects — have produced a better overall outcome for the public interest than strict procedural rejection, and does that consequentialist calculus have any legitimate weight in Engineer A's ethical decision-making?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608708
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's prior favorable relationship with Firm B create a duty to recuse or disclose that relationship to City X procurement authorities before making any determination about Firm B's late submittal, independent of the substantive rejection decision itself?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608767
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Firm B's submittal had been delivered to the city clerk's office on time but Engineer A had personally received it rather than the clerk, would Engineer A have had the same obligation to return it, and does the chain of custody through the city manager's administrative assistant materially change the ethical analysis?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had opened the envelope before noticing the late timestamp — would that inadvertent disclosure of Firm B's qualifications have created additional ethical obligations, such as recusal from the entire QBS evaluation or mandatory disclosure to all other competing firms?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608876
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Would Engineer A's ethical obligations have differed if none of the 13 other competing firms had attended the mandatory pre-submittal meeting where the deadline and location were explicitly communicated, thereby raising a question about whether all firms had equal notice of the submission requirements?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if Engineer A had proactively contacted Firm B before the January 30 deadline to informally remind them of the submission requirements — would that constitute improper favoritism toward Firm B given Engineer A's prior positive relationship with the firm, even if well-intentioned?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.608984
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Regulatory Compliance State - QBS Deadline Enforcement
type: RegulatoryComplianceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From publication of RFQ through contract award
affectedparties: All competing firms
affectedparties: City X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Firm B
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:07.036410+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:07.036410+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
stateclass: Regulatory Compliance State
subject: City X's obligation to enforce published SOQ submission deadline and designated submission location under QBS procurement rules
terminatedby: Formal procurement determination and contract award
textreferences: The date, time, and location were also listed in the city's RFQ webpage and appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting
textreferences: all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
triggeringevent: Receipt of late submission from Firm B requiring determination of whether to enforce or waive published deadline
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.581656
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611841
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611870
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.612004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.612033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.612065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.612102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.612135
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.612164
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.612194
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.612224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611672
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611711
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611749
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:21:49.611782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

SOQ_Submittal_Deadline_Compliance_Standard
type: SOQSubmittalDeadlineComplianceStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: Professional engineering procurement practice and public agency procurement rules
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: SOQ Submittal Deadline Compliance Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:34.902316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:34.902316+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: SOQ Submittal Deadline Compliance Standard
sourcetext: any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
textreferences: any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
textreferences: the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: Professional norms governing strict enforcement of submittal deadlines and correct office delivery requirements in QBS procurement, applied to assess Engineer A's obligation to reject or forward Firm B's late/misdirected submittal
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.582776
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

SOQ submission deadline (10:00 AM, January 30) before Firm B submittal receipt (2:05 PM, January 30)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

State_FOIA_Law
type: LegalResource
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: State legislature
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: State Freedom of Information Act
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:54:34.902316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:54:34.902316+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Legal Resource
sourcetext: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intended to respond to the same RFQ, submitted a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intended to respond to the same RFQ, submitted a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
textreferences: the Board concluded that it was not in a position to second-guess or otherwise determine the appropriateness of those rules and regulations
usedby: Engineer B in BER Case 10-8 to obtain competitor qualifications; referenced by the Board as establishing the legal boundaries of open procurement
usedincontext: Legal framework governing public disclosure of qualification submissions made to state agencies in public procurement processes, establishing the legal basis for competitor access to submitted SOQ materials
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.582610
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Strict Deadline Enforcement - City X QBS January 30 10:00am
type: LateSubmissionStrictDeadlineEnforcementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A received Firm B's SOQ envelope at 2:05 pm on January 30, four hours after the published deadline, delivered to the city manager's office rather than the designated city clerk's office
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Late Submission Strict Deadline Enforcement Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is prohibited from accepting or treating as validly submitted Firm B's SOQ, which was received at 2:05 pm on January 30 — four hours and five minutes after the published 10:00 am deadline — and must enforce the deadline uniformly against all 14 competing firms regardless of Firm B's prior favorable performance history.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: City X QBS Procurement Rules; NSPE Code of Ethics; QBS Law applicable to City X
sourcetext: all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
temporalscope: At the time of receipt of Firm B's late submission on January 30 and throughout the evaluation process
textreferences: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office
textreferences: all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.586309
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Submittal Arrives Wrong Office
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.595924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Transparency Principle Invoked for Firm B Submittal Disposition
type: Transparency
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: City X Municipal Infrastructure Client
appliedto: Firm B Late Submittal QBS Competitor
balancingwith: Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's disposition of Firm B's late, misdirected submittal must be transparent — documented in the procurement record, communicated to Firm B, and reported to appropriate city officials — so that all parties understand the basis for the decision and the integrity of the QBS process is publicly demonstrable
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:56:57.985736+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Transparency in procurement administration requires that Engineer A document the receipt of the misdirected envelope, the time-stamp, and the basis for the rejection decision, creating a clear record that protects the integrity of the process and Engineer A's own professional conduct
invokedby: Engineer A QBS Review Team Point of Contact
principleclass: Transparency
sourcetext: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office.
tensionresolution: Transparency and procurement integrity are mutually reinforcing in this context; full documentation of the incident serves both principles
textreferences: Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project.
textreferences: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office.
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.586109
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

Wrong Office Delivery Non-Acceptance - Firm B City Manager Office
type: Wrong-OfficeDeliveryNon-AcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Firm B's envelope was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant and delivered to Engineer A personally, rather than being submitted to the city clerk's office as required by the published RFQ and pre-submittal meeting agenda
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Wrong-Office Delivery Non-Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is prohibited from accepting Firm B's SOQ as validly submitted because it was delivered to the city manager's office rather than the designated city clerk's office, constituting an independent procedural defect separate from the deadline violation.
discoveredincase: 99
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 99
generatedattime: 2026-02-27T22:58:17.619964+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: City X RFQ published requirements; Pre-submittal meeting agenda; NSPE Code of Ethics procurement integrity provisions
sourcetext: all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
temporalscope: At the time of receipt of Firm B's misdirected submission on January 30
textreferences: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B
textreferences: all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
textreferences: the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office
wasattributedto: Case 99 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.586464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

hard copy agenda distribution at pre-submittal meeting equals mandatory pre-submittal meeting
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

mandatory pre-submittal meeting before SOQ submission deadline (10:00 AM, January 30)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596178
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

mandatory pre-submittal meeting before publication of SOQ deadline (date, time, location)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596149
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction

state providing FOIA information to Engineer B (BER Case 10-8) before Engineer B's RFQ submission (BER Case 10-8)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-27T23:08:45.596398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 99 Extraction