Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 08-8 (2008) · Selection of Firm—Promise of Future Engineering Work on a Public Project
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
Featured
Engineer C Competitive Procurement Fairness City X Future Contract
prevails over
Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment — City X
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest from Promise
- Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract
- Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm
- Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
- Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
Engineer C Public Announcement Open Competition Minimum Standard City X
prevails over
Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment — City X
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest from Promise
- Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract
- Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm
- Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
- Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
Engineer A Honorable Professional Conduct Procurement Pre-Selection Arrangement
prevails over
Engineer A Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement Acknowledgment Grant Work
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Firm Speculative Grant Engagement
- Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
- Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
Engineer C Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Issuance City X Future Project
prevails over
Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment — City X
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest from Promise
- Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract
- Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm
- Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
- Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
Engineer C Procurement Law Compliance City X Verbal Promise
prevails over
Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment — City X
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest from Promise
- Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract
- Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm
- Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
- Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
Engineer C Public Procurement Authority Competitive Process Enforcement City X
prevails over
Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment — City X
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest from Promise
- Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract
- Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm
- Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
- Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
Engineer C Honorable Professional Conduct Procurement City X
prevails over
Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment — City X
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest from Promise
- Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract
- Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm
- Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
- Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
Engineer A Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Acceptance City X Future Project
prevails over
Engineer A Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement Acknowledgment Grant Work
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Firm Speculative Grant Engagement
- Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
- Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
Engineer A Honorable Professional Conduct Procurement Acceptance City X
prevails over
Engineer A Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement Acknowledgment Grant Work
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Firm Speculative Grant Engagement
- Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
- Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
Engineer C Competitive Procurement Fairness City X Future Project
prevails over
Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment — City X
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest from Promise
- Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract
- Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm
- Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context
- Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A
What the board concluded
- It was not ethical for Engineer C to promise to select Engineer A’s firm on a future engineering project for City X.