Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 80-1 (1980) · Protest of Low Fee Proposal
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
Firm A Fee-Cutting Economic Infeasibility Competence Threshold Non-Breach Obligation Instance
prevails over
Firm A Improper Method Procurement Non-Engagement Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Free and Open Competition Framework
Firms B and C Incomplete Knowledge Restraint in Fee Protest Characterization
prevails over
Firms B and C Competitive Motivation Transparency in Protest
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firms B and C Bid Protest with Competitive Self-Interest
Featured
Firms B and C Competitor Deceptive Practice Appropriate Authority Reporting Right Obligation Instance
prevails over
Firms B and C Competitor Interest Injury Self-Advancement Prohibition Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firms B and C Bid Protest with Competitive Self-Interest
- Good Faith Safety Concern — Firms B and C vs. Firm A
- Potential Public Safety Risk from Under-Priced Engineering
Firms B and C Competing Bidder Good Faith Public Safety Protest Permissibility Obligation Instance
prevails over
Firms B and C Competitor Interest Injury Self-Advancement Prohibition Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firms B and C Bid Protest with Competitive Self-Interest
- Good Faith Safety Concern — Firms B and C vs. Firm A
- Potential Public Safety Risk from Under-Priced Engineering
Firms B and C Good Faith Public Safety Protest Filing
prevails over
Firms B and C Competitor Interest Injury Self-Advancement Prohibition Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firms B and C Bid Protest with Competitive Self-Interest
- Good Faith Safety Concern — Firms B and C vs. Firm A
- Potential Public Safety Risk from Under-Priced Engineering
BER Epistemic Restraint Technical Adequacy Non-Determination Obligation Instance
prevails over
Firm A Fee-Cutting Economic Infeasibility Competence Threshold Non-Breach Obligation Instance
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firm A Abnormally Low Bid Safety Risk
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Firm A Honest Competence Representation in Highway Bridge Procurement vs Firm A Low-Fee Competitive Bid Public Safety Adequacy Self-Verification Obligation Instance
Firm A Improper Method Procurement Non-Engagement Obligation Instance vs Firm A Low-Fee Bid Public Safety Adequacy Self-Verification
Firms B and C Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Safety Reporting vs Firms B and C Competitive Motivation Transparency in Protest
Firms B and C Good Faith Public Safety Protest Filing vs Firms B and C Incomplete Knowledge Restraint in Fee Protest Characterization
Public Agency Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Recognition in Fee-Based Selection vs Public Agency Fee-Based Procurement Safety Adequacy Verification Before Award
What the board concluded
- The engineering principals of Firms B and C were not unethical in filing a public protest and calling for a public hearing regarding the award.