Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 78-5 (1978) · Post lnterview Change in Joint Venture Team
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
Utility Authority QBS Best-Qualified Firm Law Permissive Amendment Interpretation
prevails over
Utility Authority QBS Procurement Law Conformance in Administering Selection Process
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Authority Equal-Access Modification Permission with Public Objection
Utility Authority QBS Public Welfare Paramount Most Qualified Firm Selection
prevails over
Public and City Council Objectors Procurement Spirit Intent Protest Proportionality
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Authority Equal-Access Modification Permission with Public Objection
Firm A Joint Venture Qualification Upgrade Upon Screening Committee Deficiency Feedback
prevails over
Public and City Council Objectors Procurement Spirit Intent Protest Proportionality
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Authority Equal-Access Modification Permission with Public Objection
Firm A Competitive Procurement Fairness Preservation Through Equal Treatment Condition
prevails over
Public and City Council Procurement Objectors Good Faith Protest Proportionality Assessment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Authority Equal-Access Modification Permission with Public Objection
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Firm A Joint Venture Qualification Upgrade Upon Screening Committee Deficiency Feedback vs Utility Authority QBS Procurement Law Conformance in Administering Selection Process
Firm A Post-Feedback QBS Qualification Amendment Honest Disclosure to Utility Authority vs Utility Authority QBS Procurement Law Conformance in Administering Selection Process
Firm A QBS Qualification Deficiency Proactive Cure Equal Treatment Amendment Request vs Public and City Council Objectors Procurement Spirit Intent Protest Proportionality
Utility Authority QBS Procurement Law Conformance in Administering Selection Process vs Utility Authority QBS Public Welfare Paramount Most Qualified Firm Selection
What the board concluded
- It was ethical for Firm A to seek to alter its qualification proposal in order to improve its position to secure the contract.