Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 22-3 (2022) · Review of Other Engineer’s Work
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 Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Evaluation Context
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Solicitation Response
Engineer C Honorable Procurement Conduct Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Procurement Competition
City Administrator Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Instance
prevails over
Fairness in Professional Competition Engineer C City Administrator Procurement
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
No State context committed for this edge.
Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge of Engineer B's Work
Engineer C Prohibition on Reputation Injury Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Procurement Competition
Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Evaluation Context
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Solicitation Response
Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Procurement Competition
Engineer C General-Only Response Limitation Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Evaluation Context
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Solicitation Response
Engineer C Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Evaluation Context
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Solicitation Response
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Engineer C Review of Engineer B vs Engineer B Faithful Performance Under Contested Contract Obligation Instance
Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Engineer C City Administrator vs Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance
What the board concluded
- In answering the City Administrator’s specific questions and by criticizing the work of Engineer B, Engineer C’s action were unethical.