Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 15-7 (2015) · Confidentiality – Discussion with Potential Bidding Contractor
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
No obligation was overridden in this case: the board resolved the apparent tension without defeat, as recorded below.
Resolved without defeat
The board resolved the apparent tension here by setting a duty's boundary (specification) or by finding no genuine conflict on the facts (dissolution), rather than by allowing one obligation to prevail over another.
dissolution
Analytical conclusion 2: The Faithful Agent Duty in Constructability Consultation...
Given that a fair and legally defensible bidding process serves the Municipality's own interests, the Board concluded that properly understood faithful agency already required avoiding single-contractor consultation, dissolving the apparent conflict between loyalty and fairness.
dissolution
Analytical conclusion 2: The Board's recommended alternative of a publicly adverti...
Because the board could point to concrete alternatives, the public meeting and the independent consultant, that preserve both design quality and fairness, it concluded that the conflict between loyalty and bidding integrity was only apparent, arising from the private format rather than from any true incompatibility between the values.
dissolution
Analytical conclusion 4: Regarding Q201 and Q202, the tension between Client Benef...
Because the Municipality's interests extend beyond design optimization to include the integrity of its bidding process, the board concluded that faithful agency and bidding fairness are not truly in tension once client benefit is properly understood.
What the board concluded
- It is unethical (and perhaps illegal) for Engineer A to privately discuss constructability issues with Contractor B or any contractor who may bid on the water treatment facility construction contract following the design phase. Instead, Engineer A could conduct a publically advertised constructability meeting, inviting all interested contractors to provide Engineer A with the input necessary...