Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 16-3 (2016) · Professional Selection—Receipt of Submission Beyond the Published Deadline

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.

specification
Given the unusual delivery to the city manager's office and its discovery through an administrative assistant rather than the clerk's office, the board concluded that documenting the chain of custody was necessary to protect the process, while individualized disclosure to the other 13 firms was not required because the official record satisfies...
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 16-3:
  • Engineer A should return the submittal to Firm B unopened with the explanation that the bid was received late.
Recorded violations: Late Submittal Delivery violates Engineer A Procurement Rules Adherence Duty