This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-10-24 07:56; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Facts Discussion
Provenance Draft

PASS 1: Contextual Framework Facts Section

Case 118: Protest of Low Fee Proposal

R Roles
0
Classes
5
Individuals
S States
5
Classes
6
Individuals
Rs Resources
1
Classes
0
Individuals

Extracted Ontology Entities

17 RDF entities extracted organized by concept type

R Roles

Roles Classes
0
No new roles classes were identified in this section.
Roles Individuals
5
No new roles classes were discovered - the 5 individual(s) below reference existing classes from the ontology.
Firm A Competing Firm
Competitor Role
Linked
Competitor Role
C118
Text References:
"Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list" and principals of those firms attended the "scope of project" meeting."
"The firms then subsequently submitted the following price proposals: Firm A: $50,000; Firm: $120,000; and Firm C: $200,000."
Confidence: 0.85
Actor: Firm A
Role Class: Competitor Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'selected for intended contract award by', 'target': 'State Agency', 'quote': 'The agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A.'}
Case Involvement: Short-listed firm that submitted the lowest price proposal of $50,000 and was announced as the intended contract awardee, prompting protests by Firms B and C alleging the proposal was out of line with realistic costs.
Price proposal: $50,000
[facts] "The firms then subsequently submitted the following price proposals: Firm A: $50,000; Firm: $120,000; and Firm C: $200,000."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Firm A
  • attributes: {'price_proposal': '$50,000'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list" and principals of those firms attended the "scope of project" meeting.; The firms then subsequently submitted the following price proposals: Firm A: $50,000; Firm: $120,000; and Firm C: $200,000.
  • roleClass content: Competitor Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'selected for intended contract award by', 'target': 'State Agency', 'quote': 'The agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A.'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Short-listed firm that submitted the lowest price proposal of $50,000 and was announced as the intended contract awardee, prompting protests by Firms B and C alleging the proposal was out of line with realistic costs.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Linked
Client Role
C118
Text References:
"A state agency, operating under a new procedure for selection of engineering services, advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge."
"The agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A."
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: State Agency
Role Class: Client Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'announced intention to award contract to', 'target': 'Firm A', 'quote': 'The agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A.'}
Case Involvement: Advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for highway bridge design under a new selection procedure, prepared a short list of three firms, requested price proposals, and announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A.
Selection procedure: qualification-based short list followed by price proposals, lowest price not required to be accepted
[facts] "A state agency, operating under a new procedure for selection of engineering services, advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: State Agency
  • attributes: {'selection_procedure': 'qualification-based short list followed by price proposals, lowest price not required to be accepted'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: A state agency, operating under a new procedure for selection of engineering services, advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge.; The agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A.
  • roleClass content: Client Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'announced intention to award contract to', 'target': 'Firm A', 'quote': 'The agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A.'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for highway bridge design under a new selection procedure, prepared a short list of three firms, requested price proposals, and announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Linked
Engineer Role
C118
Text References:
"After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff, Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list""
Confidence: 0.8
Actor: Agency Engineering Staff
Role Class: Engineer Role
Role Category: employer_relationship
Role Kind: professional
Employer: State agency
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'reviewed competency of', 'target': 'Firms A, B, and C', 'quote': 'After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff, Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list"'}
Case Involvement: Reviewed the competency of all interested firms and placed Firms A, B, and C on the short list of the three best qualified firms.
Employedby: State Agency
"After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff"
[facts] "After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff, Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list""
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Agency Engineering Staff
  • relationships: {'type': 'employedBy', 'target': 'State Agency', 'quote': 'After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff, Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list"
  • roleClass content: Engineer Role
  • roleCategory content: employer_relationship
  • roleKind content: professional
  • employer content: State agency
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'reviewed competency of', 'target': 'Firms A, B, and C', 'quote': 'After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff, Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list"'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Reviewed the competency of all interested firms and placed Firms A, B, and C on the short list of the three best qualified firms.
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
Firm B Competing Firm
Competitor Role
Linked
Competitor Role
C118
Text References:
"The firms then subsequently submitted the following price proposals: Firm A: $50,000; Firm: $120,000; and Firm C: $200,000."
"Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing"
Confidence: 0.85
Actor: Firm B
Role Class: Competitor Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'filed protest against intended award to', 'target': 'Firm A', 'quote': 'Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing'}
Case Involvement: Short-listed firm that submitted a $120,000 price proposal and, through its representatives, filed a protest with the agency against the intended award to Firm A.
Price proposal: $120,000
[facts] "Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Firm B
  • attributes: {'price_proposal': '$120,000'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The firms then subsequently submitted the following price proposals: Firm A: $50,000; Firm: $120,000; and Firm C: $200,000.; Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing
  • roleClass content: Competitor Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'filed protest against intended award to', 'target': 'Firm A', 'quote': 'Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Short-listed firm that submitted a $120,000 price proposal and, through its representatives, filed a protest with the agency against the intended award to Firm A.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Linked
Engineer Role
C118
Text References:
"A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically."
"principals of those firms attended the "scope of project" meeting"
Confidence: 0.85
Actor: Principal of Firm A
Role Class: Engineer Role
Role Category: professional_peer
Role Kind: professional
Employer: Firm A
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'principal of', 'target': 'Firm A', 'quote': 'A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically.'}
Case Involvement: Attended the scope of project meeting, participated in Firm A's $50,000 proposal, and charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C acted unethically in protesting the award; his own conduct in making the proposal is in turn charged as unethical by the principals of Firms B and C.
Position: principal of Firm A
Professionalpeerof: Engineer Principals of Firms B and C
"A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically."
[facts] "A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Principal of Firm A
  • attributes: {'position': 'principal of Firm A'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'professionalPeerOf', 'target': 'Engineer Principals of Firms B and C', 'quote': 'A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically.'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically.; principals of those firms attended the "scope of project" meeting
  • roleClass content: Engineer Role
  • roleCategory content: professional_peer
  • roleKind content: professional
  • employer content: Firm A
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'principal of', 'target': 'Firm A', 'quote': 'A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically.'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Attended the scope of project meeting, participated in Firm A's $50,000 proposal, and charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C acted unethically in protesting the award; his own conduct in making the proposal is in turn charged as unethical by the principals of Firms B and C.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85

S States

States Classes
5
changed
ProcurementDecisionState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Procurement Decision Pending State
C118
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A temporal condition in which a public authority has screened competing firms and received their proposals but a final selection has not been completed, so proposals, announcements of intent, and protests occur within the window prior to a concluded award.
Inherited from ProcurementDecisionPendingState · note
A temporal condition in which a public authority has screened and interviewed competing firms but has not yet made its selection, so requests and modifications occur within the window prior to a selection by the authority.
Properties
Text References:
"The agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A."
"Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing"
Confidence: 0.88
State Category: temporal
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: The agency selection board prepares a short list of the three best qualified firms and requests price proposals
Termination Conditions: The agency completes a final award of the contract after resolution of the protests
Principle Transformation: While the award remains unconcluded, the competing firms' conduct toward the agency and toward one another occurs within an open selection process rather than after a settled decision.
[facts] "After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff, Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list" and principals of those firms attended the "scope of project" meeti..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A.; Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing
  • stateCategory content: temporal
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: While the award remains unconcluded, the competing firms' conduct toward the agency and toward one another occurs within an open selection process rather than after a settled decision.
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: The agency selection board prepares a short list of the three best qualified firms and requests price proposals
  • terminationConditions: The agency completes a final award of the contract after resolution of the protests
changed
SelectionProcedureState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Regulatory State
C118
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A regulatory condition in which an agency's adopted procedure for selection of engineering services is in force, combining a qualifications-based short list with subsequent price proposals, where the agency is not required to accept the lowest price but price will be a factor in the selection decision.
Inherited from RegulatoryState · note
A condition in which a code provision, standard, statute, permit, or contractual requirement is in force for the situation, including states of compliance and of violation. As a content kind it is the regulatory standing of the situation. Its deontic relevance is that it activates a constraint or compliance obligation on the available actions.
Properties
Text References:
"The agency procedure states that it is not required to accept the lowest price, but that price will be a factor in the selection decision."
"operating under a new procedure for selection of engineering services"
"A state agency, operating under a new procedure for selection of engineering services, advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge. The announcement calle..."
Confidence: 0.85
State Category: regulatory
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: The agency adopts the new selection procedure and advertises its intention to retain an engineering firm
Termination Conditions: The selection process concludes with a completed contract award
Principle Transformation: The procedure in force makes price a permitted factor in selecting among prequalified firms, framing what conduct is proper for the competing firms and the agency during selection.
[facts] "A state agency, operating under a new procedure for selection of engineering services, advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge. The announcement calle..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The agency procedure states that it is not required to accept the lowest price, but that price will be a factor in the selection decision.; operating under a new procedure for selection of engineering services; A state agency, operating under a new procedure for selection of engineering services, advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge. The announcement called for all interested firms to submit a statement of qualification, following which the agency selection board would prepare a "short list" of the three best qualified firms. Thereafter each of those firms would be requested to attend a "scope of project" meeting for more information about the requirements, following which those firms would be asked to submit a price proposal. The agency procedure states that it is not required to accept the lowest price, but that price will be a factor in the selection decision.
  • stateCategory content: regulatory
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The procedure in force makes price a permitted factor in selecting among prequalified firms, framing what conduct is proper for the competing firms and the agency during selection.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: The agency adopts the new selection procedure and advertises its intention to retain an engineering firm
  • terminationConditions: The selection process concludes with a completed contract award
changed
UnquantifiedRiskState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Unquantified Risk State
C118
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
An epistemic condition in which professionals assert a potential risk that has not been quantified or established, here the allegation by competing firms that a price proposal is so out of line with realistic costs that the result would most likely be an inadequate design, with higher construction and maintenance costs, and the possibility that the design could be unsafe and jeopardize the public health.
Inherited from UnquantifiedRiskState · note
An epistemic condition in which a professional is aware of a potential risk but has not yet quantified or fully characterized it, so the professional's knowledge of the hazard is speculative or preliminary rather than measured.
Properties
Text References:
"the proposal of Firm A was so out of line with realistic costs for proper engineering performance for the project that the result would most likely be an inadequate design"
"the possibility that the design could be unsafe and jeopardize the public health"
Confidence: 0.86
State Category: epistemic
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Submission of a price proposal alleged to be far below realistic costs for proper engineering performance
Termination Conditions: The adequacy of the priced design work is established or the risk allegation is resolved
Principle Transformation: The asserted but unestablished risk of inadequate and possibly unsafe design is the stated ground on which Firms B and C protest the intended award and call for a public hearing.
[facts] "Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing on the ground that the proposal of Firm A was so out of line with realistic costs for proper en..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the proposal of Firm A was so out of line with realistic costs for proper engineering performance for the project that the result would most likely be an inadequate design; the possibility that the design could be unsafe and jeopardize the public health
  • stateCategory content: epistemic
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The asserted but unestablished risk of inadequate and possibly unsafe design is the stated ground on which Firms B and C protest the intended award and call for a public hearing.
  • confidence assessment: 0.86
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Submission of a price proposal alleged to be far below realistic costs for proper engineering performance
  • terminationConditions: The adequacy of the priced design work is established or the risk allegation is resolved
changed
WhistleblowingState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Whistleblowing State
C118
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition in which allegations of unethical conduct have been asserted by engineers against other engineers, so the allegations are now disclosed and at issue, here mutual charges between a principal of Firm A and the engineer principals of Firms B and C.
Inherited from WhistleblowingState · note
A disclosure condition in which an alleged ethics violation has been asserted by an engineer against other engineers, so the allegation is now disclosed and at issue, here Engineer A protesting the action of the four departing engineers as a violation of the rule against supplanting.
Properties
Text References:
"A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically."
"the engineer principals of Firms B and C counter that the engineer principals of Firm A have acted unethically in making their proposal under these circumstances"
Confidence: 0.87
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: An engineer asserts a charge of unethical conduct against other engineers
Termination Conditions: The charges are adjudicated or withdrawn
Principle Transformation: Once the mutual charges are asserted, the ethical propriety of each side's conduct in the selection process becomes the disclosed matter in dispute.
[facts] "A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically. In return, the engineer principals of Firms B and C counter that the engineer principals of Firm A h..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically.; the engineer principals of Firms B and C counter that the engineer principals of Firm A have acted unethically in making their proposal under these circumstances
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: Once the mutual charges are asserted, the ethical propriety of each side's conduct in the selection process becomes the disclosed matter in dispute.
  • confidence assessment: 0.87
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: An engineer asserts a charge of unethical conduct against other engineers
  • terminationConditions: The charges are adjudicated or withdrawn
changed
QualificationScreeningState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Competence State
C118
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A competence condition in which competing firms have been reviewed by the client's engineering staff and found among the best qualified, placing them on a short list for the engagement.
Inherited from CompetenceState · note
A condition bearing on whether a role-bearer has the capacity, expertise, qualification, or means to carry out a duty. As a content kind it describes the standing of the agent's competence for the work at hand. Its deontic relevance follows the ought-implies-can principle, whose computational analogue Stenseke (2024) develops: a competence shortfall renders an attached duty defeasible or shifts it, for example to refer or disclose.
Properties
Text References:
"After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff, Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list""
Confidence: 0.78
State Category: competence
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: The agency engineering staff reviews the competency of all submitting firms and prepares the short list
Termination Conditions: The agency completes its selection among the short-listed firms
Principle Transformation: The staff's competency finding establishes that each short-listed firm, including Firm A, was judged qualified for the bridge design before price proposals were considered.
[facts] "After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff, Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list" and principals of those firms attended the "scope of project" meeti..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff, Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list"
  • stateCategory content: competence
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The staff's competency finding establishes that each short-listed firm, including Firm A, was judged qualified for the bridge design before price proposals were considered.
  • confidence assessment: 0.78
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: The agency engineering staff reviews the competency of all submitting firms and prepares the short list
  • terminationConditions: The agency completes its selection among the short-listed firms
States Individuals
6
changed
Pending Bridge Contract Award
Procurement Decision Pending State
Review
Procurement Decision Pending State
C118
Text References:
"The agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A."
"Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing"
Confidence: 0.86
State Class: Procurement Decision Pending State
Subject: The state agency's selection of an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge
Active Period: From the preparation of the short list and receipt of price proposals until a concluded contract award
Triggering Event: The agency selection board prepared the short list of Firms A, B, and C and requested price proposals
Terminated By: A final award of the contract following resolution of the protests, not stated in the case
Affected Parties:
  • Firm A
  • Firm B
  • Firm C
  • State agency
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "The agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A. Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A.; Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing
  • stateClass content: Procurement Decision Pending State
  • subject content: The state agency's selection of an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge
  • activePeriod content: From the preparation of the short list and receipt of price proposals until a concluded contract award
  • triggeringEvent content: The agency selection board prepared the short list of Firms A, B, and C and requested price proposals
  • terminatedBy content: A final award of the contract following resolution of the protests, not stated in the case
  • affectedParties content: Firm A; Firm B; Firm C; State agency
  • confidence assessment: 0.86
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Firm A Ethics Charge
Whistleblowing State
Review
Whistleblowing State
C118
Text References:
"A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically."
Confidence: 0.85
State Class: Whistleblowing State
Subject: The charge by a principal of Firm A that the engineer principals of Firms B and C acted unethically
Active Period: From the filing of the protests by Firms B and C onward
Triggering Event: Representatives of Firms B and C filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing
Terminated By: Adjudication or withdrawal of the charge, not stated in the case
Affected Parties:
  • Principals of Firm B
  • Principals of Firm C
  • Firm A
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically.
  • stateClass content: Whistleblowing State
  • subject content: The charge by a principal of Firm A that the engineer principals of Firms B and C acted unethically
  • activePeriod content: From the filing of the protests by Firms B and C onward
  • triggeringEvent content: Representatives of Firms B and C filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing
  • terminatedBy content: Adjudication or withdrawal of the charge, not stated in the case
  • affectedParties content: Principals of Firm B; Principals of Firm C; Firm A
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Alleged Underpriced Design Risk
Unquantified Risk State
Review
Unquantified Risk State
C118
Text References:
"the proposal of Firm A was so out of line with realistic costs for proper engineering performance for the project that the result would most likely be an inadequate design"
"the possibility that the design could be unsafe and jeopardize the public health"
Confidence: 0.84
State Class: Unquantified Risk State
Subject: Firm A's $50,000 price proposal for the highway bridge design, as characterized by Firms B and C
Active Period: From the submission of Firm A's price proposal and the agency's announced intention to award onward
Triggering Event: Firm A submitted a price proposal of $50,000, far below the $120,000 and $200,000 proposals of Firms B and C, and the agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A
Terminated By: Resolution of the protests or establishment of whether the priced work would produce an adequate design, not stated in the case
Affected Parties:
  • The public
  • State agency
  • Firm A
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing on the ground that the proposal of Firm A was so out of line with realistic costs for proper en..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the proposal of Firm A was so out of line with realistic costs for proper engineering performance for the project that the result would most likely be an inadequate design; the possibility that the design could be unsafe and jeopardize the public health
  • stateClass content: Unquantified Risk State
  • subject content: Firm A's $50,000 price proposal for the highway bridge design, as characterized by Firms B and C
  • activePeriod content: From the submission of Firm A's price proposal and the agency's announced intention to award onward
  • triggeringEvent content: Firm A submitted a price proposal of $50,000, far below the $120,000 and $200,000 proposals of Firms B and C, and the agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A
  • terminatedBy content: Resolution of the protests or establishment of whether the priced work would produce an adequate design, not stated in the case
  • affectedParties content: The public; State agency; Firm A
  • confidence assessment: 0.84
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Firms B and C Counter Charge
Whistleblowing State
Review
Whistleblowing State
C118
Text References:
"the engineer principals of Firms B and C counter that the engineer principals of Firm A have acted unethically in making their proposal under these circumstances"
Confidence: 0.85
State Class: Whistleblowing State
Subject: The counter charge by the engineer principals of Firms B and C that the engineer principals of Firm A acted unethically in making their proposal
Active Period: From Firm A's charge of unethical conduct onward
Triggering Event: A principal of Firm A charged that the engineer principals of Firms B and C acted unethically
Terminated By: Adjudication or withdrawal of the counter charge, not stated in the case
Affected Parties:
  • Principals of Firm A
  • Firm B
  • Firm C
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "In return, the engineer principals of Firms B and C counter that the engineer principals of Firm A have acted unethically in making their proposal under these circumstances."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the engineer principals of Firms B and C counter that the engineer principals of Firm A have acted unethically in making their proposal under these circumstances
  • stateClass content: Whistleblowing State
  • subject content: The counter charge by the engineer principals of Firms B and C that the engineer principals of Firm A acted unethically in making their proposal
  • activePeriod content: From Firm A's charge of unethical conduct onward
  • triggeringEvent content: A principal of Firm A charged that the engineer principals of Firms B and C acted unethically
  • terminatedBy content: Adjudication or withdrawal of the counter charge, not stated in the case
  • affectedParties content: Principals of Firm A; Firm B; Firm C
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Review
Competence State
C118
Text References:
"After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff, Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list""
Confidence: 0.78
State Class: Shortlisted Qualification State
Subject: Firms A, B, and C, found among the best qualified by the agency engineering staff
Active Period: From the placement of the three firms on the short list until the conclusion of the selection
Triggering Event: The agency engineering staff completed a review of the competency of all the firms
Terminated By: The agency's completed selection among the short-listed firms, not stated in the case
Affected Parties:
  • Firm A
  • Firm B
  • Firm C
  • State agency
Urgency Level: low
[facts] "After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff, Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list" and principals of those firms attended the "scope of project" meeti..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: After a review of the competency of all the firms by the agency engineering staff, Firms A, B, and C were placed on the "short list"
  • stateClass content: Shortlisted Qualification State
  • subject content: Firms A, B, and C, found among the best qualified by the agency engineering staff
  • activePeriod content: From the placement of the three firms on the short list until the conclusion of the selection
  • triggeringEvent content: The agency engineering staff completed a review of the competency of all the firms
  • terminatedBy content: The agency's completed selection among the short-listed firms, not stated in the case
  • affectedParties content: Firm A; Firm B; Firm C; State agency
  • confidence assessment: 0.78
  • urgencyLevel assessment: low
changed
Review
Regulatory State
C118
Text References:
"The agency procedure states that it is not required to accept the lowest price, but that price will be a factor in the selection decision."
Confidence: 0.85
State Class: Price Factor Procurement Procedure State
Subject: The state agency's new procedure for selection of engineering services for the highway bridge design
Active Period: From the agency's advertisement of its intention to retain an engineering firm through the selection process
Triggering Event: The agency adopted the new selection procedure and advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge
Terminated By: Completion of the selection and award under the procedure, not stated in the case
Affected Parties:
  • Firm A
  • Firm B
  • Firm C
  • State agency
Urgency Level: low
[facts] "A state agency, operating under a new procedure for selection of engineering services, advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge. ... The agency procedu..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: The agency procedure states that it is not required to accept the lowest price, but that price will be a factor in the selection decision.
  • stateClass content: Price Factor Procurement Procedure State
  • subject content: The state agency's new procedure for selection of engineering services for the highway bridge design
  • activePeriod content: From the agency's advertisement of its intention to retain an engineering firm through the selection process
  • triggeringEvent content: The agency adopted the new selection procedure and advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge
  • terminatedBy content: Completion of the selection and award under the procedure, not stated in the case
  • affectedParties content: Firm A; Firm B; Firm C; State agency
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
  • urgencyLevel assessment: low

Rs Resources

Resources Classes
1
changed
Legal Resource
rdfs:subClassOf Resources
Review
Legal Resource
C118
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
Laws, regulations, and formal governmental procedures governing professional practice, here a state agency's adopted procedure for the selection of engineering services that establishes the qualification, short-list, scope meeting, and price proposal steps for retaining an engineering firm.
Inherited from LegalResource · note
Laws, regulations, and statutes governing professional practice that establish legal boundaries and compliance requirements for professional activities.
Properties
Text References:
"A state agency, operating under a new procedure for selection of engineering services, advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge."
"The agency procedure states that it is not required to accept the lowest price, but that price will be a factor in the selection decision."
Confidence: 0.85
Resource Category: legal_resource
[facts] "A state agency, operating under a new procedure for selection of engineering services, advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: A state agency, operating under a new procedure for selection of engineering services, advertised its intention to retain an engineering firm for the design of a highway bridge.; The agency procedure states that it is not required to accept the lowest price, but that price will be a factor in the selection decision.
  • resourceCategory content: legal_resource
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Resources Individuals
0
No new resources individuals were identified in this section.
Pass 1: Contextual Framework - Facts
Review extracted entities, then continue to the next step
Continue to Discussion Review
Case texts: National Society of Professional Engineers, Board of Ethical Review.

NOTE: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from NSPE members, other engineers, public officials, and members of the public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code of Ethics and earlier BER opinions. The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER and shall not be considered a direct evaluation of any real matter that may have been submitted.

Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students, and the public. In regard to the question of application of the NSPE Code of Ethics to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government agencies, and university engineering departments), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the Code. The NSPE Code deals with professional services, which must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures.

This opinion is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. It may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case and appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Ethical Review.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3