{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Action_Omit_As-Builts_from_Bid_Documents",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Include as-built drawings as standard attachments in all bid documents for renovation projects",
    "Explicitly note in bid documents that as-built drawings exist and are available upon request through official channels",
    "Commission a pre-bid site walk or information session where existing drawings are reviewed with all prospective bidders simultaneously"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "The state agency likely sought to streamline bid document preparation, reduce administrative burden, or simply followed standard procurement templates that historically omitted as-built drawings. There may also have been an assumption that contractors would perform their own site investigations or that as-builts were not material to bid pricing.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "All bidders receive equal information from the outset, enabling more accurate pricing, reducing change orders, and eliminating the informal sharing dynamic entirely \u2014 the ethical problem never emerges",
    "Creates a documented, equitable access pathway; bidders self-select to request drawings but all have equal opportunity, reducing asymmetry while still requiring contractor initiative",
    "Promotes transparency and equal access in a structured format; also allows bidders to ask clarifying questions simultaneously, further leveling the informational playing field and reducing post-award surprises"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Illustrates how institutional omissions \u2014 even when not malicious \u2014 can create downstream ethical problems. Teaches that bid document completeness is an ethical issue, not merely a procedural one, and that silence on available information is itself a consequential choice.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Administrative efficiency and standard procurement practice vs. the obligation to provide all bidders with complete, accurate information necessary for fair and informed bidding. Transparency in public procurement competes with bureaucratic inertia.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Fairness of the competitive bidding process, accuracy of contractor cost estimates, potential for change orders and cost overruns on public projects, and the integrity of public procurement. Incomplete information can lead to unsafe renovation work if contractors are unaware of existing sprinkler configurations.",
  "proeth:description": "The state agency deliberately chose not to include as-built drawings in bid documents when advertising building renovation projects. This decision created an information gap that would later drive contractors to seek drawings through informal channels.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Contractors may lack critical existing-condition information when pricing bids",
    "Information asymmetry may emerge if some parties obtain drawings informally"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Transparency in public contracting",
    "Equal access to information",
    "Fair competition"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "State Agency (Contracting Authority / Owner)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Administrative efficiency vs. full informational transparency",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Agency resolved in favor of reduced administrative burden, but this decision seeded an informal workaround that later compromised procurement integrity"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Streamline bid document preparation; possibly reduce administrative burden of compiling and distributing as-built records",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Procurement document management",
    "Understanding of public bidding requirements",
    "Records management for existing facility drawings"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Initial project advertisement phase, recurring across multiple projects",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Obligation to provide all material information equally to all bidders in public procurement",
    "Obligation to promote fair and transparent competitive bidding",
    "Obligation to protect the public interest by enabling accurate, informed bids"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Omit As-Builts from Bid Documents"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Action_Initiate_Formal_As-Built_Distribution_Process",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Simply stop all informal sharing without recommending a formal replacement process, leaving the information gap unaddressed",
    "Recommend the formal process to agency leadership but take no further action if the recommendation is initially ignored or deprioritized",
    "Recommend the formal process, document the recommendation in writing, and if not adopted, escalate to the agency\u0027s ethics officer or procurement compliance office"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Having recognized \u2014 either through self-reflection, external feedback, or review of the NSPE BER cases \u2014 that the informal practice has created genuine ethical problems, Engineer D is motivated by professional responsibility, the desire to correct past missteps, and the obligation under engineering ethics codes to act in the public interest and ensure fair treatment in public procurement.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Eliminates the immediate ethical violation but does not serve contractors or the public well \u2014 accurate bidding information remains unavailable, likely leading to continued change orders and cost overruns on public projects",
    "Fulfills a minimal professional duty but does not ensure the ethical problem is actually corrected; Engineer D\u0027s obligation may extend beyond a single recommendation if the systemic issue persists",
    "Represents the most robust professional response \u2014 creates a documented record of ethical advocacy, escalates appropriately within institutional channels, and maximizes the likelihood that the formal process is actually implemented"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates that ethical resolution requires more than stopping a harmful practice \u2014 it requires affirmative action to establish systemic safeguards. Teaches the value of formal processes as ethical infrastructure, the importance of equal access in public procurement, and that professional courage includes advocating for process reform even when it implicitly acknowledges past error.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "The desire to correct the ethical problem must be balanced against the practical disruption of changing an entrenched informal practice, potential resistance from agency administrators who benefit from the status quo, and the professional discomfort of acknowledging that one\u0027s own prior actions were ethically deficient.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "resolution",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Restoration of procurement fairness for future projects, protection of Engineer D\u0027s professional integrity going forward, improvement of public trust in the agency\u0027s renovation contracting process, and the creation of a replicable model for other engineers and agencies facing similar situations. Failure to act on this recommendation leaves the ethical problem unresolved.",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer D should decide to proactively recommend and implement a formal process by which as-built drawings are included in standard bid documents or made equally available to all prospective bidders through official channels. This recommended future action would correct the ethical deficiencies of the informal practice.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Minor increase in administrative burden for bid document preparation",
    "Some contractors who previously benefited from informal access may lose a competitive advantage"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Obligation to protect the integrity of the public competitive bidding process",
    "Obligation to ensure equal access to material information for all bidders",
    "Obligation to act as a faithful agent to the employer by correcting a flawed process",
    "Obligation to serve the public interest through fair procurement and quality project outcomes",
    "Obligation to proactively identify and remedy ethically problematic practices"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Transparency and equal treatment in public procurement",
    "Proactive professional responsibility",
    "Public interest in fair competition and accurate bidding",
    "Faithful agency to employer through process improvement"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer D (Engineer of Record / Agency Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Administrative effort of process change vs. ethical imperative to correct a flawed practice",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "The discussion concludes that formalization is the only ethically acceptable resolution; the administrative cost of establishing a proper process is clearly outweighed by the obligation to protect public procurement integrity and equal treatment of all bidders"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Establish a transparent, equitable, and formally sanctioned process for distributing as-built drawings to all bidders simultaneously, eliminating informational asymmetry and protecting procurement integrity",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Process design for bid document preparation",
    "Knowledge of public procurement regulations and best practices",
    "Ability to advocate for process improvements to agency management",
    "Records management and document control system design"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Recommended future decision point, upon recognition of the ethical problem",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Initiate Formal As-Built Distribution Process"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Action_Selectively_Share_As-Builts_Pre-Bid",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Refuse pre-bid requests entirely and explain that as-built drawings will only be provided post-award through the existing informal channel",
    "Refuse pre-bid requests and use the moment as a trigger to formally recommend that as-builts be included in all future bid documents so all bidders have equal access",
    "Upon receiving the first pre-bid request, immediately notify the agency, halt all informal sharing, and request guidance on how to handle the situation equitably for the current bid cycle"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Contractors who had previously benefited from receiving as-built drawings post-award recognized their value for accurate bid pricing and began requesting them earlier to gain a competitive advantage. Engineer D, having already established a pattern of sharing, may have found it difficult to refuse without appearing inconsistent or unhelpful \u2014 and may not have fully recognized the ethical line being crossed by shifting from post-award to pre-bid sharing.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Prevents the most acute form of asymmetry but does not resolve the underlying ethical problem of the informal post-award channel; a partial improvement that still leaves the systemic issue unaddressed",
    "Turns the ethical crisis into a constructive reform opportunity; the pre-bid request becomes the catalyst for the formal process that should have existed from the start \u2014 the most professionally responsible response",
    "Demonstrates transparency and defers to institutional authority; may require the current bid cycle to be paused or reissued if some bidders already received drawings, but protects the integrity of the process going forward"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "This is the ethical climax of the scenario \u2014 the point where the informal practice crosses from procedurally irregular to actively unfair. Teaches that informational asymmetry during competitive bidding is a serious ethical violation, that prior practice does not justify continuation when circumstances change, and that engineers must recognize when a familiar action takes on new ethical significance in a new context.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Consistency with prior helpful behavior and responsiveness to contractor requests vs. the fundamental obligation to ensure equal treatment of all bidders during an active competitive procurement. Fairness to the requesting contractor competes with fairness to all other bidders who lack the same access or awareness.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Direct violation of competitive bidding fairness; potential legal exposure under public procurement law; unfair advantage to informed bidders resulting in non-competitive bids and inflated public costs; damage to Engineer D\u0027s professional standing; undermining of public trust in the procurement process. This is the highest-stakes moment in the narrative.",
  "proeth:description": "When contractors who had previously received as-built drawings post-award began requesting them before bid submission, Engineer D faced a decision point and implicitly or explicitly complied with at least some of these pre-bid requests. This action directly created informational asymmetry among competing bidders during the active bidding period.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Contractors without prior relationship with Engineer D would not know to request the drawings and would bid without them",
    "Active competitive disadvantage created for bidders without access to as-built information",
    "Potential violation of public procurement rules on equal information access"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Equal treatment of all bidders",
    "Transparency and fairness in public procurement",
    "Avoidance of conflicts of interest or preferential treatment",
    "Public interest in competitive pricing through level-playing-field bidding"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer D (Engineer of Record / Agency Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Improving individual bid quality vs. protecting equal competition among all bidders",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "The ethical resolution is unambiguous at this stage: pre-bid selective sharing cannot be justified by quality improvement rationale because it directly compromises the fairness of public competitive bidding; Engineer D should have declined and initiated a formal process instead"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Continue being helpful to contractors; allow better-informed bids that could improve project quality and pricing accuracy",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Understanding of public procurement ethics and legal requirements",
    "Ability to recognize when informal practices cross into impermissible territory",
    "Judgment to escalate or refuse requests that compromise procurement integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Emerging pre-bid phase, after informal practice became known among repeat contractors",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Obligation to ensure all bidders have equal access to material project information",
    "Obligation to protect the integrity of the public competitive bidding process",
    "Obligation to avoid actions that create unfair advantage for particular contractors",
    "Obligation to act only within formally sanctioned processes on public projects",
    "Obligation to avoid even the appearance of favoritism or impropriety"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Selectively Share As-Builts Pre-Bid"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Action_Provide_As-Builts_Post-Award_Informally",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Provide the drawings but simultaneously notify the agency and recommend formalizing the process for future projects",
    "Decline to provide drawings informally and instead route the contractor\u0027s request through the agency\u0027s official document distribution process",
    "Provide the drawings to the awarded contractor but document the transaction formally and flag it as a gap in the bid document preparation process"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Engineer D was genuinely trying to help the awarded contractor perform the renovation work safely and accurately. Sharing existing drawings with the contractor responsible for the work seems practically reasonable and professionally responsible \u2014 D likely viewed it as good engineering practice rather than an ethically fraught decision.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Contractor gets needed information; the informal act is disclosed and triggers a policy correction early, preventing the pattern from entrenching \u2014 the most constructive outcome",
    "Maintains process integrity from the start; may cause short-term friction or delay for the contractor but prevents the informal channel from ever being established",
    "Creates a paper trail that limits ethical exposure and signals awareness of the procedural gap, though without immediate policy correction it still allows the informal pattern to begin"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates how well-intentioned informal actions can establish problematic precedents. Teaches that the ethics of an action cannot be evaluated solely by its immediate intent \u2014 the systemic consequences of creating an informal channel matter equally. This is a foundational lesson in how ethical drift begins.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Duty of care to support safe and accurate construction vs. adherence to formal procurement procedures and equal treatment principles. Helpfulness and technical responsibility compete with process integrity and institutional protocol.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Establishment of an informal precedent outside sanctioned channels, potential future inequity among bidders, Engineer D\u0027s professional reputation, and the integrity of the agency\u0027s procurement process. If the practice goes unexamined, it will compound over time.",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer D voluntarily decided to provide as-built sprinkler drawings to the successful contractor upon request after contract award, without a formal authorization process or documented procedure. This action was well-intentioned but established an informal precedent outside sanctioned procurement channels.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Establishing an informal precedent that could be repeated",
    "Potential future requests from non-awarded parties if practice became known"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Obligation to act as faithful agent to employer by facilitating better project outcomes",
    "Obligation to protect public safety by enabling accurate fire protection system design"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public safety and welfare",
    "Faithful agency to employer",
    "Transparency and procedural integrity in public procurement"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer D (Engineer of Record / Agency Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Improving design quality vs. maintaining procurement integrity",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Engineer D resolved in favor of practical helpfulness, but the absence of a formal process meant the action could not be scrutinized or replicated equitably across all bidders"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Help the awarded contractor produce better, more accurate sprinkler designs by providing existing-condition information; improve project outcomes and public safety",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering judgment regarding relevance of as-built information",
    "Knowledge of public procurement protocols",
    "Records management and document control"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Post-bid award phase, initial occurrence",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Obligation to use formally sanctioned processes on public projects",
    "Obligation to avoid even the appearance of favoritism or impropriety in public contracting",
    "Obligation to ensure all parties have equal access to material project information"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Provide As-Builts Post-Award Informally"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Action_Continue_Informal_As-Built_Sharing_Repeatedly",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "After the second or third instance, proactively raise the pattern with agency leadership and propose a formal policy",
    "Begin documenting each instance of as-built sharing and submit a formal memo recommending inclusion of drawings in future bid packages",
    "Consult the agency\u0027s legal or procurement office to determine whether the informal sharing practice is permissible under procurement regulations"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Engineer D had established a pattern that felt normal and helpful. With no negative feedback, complaints, or formal objections, D likely continued because the practice appeared to work \u2014 contractors were satisfied, projects proceeded smoothly, and no one flagged a problem. Repetition normalized the behavior.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Pattern is interrupted before it reaches the pre-bid asymmetry stage; agency has the opportunity to institutionalize a fair process while the informal channel is still limited in scope",
    "Creates accountability and a documented record of the gap; may prompt agency action and demonstrates Engineer D\u0027s professional diligence even if the practice temporarily continues",
    "May reveal that the informal sharing violates procurement rules, triggering immediate corrective action; or may provide legal clarity that informs a more defensible formal process"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Illustrates the concept of ethical drift \u2014 how repeated small deviations from proper procedure accumulate into entrenched problematic practices. Teaches that the absence of visible harm does not equal ethical soundness, and that engineers have an affirmative duty to periodically evaluate whether their practices conform to professional standards.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Consistency and helpfulness in serving contractors vs. the growing obligation to recognize and correct a systemic procedural gap. The comfort of routine competes with the professional duty to proactively identify and address ethical deficiencies in one\u0027s own practice.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Each repetition deepens the informal precedent, increases the number of contractors who become aware of the channel, and makes it progressively harder to correct without disrupting established expectations. The risk of pre-bid asymmetry grows with each cycle. Engineer D\u0027s professional liability exposure also increases.",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer D continued the practice of informally providing as-built drawings to awarded contractors across multiple successive projects without establishing or requesting a formal process. This repeated pattern entrenched the informal practice and increased its ethical exposure over time.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Normalizing an informal channel that bypasses procurement procedures",
    "Creating contractor expectations that as-builts are available on request",
    "Increasing likelihood that the practice would migrate to the pre-bid phase"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Ongoing support of employer\u0027s project quality goals",
    "Continued attention to public safety through better-informed contractor designs"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Consistency and reliability as a project engineer",
    "Public safety through quality design",
    "Procedural integrity in public contracting",
    "Proactive identification of ethical risks"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer D (Engineer of Record / Agency Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Practical responsiveness vs. procedural formalization",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Engineer D defaulted to continuation of a convenient informal practice rather than investing effort to formalize it, allowing ethical risk to accumulate across the project portfolio"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Consistently support awarded contractors with useful existing-condition information; maintain a helpful working relationship and improve project quality across the portfolio",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Pattern recognition for ethically problematic practices",
    "Ability to escalate process concerns to agency leadership",
    "Document control and records management"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Recurring post-award phase, across multiple projects",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Obligation to use formally authorized and documented processes for sharing public project information",
    "Obligation to proactively identify and correct practices that could compromise procurement integrity",
    "Obligation to avoid creating conditions that could lead to informational favoritism"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Continue Informal As-Built Sharing Repeatedly"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Event_Bid_Documents_Published_Without_As-Builts",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Does Engineer D have an obligation to flag the omission of as-built drawings before bids are submitted, even if the agency made that decision?",
    "How does incomplete information in bid documents affect the fairness and integrity of the competitive bidding process?",
    "What systemic practices should agencies adopt to ensure renovation projects include all relevant existing-condition documentation?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Bidders may feel uncertain about scope; Engineer D may feel uncomfortable but not yet alarmed; agency staff likely unaware of downstream consequences",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between deference to the client/agency and the engineer\u0027s independent duty to uphold fair process; raises questions about who bears responsibility when documents are structurally deficient from the start",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Incomplete bid documents are not merely administrative oversights \u2014 they create structural inequities and downstream ethical dilemmas. Engineers have a duty to ensure bid documents are sufficiently complete to allow fair, informed competition.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "bidding_contractors": "Must price renovation work without full knowledge of existing sprinkler infrastructure, increasing financial risk",
    "engineer_d": "Placed in awkward position as holder of relevant information not disclosed in bid documents",
    "public": "Taxpayer funds at risk if contractors underbid and later seek change orders or perform substandard work",
    "state_agency": "Exposes itself to bid disputes and cost overruns from contractors who underbid due to unknown existing conditions"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Bidder_Equal_Information_Access_Constraint",
    "Accurate_Bid_Document_Obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Action_Omit_As-Builts_from_Bid_Documents",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "All bidders enter the process with incomplete project information; information asymmetry potential is created from the outset",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Engineer_Must_Flag_Incomplete_Documents",
    "Agency_Must_Provide_Sufficient_Bid_Information"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "The state agency releases bid documents for building renovation projects that omit any reference to or inclusion of as-built sprinkler drawings, leaving all bidders without critical existing-condition information.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Initial phase \u2014 at project advertisement",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Bid Documents Published Without As-Builts"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Event_Contractor_Requests_As-Builts_Post-Award",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Is it ethically acceptable for Engineer D to provide as-built drawings post-award if they were not part of the bid documents? Does the timing matter?",
    "Who, if anyone, is harmed when the winning contractor receives information post-award that losing bidders did not have?",
    "At what point does a \u0027one-time accommodation\u0027 become a systemic practice requiring formal policy?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Contractor feels relief upon receiving the drawings; Engineer D likely feels helpful and accommodating; no alarm yet as the sharing seems reasonable in isolation",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Highlights the gap between individual good intentions and systemic fairness; raises the question of whether post-award information sharing retroactively undermines the integrity of the competitive bid",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Even well-intentioned responses to reasonable requests can establish problematic precedents. Engineers should recognize when informal practices may need formalization to preserve fairness.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_d": "Acts in good faith but inadvertently establishes an informal precedent for ad hoc information sharing",
    "state_agency": "Unaware that a precedent is being set outside formal channels",
    "successful_contractor": "Gains access to information that improves project execution",
    "unsuccessful_bidders": "Retrospectively disadvantaged \u2014 they priced without information the winner later received"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Engineer_Duty_To_Support_Contractor_Performance",
    "Fairness_To_Non-Awarded_Bidders_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Action_Omit_As-Builts_from_Bid_Documents",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer D is now directly confronted with a request for information that was absent from bid documents; a decision point is created regarding informal sharing",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Engineer_Must_Decide_Whether_To_Share_As-Builts",
    "Engineer_Must_Consider_Fairness_To_Other_Past_Bidders"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "After a contract is awarded, the successful contractor discovers the need for as-built sprinkler drawings and requests them from Engineer D, triggering the first informal disclosure.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "low",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Post-award phase \u2014 after first contract awarded",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "Contractor Requests As-Builts Post-Award"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Event_Informal_Sharing_Pattern_Emerges",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "At what point does a repeated informal accommodation cross the line into an ethically problematic practice?",
    "What responsibility does Engineer D have to proactively disclose this pattern to the agency?",
    "How do institutional cultures allow informal practices to persist unchallenged, and what mechanisms can prevent this?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Engineer D may feel increasingly comfortable with the practice; contractors feel entitled to access; agency remains unaware; outside observers would feel growing concern",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Illustrates how ethical drift occurs gradually through repeated small accommodations; demonstrates that intent does not insulate an engineer from the systemic consequences of their practices",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Informal practices that are repeated without scrutiny can become entrenched ethical problems. Engineers must periodically audit their own practices against fairness and transparency standards.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "contractors_who_received_drawings": "Have benefited from an informal advantage; may not recognize the ethical dimension",
    "engineer_d": "Accumulating ethical exposure without realizing it; good intentions masking systemic problem",
    "future_bidders_unaware_of_practice": "At risk of being disadvantaged if they do not know to request drawings",
    "state_agency": "Losing oversight of how project information is being managed"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Fairness_In_Competitive_Bidding_Constraint",
    "Engineer_Duty_To_Avoid_Creating_Inequity"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Action_Continue_Informal_As-Built_Sharing_Repeatedly",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "What began as isolated accommodation has become a de facto informal policy; contractors now factor in the likelihood of receiving as-builts when planning bids",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Engineer_Must_Recognize_Systemic_Impact_Of_Informal_Practice",
    "Agency_Must_Be_Informed_Of_Emerging_Pattern"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Over time, the repeated post-award sharing of as-built drawings by Engineer D solidifies into an informal but recognizable pattern, with multiple contractors having received the drawings after contract award.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Mid-narrative \u2014 after multiple project cycles",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Informal Sharing Pattern Emerges"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Event_Pre-Bid_As-Built_Requests_Begin",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Is there a morally meaningful difference between providing as-builts post-award versus pre-bid? What changes ethically when the timing shifts?",
    "What should Engineer D do when the first pre-bid request arrives \u2014 and what are the consequences of each possible response?",
    "How does the NSPE Code of Ethics apply to situations where an engineer\u0027s informal practices create structural advantages for some stakeholders over others?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Engineer D faces genuine ethical discomfort for the first time; repeat contractors feel entitled; uninformed bidders are disadvantaged without knowing it; agency is still unaware",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Marks the transition from inadvertent inequity to active corruption of competitive process; raises questions about engineer\u0027s duty to public, to fairness in procurement, and to proactive disclosure; illustrates how inaction in the face of escalating harm becomes its own ethical violation",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "When an informal practice evolves to the point of actively distorting a competitive process before it occurs, it has crossed a clear ethical threshold. Engineers must recognize escalation points and act decisively.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_d": "Now clearly complicit in a practice that advantages specific bidders; ethical exposure is acute and undeniable",
    "first-time_or_uninformed_bidders": "Systematically disadvantaged in pricing; may lose contracts they would have won with equal information",
    "public": "Public works projects may not be awarded to the most competitive bidder on equal terms",
    "repeat_contractors": "Gaining unfair competitive advantage; winning bids more accurately priced than competitors",
    "state_agency": "Procurement integrity is being compromised; taxpayer interests potentially harmed by non-competitive bidding"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Competitive_Bidding_Integrity_Constraint",
    "Equal_Information_Access_Constraint",
    "Engineer_Duty_To_Avoid_Favoritism"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Action_Continue_Informal_As-Built_Sharing_Repeatedly",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Information asymmetry is now occurring before bids are submitted, directly corrupting the competitive bidding process; the ethical problem has escalated from retrospective to prospective harm",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Engineer_Must_Cease_Selective_Pre-Bid_Sharing",
    "Engineer_Must_Escalate_To_Agency",
    "Formal_Process_Must_Be_Established_Immediately"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Contractors who previously received as-built drawings post-award begin requesting them before bids are submitted, creating an explicit and visible pre-bid information asymmetry between informed and uninformed bidders.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic_trigger",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Later phase \u2014 after pattern is established, before bid submission",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Pre-Bid As-Built Requests Begin"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Event_Information_Asymmetry_Crystallizes",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What legal and ethical obligations does Engineer D have to the state agency as client versus to the broader public interest in fair procurement?",
    "If Engineer D recognizes the asymmetry problem, does delayed disclosure itself become an additional ethical violation?",
    "How should professional engineering codes address situations where an engineer\u0027s relationship with contractors creates conflicts with their duty to the public client?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Engineer D likely experiences cognitive dissonance \u2014 wanting to be helpful while sensing something is wrong; disadvantaged bidders are unaware of their disadvantage; agency staff would feel betrayed if they knew",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals deep tension between engineer\u0027s role as servant to client, supporter of contractors, and guardian of public interest; demonstrates how structural inequities harm parties who are not even aware they are being harmed; raises questions about complicity through inaction",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Information asymmetry in competitive bidding is not merely an inconvenience \u2014 it is a structural corruption of the procurement process that harms public interests and violates core engineering ethics principles of fairness and impartiality.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "advantaged_contractors": "Have won or may win contracts on non-competitive terms; potential legal exposure if procurement rules violated",
    "disadvantaged_contractors": "Financial harm from losing contracts they may have won with equal information; systemic exclusion from fair competition",
    "engineer_d": "Professional integrity and license potentially at risk; relationship with agency compromised if practice is discovered",
    "public": "Public works projects not necessarily awarded to most competitive bidder; potential cost inefficiencies",
    "state_agency": "Procurement process integrity violated; potential legal liability; public trust at risk"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Competitive_Bidding_Integrity_Constraint",
    "Public_Interest_Protection_Constraint",
    "Engineer_Duty_Of_Impartiality"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Action_Selectively_Share_As-Builts_Pre-Bid",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "The bidding process is now structurally compromised; the state agency\u0027s procurement integrity is at risk; Engineer D\u0027s informal practice has created a legally and ethically untenable situation",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Engineer_Must_Disclose_Practice_To_Agency",
    "Agency_Must_Establish_Equal_Access_Protocol",
    "Engineer_Must_Cease_Selective_Sharing_Immediately"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "A clear and documented information asymmetry now exists in the bidding pool: some contractors have access to as-built sprinkler drawings before submitting bids while others do not, structurally distorting competitive pricing.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Concurrent with pre-bid requests \u2014 ongoing state",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Information Asymmetry Crystallizes"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Event_Ethical_Problem_Formally_Recognized",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Does it matter ethically that Engineer D acted with good intentions throughout? How should intent factor into professional ethical judgments?",
    "How should prior BER cases (82-2, 15-7, 16-3) inform Engineer D\u0027s obligations going forward?",
    "What does this case teach about the relationship between informal professional norms and formal ethical codes?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Engineer D may feel defensive or embarrassed; students analyzing the case feel the weight of how good intentions led to ethical failure; sense of accountability and need for reform",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Demonstrates that ethical violations can emerge from structural practices rather than individual bad acts; raises questions about the role of professional codes in guiding practice versus codifying existing norms; illustrates the importance of proactive ethical self-audit",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Ethical problems do not require malicious intent to be real. Good intentions do not insulate professional practice from ethical scrutiny, and engineers must evaluate their practices against formal standards, not just personal comfort.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "aftermath",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "contractors": "Future bidding process will be reformed; those who benefited from asymmetry lose informal advantage",
    "engineer_d": "Must confront that well-intentioned behavior created ethical violations; professional development opportunity but also reputational risk",
    "engineering_profession": "Case becomes precedent for how informal practices must be scrutinized against formal ethical standards",
    "state_agency": "Must now acknowledge systemic gap in procurement process and take corrective action"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Engineer_Must_Reform_Practice",
    "Agency_Must_Establish_Formal_Process"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Action_Continue_Informal_As-Built_Sharing_Repeatedly",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "The informal practice is no longer tacitly tolerated; a formal ethical judgment has been rendered requiring systemic change",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Engineer_D_Must_Initiate_Formal_Distribution_Process",
    "Agency_Must_Include_As-Builts_In_Bid_Documents_Or_Provide_Equal_Access"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "The Discussion section analysis concludes that Engineer D\u0027s informal sharing practice, though well-intentioned, creates identifiable ethical problems under NSPE Code standards and prior BER case precedents, formally naming the practice as ethically deficient.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Discussion/analysis phase \u2014 retrospective recognition",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Ethical Problem Formally Recognized"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Event_Formal_Process_Requirement_Established",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What specific steps should Engineer D take to implement a formal as-built distribution process, and who needs to be involved?",
    "How should the agency handle past bid cycles that may have been affected by the information asymmetry \u2014 is there a retroactive obligation?",
    "What does this case suggest about the engineer\u0027s role as an advocate for process integrity within client organizations?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Relief that a clear path forward exists; Engineer D may feel motivated to correct course; agency staff may feel the burden of process reform; contractors may feel the loss of informal advantage",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Illustrates that ethical resolution requires structural change, not just personal reform; demonstrates engineer\u0027s duty to advocate for fair processes within client organizations; raises questions about accountability for past harm when systemic reform is implemented prospectively",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Ethical remediation requires systemic solutions, not just individual behavior change. When informal practices have corrupted a process, the remedy must address the structure, not just the symptom.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "aftermath",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "all_future_bidders": "Will compete on equal informational footing; fair competition restored",
    "engineer_d": "Has a clear, actionable path to ethical compliance; opportunity to restore integrity to role",
    "engineering_profession": "Precedent set for how informal practices must be formalized when they affect competitive fairness",
    "public": "Taxpayer interests protected through restored competitive bidding integrity",
    "state_agency": "Must invest in process reform but gains procurement integrity and legal protection"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Formal_Equal_Access_Process_Required",
    "Agency_Procurement_Integrity_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#Action_Initiate_Formal_As-Built_Distribution_Process",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "The informal practice is formally superseded by a requirement for equal, documented, transparent access to as-built drawings for all bidders; systemic reform is now obligatory",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Engineer_D_Must_Initiate_Formal_Distribution_Process",
    "Agency_Must_Include_As-Builts_Or_Reference_In_All_Future_Bid_Documents",
    "Equal_Access_Must_Be_Documented_And_Verifiable"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "As a result of the ethical analysis, it is determined that a formal process must be established to make as-built drawings available equally to all bidders, resolving the information asymmetry through systemic reform rather than individual accommodation.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Conclusion phase \u2014 prescriptive outcome of analysis",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Formal Process Requirement Established"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#CausalChain_23acc603",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The state agency deliberately chose not to include as-built drawings in bid documents when advertising renovation projects, resulting in bid documents released without any reference to existing sprinkler system documentation",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "State agency makes deliberate decision to exclude as-built sprinkler drawings from bid documents",
      "proeth:element": "Omit As-Builts from Bid Documents (Action 1)",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Bid documents are released to all prospective contractors lacking as-built references",
      "proeth:element": "Bid Documents Published Without As-Builts (Event 1)",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Awarded contractor discovers need for as-built drawings only after contract award",
      "proeth:element": "Contractor Requests As-Builts Post-Award (Event 2)",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer D fills the information gap by informally providing drawings outside the formal bid process",
      "proeth:element": "Provide As-Builts Post-Award Informally (Action 2)",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The workaround becomes a repeated informal practice, laying groundwork for future inequity",
      "proeth:element": "Informal Sharing Pattern Emerges (Event 3)",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Omit As-Builts from Bid Documents (Action 1)",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the agency included as-built drawings in bid documents, the foundational information asymmetry would never have emerged and subsequent informal sharing practices would have been unnecessary",
  "proeth:effect": "Bid Documents Published Without As-Builts (Event 1)",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "State agency\u0027s volitional decision to exclude as-built drawings",
    "Existence of as-built drawings that could have been included",
    "Publication of bid documents without remediation of the omission"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "State Agency (institutional actor)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Agency authority over bid document content combined with deliberate exclusion decision"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#CausalChain_9a17eb64",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer D voluntarily decided to provide as-built sprinkler drawings to the successful contractor under the belief it was helpful; repeated over time, this solidified into an informal but consistent practice",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Information gap created by agency omission sets the stage for informal workaround",
      "proeth:element": "Bid Documents Published Without As-Builts (Event 1)",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer D provides drawings to first awarded contractor outside formal channels",
      "proeth:element": "Provide As-Builts Post-Award Informally (Action 2)",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer D repeats the informal sharing across subsequent contract awards",
      "proeth:element": "Continue Informal As-Built Sharing Repeatedly (Action 3)",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Repeated behavior crystallizes into an unwritten but consistent informal practice",
      "proeth:element": "Informal Sharing Pattern Emerges (Event 3)",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Contractors who received drawings post-award begin requesting them pre-bid, signaling awareness of the informal channel",
      "proeth:element": "Pre-Bid As-Built Requests Begin (Event 4)",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Provide As-Builts Post-Award Informally (Action 2)",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer D declined to share informally and instead escalated the omission formally after the first instance, no informal pattern would have emerged",
  "proeth:effect": "Informal Sharing Pattern Emerges (Event 3)",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer D\u0027s volitional decision to share drawings outside formal channels",
    "Absence of a formal process governing as-built distribution",
    "Repetition of the sharing behavior across multiple contract cycles"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer D",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Repeated informal sharing without institutional correction or formalization was sufficient to establish a de facto practice pattern"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#CausalChain_426d1873",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "When contractors who had previously received as-built drawings post-award began requesting them before bids, selective pre-bid sharing created a clear and documented information asymmetry in the bidding pool where some contractors have access and others do not",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Established informal practice signals to experienced contractors that as-builts are obtainable outside formal channels",
      "proeth:element": "Informal Sharing Pattern Emerges (Event 3)",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Contractors with prior experience request drawings before submitting bids",
      "proeth:element": "Pre-Bid As-Built Requests Begin (Event 4)",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer D provides drawings to requesting contractors without ensuring all bidders receive the same information",
      "proeth:element": "Selectively Share As-Builts Pre-Bid (Action 4)",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "A documented divide emerges between informed and uninformed bidders, materially affecting bid preparation quality and pricing",
      "proeth:element": "Information Asymmetry Crystallizes (Event 5)",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Analysis concludes the practice, though well-intentioned, violates competitive bidding fairness principles",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Problem Formally Recognized (Event 6)",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Selectively Share As-Builts Pre-Bid (Action 4)",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer D either declined all pre-bid requests and referred contractors to formal channels, or ensured all bidders received identical information simultaneously, no asymmetry would have crystallized",
  "proeth:effect": "Information Asymmetry Crystallizes (Event 5)",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Existence of as-built drawings not included in official bid documents",
    "Prior informal sharing creating contractor awareness of drawings\u0027 existence",
    "Engineer D\u0027s decision to honor pre-bid requests selectively rather than universally or not at all",
    "Active bidding competition among contractors with differential information access"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer D (primary); State Agency (contributory)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Selective pre-bid disclosure to a subset of bidders while others remained uninformed was sufficient to produce a material competitive imbalance"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#CausalChain_d49ab0c5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The clear and documented information asymmetry in the bidding pool \u2014 where some contractors have access to as-built drawings and others do not \u2014 directly precipitates the formal ethical analysis concluding that Engineer D\u0027s informal sharing practice, though well-intentioned, undermines the integrity of the competitive bidding process",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Root structural cause: agency creates information gap in official bid process",
      "proeth:element": "Omit As-Builts from Bid Documents (Action 1)",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer D\u0027s repeated informal sharing builds a two-tier information environment",
      "proeth:element": "Continue Informal As-Built Sharing Repeatedly (Action 3)",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Selective pre-bid disclosure converts a post-award convenience into a pre-bid competitive advantage",
      "proeth:element": "Selectively Share As-Builts Pre-Bid (Action 4)",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Asymmetry becomes documented and material, affecting competitive bid integrity",
      "proeth:element": "Information Asymmetry Crystallizes (Event 5)",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Ethical analysis identifies violation of fairness and public welfare obligations under professional engineering ethics codes",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Problem Formally Recognized (Event 6)",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Information Asymmetry Crystallizes (Event 5)",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without a crystallized, documented asymmetry \u2014 i.e., if all bidders had equal access \u2014 no ethical violation would have been identifiable and no formal problem recognition would have occurred",
  "proeth:effect": "Ethical Problem Formally Recognized (Event 6)",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Demonstrable differential access to material project information among competing bidders",
    "Engineer D\u0027s role as the agent controlling information distribution",
    "Recognition that competitive bidding integrity requires equal information access",
    "Ethical framework analysis applied to the documented facts"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer D (primary ethical actor); State Agency (structural contributor)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Documented asymmetry combined with Engineer D\u0027s professional obligation to fairness was sufficient to trigger formal ethical problem recognition"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/22#CausalChain_c3c47c98",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "As a result of the ethical analysis concluding that informal sharing undermines competitive bidding integrity, it is determined that a formal process must be established; Engineer D should decide to proactively recommend and implement a formal process by which as-built drawings are made available to all prospective bidders simultaneously and through official channels",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Analysis establishes that informal sharing practice violates competitive fairness and professional ethics obligations",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Problem Formally Recognized (Event 6)",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer D proactively recommends a formal protocol for uniform, simultaneous as-built disclosure to all bidders",
      "proeth:element": "Initiate Formal As-Built Distribution Process (Action 5)",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Agency adopts formal procedure ensuring all prospective bidders receive identical as-built information through official channels",
      "proeth:element": "Formal Process Requirement Established (Event 7)",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Equal access to as-built drawings restores competitive bidding integrity across future project cycles",
      "proeth:element": "Information Asymmetry Eliminated (Projected Outcome)",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Proactive remediation satisfies NSPE Code obligations to protect public welfare and uphold fair engineering practice",
      "proeth:element": "Engineer D\u0027s Professional Obligations Fulfilled (Projected Outcome)",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Ethical Problem Formally Recognized (Event 6)",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without formal ethical recognition, the informal practice would likely have continued indefinitely, perpetuating competitive inequity across future bid cycles",
  "proeth:effect": "Formal Process Requirement Established (Event 7) via Initiate Formal As-Built Distribution Process (Action 5)",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Formal recognition that the existing informal practice is ethically deficient",
    "Engineer D\u0027s professional authority and obligation to recommend corrective process changes",
    "Institutional receptivity of the state agency to adopt a formal distribution protocol",
    "Availability of a feasible formal mechanism (e.g., bid addenda, pre-bid document packages)"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer D (remedial action); State Agency (institutional implementation)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Ethical problem recognition combined with Engineer D\u0027s proactive recommendation and agency adoption of formal protocol constitutes a sufficient remedial set"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}