This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-25 16:04; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Provenance Draft

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 99: Professional Selection—Receipt of Submission Beyond the Published Deadline

26 entities 6 actions 4 events 7 causal chains 8 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 10 sequenced markers
Submittal Time Stamping 2:05 pm, January 30
Submittal Deadline Passage 10:00 am, January 30
Procurement Method Selection Before January 30, at initiation of the procurement
Pre-Submittal Meeting Conduct Before the January 30 submittal deadline
Deadline Publication After the pre-submittal meeting, before January 30
Late Submittal Delivery January 30, 2:05 pm
Late Submittal Discovery Afternoon of January 30
Late Submittal Rejection Afternoon of January 30, upon receiving the envelope; evaluated retrospectively by the Board
Initial Interest Expression After the mandatory pre-submittal meeting, before January 30
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 8 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
mandatory pre-submittal meeting time:intervalBefore publication of SOQ submittal date, time, and location
distribution of hard copy agenda time:intervalDuring pre-submittal meeting
SOQ submittal deadline (10:00 am, January 30) time:intervalBefore receipt of Firm B's submittal (2:05 pm, January 30)
receipt and time-stamping of Firm B's envelope time:intervalBefore Engineer A intercepted by administrative assistant
Firm B's participation in pre-submittal meeting time:intervalBefore Firm B's submittal delivery
Firm B's performance on other engineering design projects for the city time:intervalBefore current QBS procurement
Engineer A intercepted with envelope time:intervalDuring afternoon of January 30
Board's retrospective evaluation (Discussion) time:intervalAfter Engineer A's decision moment on January 30
Extracted Actions (6)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: City X decided to use Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) to procure engineering services for the design of the new public building, with Engineer A designated as point of contact on the review team.

Temporal Marker: Before January 30, at initiation of the procurement interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • QBS Procurement Process Active

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Select a qualified engineering firm for the design of the new public building through a rule-based process

Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies
Guided By Principles:
  • Procurement Process Integrity
Required Capabilities:
Public procurement administration
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Procurement Process Integrity
  • requiresCapability: Public procurement administration
  • initiates: QBS Procurement Process Active
  • raisesObligation: Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: City X decided to use Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) to procure engineering services for the design of the new public building, with Engineer A designated as point of contact on the review team.
  • hasAgent content: City X
  • temporalMarker content: Before January 30, at initiation of the procurement
  • eventRoleContext content: public agency, procurement owner
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Select a qualified engineering firm for the design of the new public building through a rule-based process
  • textReferences content: The city is seeking the services of a qualified engineering firm and is using QBS for the design of the new public building.; Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "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/ontology/case/99#Action_Procurement_Method_Selection",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.390285+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "City X decided to use Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) to procure engineering services for the design of the new public building, with Engineer A designated as point of contact on the review team.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "public agency, procurement owner",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Procurement Process Integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "City X",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "QBS Procurement Process Active"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Select a qualified engineering firm for the design of the new public building through a rule-based process",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Public procurement administration"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before January 30, at initiation of the procurement",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The city is seeking the services of a qualified engineering firm and is using QBS for the design of the new public building.",
    "Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Procurement Method Selection"
}

Description: City X conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting for the QBS procurement, which drew initial interest from 14 firms including Firm B.

Temporal Marker: Before the January 30 submittal deadline instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Firms Informed of Procurement Requirements

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Inform interested firms of the procurement requirements and gauge interest

Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies
Guided By Principles:
  • Procurement Process Integrity
Required Capabilities:
Public procurement administration
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Procurement Process Integrity
  • requiresCapability: Public procurement administration
  • initiates: Firms Informed of Procurement Requirements
  • raisesObligation: Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: City X conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting for the QBS procurement, which drew initial interest from 14 firms including Firm B.
  • hasAgent content: City X
  • temporalMarker content: Before the January 30 submittal deadline
  • eventRoleContext content: public agency, procurement owner
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Inform interested firms of the procurement requirements and gauge interest
  • textReferences content: The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "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/ontology/case/99#Action_Pre-Submittal_Meeting_Conduct",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.390445+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "City X conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting for the QBS procurement, which drew initial interest from 14 firms including Firm B.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "public agency, procurement owner",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Procurement Process Integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "City X",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Firms Informed of Procurement Requirements"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Inform interested firms of the procurement requirements and gauge interest",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Public procurement administration"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before the January 30 submittal deadline",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Pre-Submittal Meeting Conduct"
}

Description: City X published the SOQ submittal deadline of 10:00 am on January 30 at the city clerk's office, communicating it through the RFQ webpage and the hard copy agenda distributed at the pre-submittal meeting.

Temporal Marker: After the pre-submittal meeting, before January 30 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Submittal Deadline in Effect

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Provide clear, uniform notice to all firms of the exact submittal deadline, time, and location

Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies
Guided By Principles:
  • Procurement Process Integrity
Required Capabilities:
Public procurement administration
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies
  • guidedByPrinciple: Procurement Process Integrity
  • requiresCapability: Public procurement administration
  • initiates: Submittal Deadline in Effect
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: City X published the SOQ submittal deadline of 10:00 am on January 30 at the city clerk's office, communicating it through the RFQ webpage and the hard copy agenda distributed at the pre-submittal meeting.
  • hasAgent content: City X
  • temporalMarker content: After the pre-submittal meeting, before January 30
  • eventRoleContext content: public agency, procurement owner
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Provide clear, uniform notice to all firms of the exact submittal deadline, time, and location
  • textReferences content: City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk’s office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.; The date, time, and location were also listed in the city’s RFQ webpage and appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "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/ontology/case/99#Action_Deadline_Publication",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.390490+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "City X published the SOQ submittal deadline of 10:00 am on January 30 at the city clerk\u0027s office, communicating it through the RFQ webpage and the hard copy agenda distributed at the pre-submittal meeting.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "public agency, procurement owner",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Procurement Process Integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "City X",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Submittal Deadline in Effect"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide clear, uniform notice to all firms of the exact submittal deadline, time, and location",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Public procurement administration"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After the pre-submittal meeting, before January 30",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk\u2019s office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.",
    "The date, time, and location were also listed in the city\u2019s RFQ webpage and appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Deadline Publication"
}

Description: Firm B delivered its SOQ to the city manager's office rather than the city clerk's office, where it was stamped received at 2:05 pm on January 30, over four hours after the deadline. The delivery was deliberate although the misdirection and lateness appear non-nefarious.

Temporal Marker: January 30, 2:05 pm instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Late Misdirected Submittal Received

Mental State: deliberate delivery with inadvertent error as to time and location

Intended Outcome: Submit Firm B's Statement of Qualifications for consideration in the QBS selection

Obligation Engagement:
Violates (1)
  • Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies
Required Capabilities:
Preparation and submittal of Statements of Qualifications
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies
  • requiresCapability: Preparation and submittal of Statements of Qualifications
  • initiates: Late Misdirected Submittal Received
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Firm B delivered its SOQ to the city manager's office rather than the city clerk's office, where it was stamped received at 2:05 pm on January 30, over four hours after the deadline. The delivery was deliberate although the misdirection and lateness appear non-nefarious.
  • hasAgent content: Firm B
  • temporalMarker content: January 30, 2:05 pm
  • eventRoleContext content: engineering firm competing in the QBS procurement
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate delivery with inadvertent error as to time and location
  • intendedOutcome content: Submit Firm B's Statement of Qualifications for consideration in the QBS selection
  • textReferences content: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager’s office.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "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/ontology/case/99#Action_Late_Submittal_Delivery",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.390521+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Firm B delivered its SOQ to the city manager\u0027s office rather than the city clerk\u0027s office, where it was stamped received at 2:05 pm on January 30, over four hours after the deadline. The delivery was deliberate although the misdirection and lateness appear non-nefarious.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "engineering firm competing in the QBS procurement",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Firm B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate delivery with inadvertent error as to time and location",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Late Misdirected Submittal Received"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Submit Firm B\u0027s Statement of Qualifications for consideration in the QBS selection",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Preparation and submittal of Statements of Qualifications"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "January 30, 2:05 pm",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager\u2019s office."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Late Submittal Delivery"
}

Description: The city manager's administrative assistant intercepted Engineer A on the afternoon of January 30 and handed over the envelope bearing Engineer A's name and Firm B's letterhead, placing the late submittal directly before the review team's point of contact.

Temporal Marker: Afternoon of January 30 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Engineer A Faces Acceptance Decision

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Route the received Firm B envelope to Engineer A, the named recipient and QBS point of contact

Required Capabilities:
Administrative document handling
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Administrative document handling
  • initiates: Engineer A Faces Acceptance Decision
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The city manager's administrative assistant intercepted Engineer A on the afternoon of January 30 and handed over the envelope bearing Engineer A's name and Firm B's letterhead, placing the late submittal directly before the review team's point of contact.
  • hasAgent content: City manager's administrative assistant
  • temporalMarker content: Afternoon of January 30
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Route the received Firm B envelope to Engineer A, the named recipient and QBS point of contact
  • textReferences content: was intercepted by the city manager’s administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A’s name and the letterhead of Firm B
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "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/ontology/case/99#Action_Submittal_Handoff",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.390602+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The city manager\u0027s administrative assistant intercepted Engineer A on the afternoon of January 30 and handed over the envelope bearing Engineer A\u0027s name and Firm B\u0027s letterhead, placing the late submittal directly before the review team\u0027s point of contact.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "City manager\u0027s administrative assistant",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engineer A Faces Acceptance Decision"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Route the received Firm B envelope to Engineer A, the named recipient and QBS point of contact",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Administrative document handling"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Afternoon of January 30",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "was intercepted by the city manager\u2019s administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A\u2019s name and the letterhead of Firm B"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Submittal Handoff"
}

Description: The Board's resolution of Engineer A's decision point: Engineer A should decline to accept and consider Firm B's late, misdirected submittal, rather than treating the failure as a harmless error, so as not to compromise the integrity of the procurement process.

Temporal Marker: Afternoon of January 30, upon receiving the envelope; evaluated retrospectively by the Board instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Procurement Process Integrity Preserved
Terminates (1)
  • Engineer A Faces Acceptance Decision

Mental State: deliberate, mindful of Firm B's past performance yet weighing strict rule adherence

Intended Outcome: Preserve the integrity and defensibility of the public procurement process

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Exclusion of a qualified firm with strong past performance from consideration
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies
Guided By Principles:
  • Procurement Process Integrity
  • Public Receipt of Quality Services at Fair Cost
Required Capabilities:
Professional judgment in procurement administration
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies
  • guidedByPrinciple: Procurement Process Integrity; Public Receipt of Quality Services at Fair Cost
  • requiresCapability: Professional judgment in procurement administration
  • initiates: Procurement Process Integrity Preserved
  • terminates: Engineer A Faces Acceptance Decision
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The Board's resolution of Engineer A's decision point: Engineer A should decline to accept and consider Firm B's late, misdirected submittal, rather than treating the failure as a harmless error, so as not to compromise the integrity of the procurement process.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Afternoon of January 30, upon receiving the envelope; evaluated retrospectively by the Board
  • eventRoleContext content: point of contact on the City X QBS review team
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate, mindful of Firm B's past performance yet weighing strict rule adherence
  • intendedOutcome content: Preserve the integrity and defensibility of the public procurement process
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Exclusion of a qualified firm with strong past performance from consideration
  • textReferences content: any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question; allowing Firm B’s submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 10
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "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/ontology/case/99#Action_Late_Submittal_Rejection",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.390642+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The Board\u0027s resolution of Engineer A\u0027s decision point: Engineer A should decline to accept and consider Firm B\u0027s late, misdirected submittal, rather than treating the failure as a harmless error, so as not to compromise the integrity of the procurement process.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "point of contact on the City X QBS review team",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Exclusion of a qualified firm with strong past performance from consideration"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Adherence to Public Procurement Rules and Policies"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Procurement Process Integrity",
    "Public Receipt of Quality Services at Fair Cost"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate, mindful of Firm B\u0027s past performance yet weighing strict rule adherence",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Procurement Process Integrity Preserved"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Preserve the integrity and defensibility of the public procurement process",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment in procurement administration"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Afternoon of January 30, upon receiving the envelope; evaluated retrospectively by the Board",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 10,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Engineer A Faces Acceptance Decision"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question",
    "allowing Firm B\u2019s submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Late Submittal Rejection"
}
Extracted Events (4)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Fourteen different firms expressed initial interest in the QBS procurement following the mandatory pre-submittal meeting held by City X.

Temporal Marker: After the mandatory pre-submittal meeting, before January 30 interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Competitive Procurement State

Caused By Action: Action_Pre-Submittal_Meeting_Conduct

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#Action_Pre-Submittal_Meeting_Conduct
  • initiates: Competitive Procurement State
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Fourteen different firms expressed initial interest in the QBS procurement following the mandatory pre-submittal meeting held by City X.
  • temporalMarker content: After the mandatory pre-submittal meeting, before January 30
  • textReferences content: The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "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/ontology/case/99#Event_Initial_Interest_Expression",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.391373+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#Action_Pre-Submittal_Meeting_Conduct",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "Fourteen different firms expressed initial interest in the QBS procurement following the mandatory pre-submittal meeting held by City X.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Competitive Procurement State"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After the mandatory pre-submittal meeting, before January 30",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Initial Interest Expression"
}

Description: The published deadline of 10:00 am on January 30 for receipt of Statements of Qualifications in the city clerk's office passed, closing the submission window under the procurement rules.

Temporal Marker: 10:00 am, January 30 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Submission Window Closed
Terminates (1)
  • Submission Window Open

Caused By Action: Action_Deadline_Publication

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#Action_Deadline_Publication
  • initiates: Submission Window Closed
  • terminates: Submission Window Open
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The published deadline of 10:00 am on January 30 for receipt of Statements of Qualifications in the city clerk's office passed, closing the submission window under the procurement rules.
  • temporalMarker content: 10:00 am, January 30
  • textReferences content: all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk’s office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
  • eventType content: automatic
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "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/ontology/case/99#Event_Submittal_Deadline_Passage",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.391435+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#Action_Deadline_Publication",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.93",
  "proeth:description": "The published deadline of 10:00 am on January 30 for receipt of Statements of Qualifications in the city clerk\u0027s office passed, closing the submission window under the procurement rules.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Submission Window Closed"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "10:00 am, January 30",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Submission Window Open"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk\u2019s office no later than 10:00 am on January 30"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Submittal Deadline Passage"
}

Description: Firm B's envelope was date- and time-stamped by the city manager's office at 2:05 pm on January 30, formally documenting that the submittal was received over four hours late and at the wrong office.

Temporal Marker: 2:05 pm, January 30 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Late Submittal Documented

Caused By Action: Action_Late_Submittal_Delivery

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#Action_Late_Submittal_Delivery
  • initiates: Late Submittal Documented
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Firm B's envelope was date- and time-stamped by the city manager's office at 2:05 pm on January 30, formally documenting that the submittal was received over four hours late and at the wrong office.
  • temporalMarker content: 2:05 pm, January 30
  • textReferences content: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager’s office.
  • eventType content: automatic
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "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/ontology/case/99#Event_Submittal_Time_Stamping",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.391462+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#Action_Late_Submittal_Delivery",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.92",
  "proeth:description": "Firm B\u0027s envelope was date- and time-stamped by the city manager\u0027s office at 2:05 pm on January 30, formally documenting that the submittal was received over four hours late and at the wrong office.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Late Submittal Documented"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "2:05 pm, January 30",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager\u2019s office."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Submittal Time Stamping"
}

Description: Engineer A was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant holding Firm B's envelope, bringing the late and misdirected submittal into Engineer A's awareness and creating the dilemma of whether it could be considered.

Temporal Marker: Afternoon of January 30 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Ethical Dilemma State
  • Procurement Integrity At Risk

Caused By Action: Action_Submittal_Handoff

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#Action_Submittal_Handoff
  • initiates: Ethical Dilemma State; Procurement Integrity At Risk
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant holding Firm B's envelope, bringing the late and misdirected submittal into Engineer A's awareness and creating the dilemma of whether it could be considered.
  • temporalMarker content: Afternoon of January 30
  • textReferences content: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager’s administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A’s name and the letterhead of Firm B; any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 9
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "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/ontology/case/99#Event_Late_Submittal_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.391485+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#Action_Submittal_Handoff",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A was intercepted by the city manager\u0027s administrative assistant holding Firm B\u0027s envelope, bringing the late and misdirected submittal into Engineer A\u0027s awareness and creating the dilemma of whether it could be considered.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Ethical Dilemma State",
    "Procurement Integrity At Risk"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Afternoon of January 30",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 9,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager\u2019s administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A\u2019s name and the letterhead of Firm B",
    "any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Late Submittal Discovery"
}
Causal Chains (7)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: The city is seeking the services of a qualified engineering firm and is using QBS for the design of the new public building.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • City X's decision to procure engineering services via QBS
  • Existence of a project (new public building) requiring engineering design services
Sufficient Factors:
  • QBS procurement decision combined with the project need was enough to trigger the structured pre-submittal process
Counterfactual Test: Without the QBS procurement decision, no mandatory pre-submittal meeting for SOQs would have been conducted
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: City X
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Procurement Method Selection
    City X decides to use QBS for the design of the new public building
  2. Pre-Submittal Meeting Conduct
    City X conducts a mandatory pre-submittal meeting as part of the QBS process
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Procurement Method Selection
  • effect: Pre-Submittal Meeting Conduct
  • responsibleAgent: City X
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The city is seeking the services of a qualified engineering firm and is using QBS for the design of the new public building.
  • necessaryFactors content: City X's decision to procure engineering services via QBS; Existence of a project (new public building) requiring engineering design services
  • sufficientFactors content: QBS procurement decision combined with the project need was enough to trigger the structured pre-submittal process
  • counterfactual content: Without the QBS procurement decision, no mandatory pre-submittal meeting for SOQs would have been conducted
  • agentKnowledge content: City X knew it required qualified engineering services and chose a qualifications-based process to obtain them
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Procurement Method Selection', 'proeth:description': 'City X decides to use QBS for the design of the new public building'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Pre-Submittal Meeting Conduct', 'proeth:description': 'City X conducts a mandatory pre-submittal meeting as part of the QBS process'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.391550+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "City X knew it required qualified engineering services and chose a qualifications-based process to obtain them",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The city is seeking the services of a qualified engineering firm and is using QBS for the design of the new public building.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "City X decides to use QBS for the design of the new public building",
      "proeth:element": "Procurement Method Selection",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "City X conducts a mandatory pre-submittal meeting as part of the QBS process",
      "proeth:element": "Pre-Submittal Meeting Conduct",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Procurement Method Selection",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the QBS procurement decision, no mandatory pre-submittal meeting for SOQs would have been conducted",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Pre-Submittal Meeting Conduct",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "City X\u0027s decision to procure engineering services via QBS",
    "Existence of a project (new public building) requiring engineering design services"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "City X",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "QBS procurement decision combined with the project need was enough to trigger the structured pre-submittal process"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Mandatory pre-submittal meeting held by City X
  • Firms' awareness of and attendance at the meeting
Sufficient Factors:
  • The mandatory meeting plus market interest in the public building project was sufficient to generate expressions of interest from 14 firms
Counterfactual Test: Without the mandatory pre-submittal meeting, firms (including Firm B) would not have formally registered initial interest through this channel
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: City X
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Pre-Submittal Meeting Conduct
    City X holds the mandatory pre-submittal meeting
  2. Initial Interest Expression
    Fourteen firms, including Firm B, express initial interest in the QBS procurement
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Pre-Submittal Meeting Conduct
  • effect: Initial Interest Expression
  • responsibleAgent: City X
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms.
  • necessaryFactors content: Mandatory pre-submittal meeting held by City X; Firms' awareness of and attendance at the meeting
  • sufficientFactors content: The mandatory meeting plus market interest in the public building project was sufficient to generate expressions of interest from 14 firms
  • counterfactual content: Without the mandatory pre-submittal meeting, firms (including Firm B) would not have formally registered initial interest through this channel
  • agentKnowledge content: City X knew the meeting was a mandatory gateway for firms wishing to compete
  • interveningFactors content: Independent decisions of the 14 firms to participate
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Pre-Submittal Meeting Conduct', 'proeth:description': 'City X holds the mandatory pre-submittal meeting'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Initial Interest Expression', 'proeth:description': 'Fourteen firms, including Firm B, express initial interest in the QBS procurement'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.391580+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "City X knew the meeting was a mandatory gateway for firms wishing to compete",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting and received initial interest from 14 different firms.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "City X holds the mandatory pre-submittal meeting",
      "proeth:element": "Pre-Submittal Meeting Conduct",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Fourteen firms, including Firm B, express initial interest in the QBS procurement",
      "proeth:element": "Initial Interest Expression",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Pre-Submittal Meeting Conduct",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the mandatory pre-submittal meeting, firms (including Firm B) would not have formally registered initial interest through this channel",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Initial Interest Expression",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Independent decisions of the 14 firms to participate"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Mandatory pre-submittal meeting held by City X",
    "Firms\u0027 awareness of and attendance at the meeting"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "City X",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The mandatory meeting plus market interest in the public building project was sufficient to generate expressions of interest from 14 firms"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Thereafter, City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk’s office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Publication of a specific deadline (10:00 am, January 30) and location (city clerk's office)
  • Passage of time to the published deadline
Sufficient Factors:
  • The formal publication of the deadline across multiple channels (webpage, hard copy agenda) was sufficient to make 10:00 am January 30 the binding cutoff whose passage had legal and procedural effect
Counterfactual Test: Without a published deadline, there would be no fixed cutoff whose passage could render Firm B's submittal late
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: City X (QBS review team)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Deadline Publication
    City X publishes the 10:00 am January 30 deadline and city clerk's office location in multiple formats
  2. Submittal Deadline Passage
    The published deadline passes at 10:00 am on January 30, fixing the cutoff for timely submittals
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Deadline Publication
  • effect: Submittal Deadline Passage
  • responsibleAgent: City X (QBS review team)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Thereafter, City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk’s office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.
  • necessaryFactors content: Publication of a specific deadline (10:00 am, January 30) and location (city clerk's office); Passage of time to the published deadline
  • sufficientFactors content: The formal publication of the deadline across multiple channels (webpage, hard copy agenda) was sufficient to make 10:00 am January 30 the binding cutoff whose passage had legal and procedural effect
  • counterfactual content: Without a published deadline, there would be no fixed cutoff whose passage could render Firm B's submittal late
  • agentKnowledge content: City X knew the deadline was communicated through the RFQ webpage and the pre-submittal meeting agenda
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Deadline Publication', 'proeth:description': "City X publishes the 10:00 am January 30 deadline and city clerk's office location in multiple formats"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Submittal Deadline Passage', 'proeth:description': 'The published deadline passes at 10:00 am on January 30, fixing the cutoff for timely submittals'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.391605+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "City X knew the deadline was communicated through the RFQ webpage and the pre-submittal meeting agenda",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Thereafter, City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk\u2019s office no later than 10:00 am on January 30.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "City X publishes the 10:00 am January 30 deadline and city clerk\u0027s office location in multiple formats",
      "proeth:element": "Deadline Publication",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The published deadline passes at 10:00 am on January 30, fixing the cutoff for timely submittals",
      "proeth:element": "Submittal Deadline Passage",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Deadline Publication",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without a published deadline, there would be no fixed cutoff whose passage could render Firm B\u0027s submittal late",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Submittal Deadline Passage",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Publication of a specific deadline (10:00 am, January 30) and location (city clerk\u0027s office)",
    "Passage of time to the published deadline"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "City X (QBS review team)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The formal publication of the deadline across multiple channels (webpage, hard copy agenda) was sufficient to make 10:00 am January 30 the binding cutoff whose passage had legal and procedural effect"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager’s office.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Firm B's delivery of the SOQ to the city manager's office rather than the city clerk's office
  • Delivery occurring after the 10:00 am deadline
  • The city manager's office practice of date- and time-stamping received documents
Sufficient Factors:
  • Firm B's misdirected, late delivery combined with the receiving office's stamping practice was sufficient to produce documented evidence of a 2:05 pm receipt
Counterfactual Test: Had Firm B delivered to the city clerk's office by 10:00 am, no late time stamp at the wrong office would exist
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Firm B
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Deadline Publication
    City X publishes the deadline and correct submittal location
  2. Submittal Deadline Passage
    The 10:00 am January 30 deadline passes without Firm B's submittal at the city clerk's office
  3. Late Submittal Delivery
    Firm B delivers its SOQ to the city manager's office after the deadline
  4. Submittal Time Stamping
    The city manager's office stamps the envelope as received at 2:05 pm on January 30
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Late Submittal Delivery
  • effect: Submittal Time Stamping
  • responsibleAgent: Firm B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager’s office.
  • necessaryFactors content: Firm B's delivery of the SOQ to the city manager's office rather than the city clerk's office; Delivery occurring after the 10:00 am deadline; The city manager's office practice of date- and time-stamping received documents
  • sufficientFactors content: Firm B's misdirected, late delivery combined with the receiving office's stamping practice was sufficient to produce documented evidence of a 2:05 pm receipt
  • counterfactual content: Had Firm B delivered to the city clerk's office by 10:00 am, no late time stamp at the wrong office would exist
  • agentKnowledge content: Firm B attended the pre-submittal meeting where the deadline, time, and location were distributed on the hard copy agenda
  • interveningFactors content: City manager's office administrative stamping procedure
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Deadline Publication', 'proeth:description': 'City X publishes the deadline and correct submittal location'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Submittal Deadline Passage', 'proeth:description': "The 10:00 am January 30 deadline passes without Firm B's submittal at the city clerk's office"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Late Submittal Delivery', 'proeth:description': "Firm B delivers its SOQ to the city manager's office after the deadline"}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Submittal Time Stamping', 'proeth:description': "The city manager's office stamps the envelope as received at 2:05 pm on January 30"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.391626+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Firm B attended the pre-submittal meeting where the deadline, time, and location were distributed on the hard copy agenda",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager\u2019s office.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "City X publishes the deadline and correct submittal location",
      "proeth:element": "Deadline Publication",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The 10:00 am January 30 deadline passes without Firm B\u0027s submittal at the city clerk\u0027s office",
      "proeth:element": "Submittal Deadline Passage",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm B delivers its SOQ to the city manager\u0027s office after the deadline",
      "proeth:element": "Late Submittal Delivery",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The city manager\u0027s office stamps the envelope as received at 2:05 pm on January 30",
      "proeth:element": "Submittal Time Stamping",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Late Submittal Delivery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Firm B delivered to the city clerk\u0027s office by 10:00 am, no late time stamp at the wrong office would exist",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Submittal Time Stamping",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "City manager\u0027s office administrative stamping procedure"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Firm B\u0027s delivery of the SOQ to the city manager\u0027s office rather than the city clerk\u0027s office",
    "Delivery occurring after the 10:00 am deadline",
    "The city manager\u0027s office practice of date- and time-stamping received documents"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Firm B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Firm B\u0027s misdirected, late delivery combined with the receiving office\u0027s stamping practice was sufficient to produce documented evidence of a 2:05 pm receipt"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager’s administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A’s name and the letterhead of Firm B, one of the firms that had participated in the pre-submittal meeting.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • The administrative assistant's decision to intercept Engineer A with the envelope
  • The envelope bearing Engineer A's name and Firm B's letterhead
  • Engineer A's presence in the office on the afternoon of January 30
Sufficient Factors:
  • The assistant's handoff of the identifiably late, misdirected envelope to the named QBS point of contact was sufficient for Engineer A to discover the late submittal
Counterfactual Test: Without the handoff, Engineer A would not have confronted the late submittal at that moment, though the time-stamped envelope would still exist
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: City manager's administrative assistant
Type: indirect
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Late Submittal Delivery
    Firm B delivers the SOQ to the city manager's office after the deadline
  2. Submittal Time Stamping
    The envelope is stamped 2:05 pm, January 30, in the city manager's office
  3. Submittal Handoff
    The administrative assistant intercepts Engineer A with the envelope
  4. Late Submittal Discovery
    Engineer A learns of Firm B's late, misdirected submittal and faces a decision
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Submittal Handoff
  • effect: Late Submittal Discovery
  • responsibleAgent: City manager's administrative assistant
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager’s administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A’s name and the letterhead of Firm B, one of the firms that had participated in the pre-submittal meeting.
  • necessaryFactors content: The administrative assistant's decision to intercept Engineer A with the envelope; The envelope bearing Engineer A's name and Firm B's letterhead; Engineer A's presence in the office on the afternoon of January 30
  • sufficientFactors content: The assistant's handoff of the identifiably late, misdirected envelope to the named QBS point of contact was sufficient for Engineer A to discover the late submittal
  • counterfactual content: Without the handoff, Engineer A would not have confronted the late submittal at that moment, though the time-stamped envelope would still exist
  • agentKnowledge content: The assistant knew the envelope was addressed to Engineer A and had been received in the city manager's office
  • interveningFactors content: Firm B's prior misdirected delivery; Firm B's addressing of the envelope directly to Engineer A
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Late Submittal Delivery', 'proeth:description': "Firm B delivers the SOQ to the city manager's office after the deadline"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Submittal Time Stamping', 'proeth:description': "The envelope is stamped 2:05 pm, January 30, in the city manager's office"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Submittal Handoff', 'proeth:description': 'The administrative assistant intercepts Engineer A with the envelope'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Late Submittal Discovery', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A learns of Firm B's late, misdirected submittal and faces a decision"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: indirect
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.391645+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "The assistant knew the envelope was addressed to Engineer A and had been received in the city manager\u0027s office",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager\u2019s administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A\u2019s name and the letterhead of Firm B, one of the firms that had participated in the pre-submittal meeting.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm B delivers the SOQ to the city manager\u0027s office after the deadline",
      "proeth:element": "Late Submittal Delivery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The envelope is stamped 2:05 pm, January 30, in the city manager\u0027s office",
      "proeth:element": "Submittal Time Stamping",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The administrative assistant intercepts Engineer A with the envelope",
      "proeth:element": "Submittal Handoff",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A learns of Firm B\u0027s late, misdirected submittal and faces a decision",
      "proeth:element": "Late Submittal Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Submittal Handoff",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the handoff, Engineer A would not have confronted the late submittal at that moment, though the time-stamped envelope would still exist",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Late Submittal Discovery",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Firm B\u0027s prior misdirected delivery",
    "Firm B\u0027s addressing of the envelope directly to Engineer A"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "The administrative assistant\u0027s decision to intercept Engineer A with the envelope",
    "The envelope bearing Engineer A\u0027s name and Firm B\u0027s letterhead",
    "Engineer A\u0027s presence in the office on the afternoon of January 30"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "City manager\u0027s administrative assistant",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The assistant\u0027s handoff of the identifiably late, misdirected envelope to the named QBS point of contact was sufficient for Engineer A to discover the late submittal"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B’s failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error, any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's discovery of the late, misdirected submittal
  • The documented time stamp establishing receipt after the 10:00 am deadline
  • Public procurement rules requiring strict adherence to submittal deadlines and locations
Sufficient Factors:
  • The discovery of a demonstrably late submittal combined with the ethical imperative to preserve process integrity was sufficient to require rejection
Counterfactual Test: Without discovery of the late submittal (or if the submittal had been timely), there would be no rejection decision to make; had Engineer A accepted it, the procurement would be open to challenge
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Late Submittal Discovery
    Engineer A is confronted with Firm B's time-stamped late submittal
  2. Ethical Evaluation
    Engineer A must weigh Firm B's qualifications and 'harmless error' framing against strict procurement rules
  3. Late Submittal Rejection
    Per the Board's resolution, Engineer A should decline to accept and consider the late submittal to protect process integrity
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Late Submittal Discovery
  • effect: Late Submittal Rejection
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B’s failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error, any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's discovery of the late, misdirected submittal; The documented time stamp establishing receipt after the 10:00 am deadline; Public procurement rules requiring strict adherence to submittal deadlines and locations
  • sufficientFactors content: The discovery of a demonstrably late submittal combined with the ethical imperative to preserve process integrity was sufficient to require rejection
  • counterfactual content: Without discovery of the late submittal (or if the submittal had been timely), there would be no rejection decision to make; had Engineer A accepted it, the procurement would be open to challenge
  • agentKnowledge content: Engineer A knew the published deadline, the correct office, Firm B's past performance, and the 2:05 pm time stamp
  • interveningFactors content: Firm B's favorable past performance creating pressure toward leniency; Absence of any nefarious cause for the lateness
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Late Submittal Discovery', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A is confronted with Firm B's time-stamped late submittal"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Ethical Evaluation', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A must weigh Firm B's qualifications and 'harmless error' framing against strict procurement rules"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Late Submittal Rejection', 'proeth:description': "Per the Board's resolution, Engineer A should decline to accept and consider the late submittal to protect process integrity"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.391664+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Engineer A knew the published deadline, the correct office, Firm B\u0027s past performance, and the 2:05 pm time stamp",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "While Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B\u2019s failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error, any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A is confronted with Firm B\u0027s time-stamped late submittal",
      "proeth:element": "Late Submittal Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A must weigh Firm B\u0027s qualifications and \u0027harmless error\u0027 framing against strict procurement rules",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Evaluation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Per the Board\u0027s resolution, Engineer A should decline to accept and consider the late submittal to protect process integrity",
      "proeth:element": "Late Submittal Rejection",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Late Submittal Discovery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without discovery of the late submittal (or if the submittal had been timely), there would be no rejection decision to make; had Engineer A accepted it, the procurement would be open to challenge",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Late Submittal Rejection",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Firm B\u0027s favorable past performance creating pressure toward leniency",
    "Absence of any nefarious cause for the lateness"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s discovery of the late, misdirected submittal",
    "The documented time stamp establishing receipt after the 10:00 am deadline",
    "Public procurement rules requiring strict adherence to submittal deadlines and locations"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The discovery of a demonstrably late submittal combined with the ethical imperative to preserve process integrity was sufficient to require rejection"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: In addition, while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B’s failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B’s submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Firm B's failure to deliver to the correct city office by the required hour
  • Published rules fixing the deadline and location
  • The Board's principle that non-adherence must not be tolerated
Sufficient Factors:
  • The late, misdirected delivery under a strict published deadline regime was sufficient to make rejection the ethically required outcome
Counterfactual Test: Had Firm B delivered its SOQ to the city clerk's office by 10:00 am on January 30, no rejection would occur and the submittal would be considered on its merits
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Firm B
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Deadline Publication
    City X publishes the binding deadline and correct submittal office
  2. Late Submittal Delivery
    Firm B delivers its SOQ to the wrong office after the deadline
  3. Submittal Time Stamping
    The 2:05 pm stamp documents the untimely receipt
  4. Late Submittal Discovery
    Engineer A learns of the late submittal via the handoff
  5. Late Submittal Rejection
    Engineer A should decline to accept and consider the late submittal, preserving procurement integrity
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Late Submittal Delivery
  • effect: Late Submittal Rejection
  • responsibleAgent: Firm B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: In addition, while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B’s failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B’s submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated.
  • necessaryFactors content: Firm B's failure to deliver to the correct city office by the required hour; Published rules fixing the deadline and location; The Board's principle that non-adherence must not be tolerated
  • sufficientFactors content: The late, misdirected delivery under a strict published deadline regime was sufficient to make rejection the ethically required outcome
  • counterfactual content: Had Firm B delivered its SOQ to the city clerk's office by 10:00 am on January 30, no rejection would occur and the submittal would be considered on its merits
  • agentKnowledge content: Firm B participated in the pre-submittal meeting where the deadline, time, and location were distributed on the hard copy agenda
  • interveningFactors content: No nefarious cause apparent for the delivery error; Handling by the city manager's office rather than immediate return
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Deadline Publication', 'proeth:description': 'City X publishes the binding deadline and correct submittal office'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Late Submittal Delivery', 'proeth:description': 'Firm B delivers its SOQ to the wrong office after the deadline'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Submittal Time Stamping', 'proeth:description': 'The 2:05 pm stamp documents the untimely receipt'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Late Submittal Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A learns of the late submittal via the handoff'}; {'proeth:step': 5, 'proeth:element': 'Late Submittal Rejection', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A should decline to accept and consider the late submittal, preserving procurement integrity'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/99#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T05:15:50.391681+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Firm B participated in the pre-submittal meeting where the deadline, time, and location were distributed on the hard copy agenda",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "In addition, while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B\u2019s failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B\u2019s submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "City X publishes the binding deadline and correct submittal office",
      "proeth:element": "Deadline Publication",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Firm B delivers its SOQ to the wrong office after the deadline",
      "proeth:element": "Late Submittal Delivery",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The 2:05 pm stamp documents the untimely receipt",
      "proeth:element": "Submittal Time Stamping",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A learns of the late submittal via the handoff",
      "proeth:element": "Late Submittal Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A should decline to accept and consider the late submittal, preserving procurement integrity",
      "proeth:element": "Late Submittal Rejection",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Late Submittal Delivery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Firm B delivered its SOQ to the city clerk\u0027s office by 10:00 am on January 30, no rejection would occur and the submittal would be considered on its merits",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Late Submittal Rejection",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "No nefarious cause apparent for the delivery error",
    "Handling by the city manager\u0027s office rather than immediate return"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Firm B\u0027s failure to deliver to the correct city office by the required hour",
    "Published rules fixing the deadline and location",
    "The Board\u0027s principle that non-adherence must not be tolerated"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Firm B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The late, misdirected delivery under a strict published deadline regime was sufficient to make rejection the ethically required outcome"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (8)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
mandatory pre-submittal meeting before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		publication of SOQ submittal date, time, and location time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		The city conducted a mandatory pre-submittal meeting... Thereafter, City X published the date, time,... [more]
distribution of hard copy agenda during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		pre-submittal meeting time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		appeared on the hard copy agenda that was distributed at the pre-submittal meeting
SOQ submittal deadline (10:00 am, January 30) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		receipt of Firm B's submittal (2:05 pm, January 30) time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		submittals must be received... no later than 10:00 am on January 30... the submittal was received on... [more]
receipt and time-stamping of Firm B's envelope before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A intercepted by administrative assistant time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city man... [more]
Firm B's participation in pre-submittal meeting before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Firm B's submittal delivery time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		the letterhead of Firm B, one of the firms that had participated in the pre-submittal meeting
Firm B's performance on other engineering design projects for the city before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		current QBS procurement time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
Engineer A intercepted with envelope during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		afternoon of January 30 time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city man... [more]
Board's retrospective evaluation (Discussion) after
Entity1 is after Entity2 		Engineer A's decision moment on January 30 time:intervalAfter
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalAfter 		Turning to the facts of the present case, it is the Board's view... that a balance needs to be struc... [more]
About Allen Relations & OWL-Time

Allen's Interval Algebra provides 13 basic temporal relations between intervals. These relations are mapped to OWL-Time standard properties for interoperability with Semantic Web temporal reasoning systems and SPARQL queries.

Each relation includes both a ProEthica custom property and a time:* OWL-Time property for maximum compatibility.

Back to Extraction Continue to Step 4

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3