Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 22-3 (2022) · Review of Other Engineer’s Work
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
Featured
City Administrator Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Instance
prevails over
Fairness in Professional Competition Engineer C City Administrator Procurement
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
No State context committed for this edge.
Engineer C Incomplete Knowledge Restraint Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Evaluation Context
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Solicitation Response
Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Evaluation Context
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Solicitation Response
Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge of Engineer B's Work
Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Evaluation Context
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Solicitation Response
Engineer C General-Only Response Limitation Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Evaluation Context
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Competitive Solicitation Response
Engineer C Honorable Procurement Conduct Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Procurement Competition
Engineer C Prohibition on Reputation Injury Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Procurement Competition
Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation
- Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Procurement Competition
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Engineer C Review of Engineer B vs Engineer B Faithful Performance Under Contested Contract Obligation Instance
Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Engineer C City Administrator vs Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance
What the board concluded
- In answering the City Administrator’s specific questions and by criticizing the work of Engineer B, Engineer C’s action were unethical.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
Fairness in Professional Competition Engineer C City Administrator Procurement yields to City Administrator Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation Instance. The yielding obligation ("Fairness in Professional Competition Engineer C City Administrator Procurement") recurs across cases; the obligation that overrides it and the context under which it yields differ case by case. This is the case-law move: not a single rule, but a family of context-indexed resolutions.
| Case | Obligation that prevailed | Yielding obligation | Context (defeasibleUnder) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
94-5
Conflict Of Interest Providing Both City...
|
Firm A Public Role Marketing Exploitation Prohibition | Firm A Competitive Fairness Non-Exploitation of City Contract | Firm A Public Role Marketing Tool Exploitation |
|
24-03
Public Contracting Practices
|
Procurement Violation Corrective Action City D Engineer Post-Investigation | Ethical Conduct Obligation City D Engineer Procurement Rationalization | City D Firm Z Recent Contracts Non-Compliance State |
|
08-8
Selection of Firm—Promise of Future...
|
Engineer C Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Issuance City X Future Project | Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X | Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment — City X; Engineer C Conflict of Interest from Promise; Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract; Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm; Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context; Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A |
|
23-1
Competence in Design Services
|
Engineer B Domain-Specific Competence Verification Rural Roadway Contract | County A Competitive Procurement Fairness Local Advertisement Policy | Public Safety at Risk - Deficient Roadway Design |
|
71-2
Brokerage of Engineering Services
|
Firms A and B Honest Competence Representation Violation in Specialized Procurement | Firms A and B Honorable Professional Conduct in Specialized Procurement | -- |