Changes in Statement of Qualifications for a Public Project
A public utility authority invited qualification statements
from engineering firms bidding on an addition to its power
facilities. State law requires that all firms must be
considered and that at least three of the most highly qualified
firms should be interviewed in detail. The authority is
required to select the best qualified firm for negotiation of a
contract. If the parties cannot reach an agreement on a
contract, the agency can undertake negotiations with the
second-ranked firm.
The utility authority narrowed its choices to seven firms,
one of which proposed a joint venture because of the size and
complexity of the job. After an initial interview, the
screening committee of the authority had advised Thompson Inc.,
one of the seven firms, that it was deficient in certain
technical aspects of its proposal. Thompson Inc. then arranged
to remedy the deficiency by forming a joint venture with
another firm. It also requested the opportunity to revise its
qualification statement in light of the change it had made in
the team, with the understanding that all other firms would be
able to revise their statements if desired.
If you were a member of the public utility authority, how
would you respond to this request? What other information might
change your assessment of the situation? What role, if any,
does the intent of the state procurement law play in
formulating your response?
--adapted from NSPE Case No. 78-5
Current NSPE Code of Ethics
An earlier version may have been used in this case.
Original Case and BER Judgement
Cite this page:
"Changes in Statement of Qualifications for a Public Project"
Online Ethics Center for Engineering
6/10/2006 9:22:22 PM
National Academy of Engineering
Accessed: Tuesday, January 06, 2009
<www.onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/ppcases/NSPEcases/Qualifications.aspx>