Introduction
The ethical dilemma discussed in this paper pertains to a friend whom I interviewed to discuss their ethical dilemma at work. In this case, my friend was working for a government agency and had done a procurement for IT services. When the results were revealed, my friend was asked to disqualify the winning bid, which had already been verified to meet the minimum requirements outlined in the Invitation for Bids (IFB).
The winning bid was disqualified simply because the head of the IT department wanted the other company to win. This intention was connected with a friendship between him and the company’s owner; those companies were also partnering under the contract at the time. This unethical request violated the oath to ensure fair competition for contractual services.
Case Analysis
Participants
Several parties were involved in this ethical dilemma, including my friend, the employee responsible for the procurement of IT services. There were also the head of the IT department, the winning bid company, the company that the IT department head wanted, and the agency. My friend had done a thorough procurement process for IT services and verified that the bids submitted met the minimum requirements in the IFB.
The lowest bid had been accepted, and there was no legitimate reason for it to be disqualified. However, the head of the IT department asked my friend to reject/disqualify the winning bid because he wanted the other company to win. The head of the IT department had a personal relationship with the company’s owner, and the company currently had the contract. Therefore, the employee was in a difficult position because he did not want to cause problems for others but had a duty to report the unethical request.
Ethical Codes
At the time of the issue, several ethical codes were in place. This includes the Code of Ethics for US Government Service, which states that “public office is a public trust” and that “employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment” to any private party (Longley, 2020, par. 9). Additionally, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sets forth the guidelines for the procurement process and requires fair and open competition. These ethical codes were implemented to ensure that government employees act in the best interest of the public and maintain high ethical standards. They are intended to prevent corruption, favoritism, and other unethical behavior in government contracting and procurement.
Actual Course of Action
As a result of the issue, the agency conducted an investigation and review of the qualification process. The agency then rejected all the bids and revised the specifications of the IFB so that they could be reissued for another solicitation to procure the services. This was done to ensure fair competition and prevent any future unethical behavior.
Recommended Course of Action
The acceptable course of action in this situation would have been for my friend to reject the unethical request to disqualify the winning bid and to report the request to the supervisor. Although my friend did not openly reject the request, they did report the issue as per their duty. This employee was eventually removed from the process due to their stance.
In my opinion, the most suitable course of action for the agency would be to investigate to ensure fair competition and prevent any future instances of unethical behavior. If confronted with a comparable ethical dilemma, I would respond similarly to the employee—refusing the unethical request and informing my supervisor. I believe in the importance of fair competition and the necessity of upholding ethical standards in all business practices. That is why I would not want to compromise my integrity by engaging in unethical behavior.
Theoretical Support for Solution
My decision to reject and report the unethical request to my supervisor is consistent with the deontological ethical theory. This theory emphasizes the importance of moral rules and principles, as well as the duty to act ethically. By rejecting and reporting the unethical request, I would be fulfilling my duty to act ethically and uphold moral principles, even if it means going against a friend’s or superior’s wishes.
Deontological ethics emphasizes that people should act in accordance with what is right, regardless of the consequences, which aligns with my personal beliefs. This theory is also known as non-consequentialist ethics, meaning that the morality of an action is not determined by its outcome but rather by the nature of the act itself. I believe that this fact is highly relevant to the case discussed above, as the employee acted in accordance with moral principles, even though it was clear that the outcome would not be favorable for them.
Conclusion
The ethical dilemma discussed in this paper highlights the importance of ethical behavior in government contracting and procurement. The case study serves as a reminder that ethical dilemmas can arise at any time, and it is essential to be prepared to make the right decision in challenging situations. In this situation, the employee fulfilled their ethical responsibilities by refusing the improper request and notifying their supervisor. Ultimately, ethical standards and integrity should always be the top priority in any business practice.
Reference
Longley, R. (2020). Code of Ethics for United States Government Service. ThoughtCo. Web.