An Ethical Argument Based On A Case Study Essay Example

The relationship in this case includes contractor to subcontractor as well as contractor to other contractors. The contractor was not ethically correct to take the bid from Rossard Paving and issue it to Standard Paving. According to Kantian ethics, also referred to as deontological ethics, an individual’s actions are judged as per the adherence to a set of rules and regulations. In some situations, it may be viewed as a duty or obligation towards the individual. As such, the contractors in South Dakota had a set of rules, which were informal but governed the practice. Every individual has a duty to perform and one must act towards the execution of his or her duties in the right manner. In this case study, a contractor works with informal laws, whichare followed by a majority of bidders but turns to accept the bid from one sub-contractor due to the costs of operation.
The duties in this case were to the two parties. The subcontractors had a duty to submit their quotations prior to midnight on the specified date. This duty entails a responsibility to watch time and ensure that the application is sent on time so that the contractor may evaluate and award the tender. On the other hand, the contractor had a responsibility to ensure that all bids sent on time were evaluated and the best bid was awarded the tender. Each party in this case had the obligation to ensure that they were keen on the time aspect as it was the major specification of the informal policy. Furthermore, the contractor had a responsibility to ensure that they issued feedback on the sub-contractor who received the tender in order for the operations to proceed.
The situation of Rossard Paving sub-bid being used in the bid then giving the job to Standard Paving would not be ethically correct. Kant provided a categorical imperative, which guides individuals to act only as per the maxims by which they believe,could become universal laws. In this case, ethics and morality do not depend on specific written laws. As such, it would not be right ethically to use one sub-contractor in the bid and give the job to another. First, it would be unfair for Rossard Paving having spent the time in the biding process and followed the expected rules only to find out that the contract could not be awarded. Kant maintains that individuals should treat others equally and with consistency. In this perspective, every person should who applied for the tender at the required time should be evaluated using the set criteria thus arriving at the most suitable candidate. On the other hand, the only consistent way of handling the tendering process would be to follow the informal rules, which guide the contractors and subcontractors. The laws should not be divisible and should apply consistently through to all individuals. If Rossard Paving sub-bid were the contractor used in the bid, then it would only be fair to ensure that they received the tender and performed the job in order to enhance a system, which operates under well-defined rules.
The sealed bid process is not undermined by the informal agreements and deadlines for the materials and subcontract quotation. Following Kant`s ethics theory, it is clear that a society has to continue surviving under a set of laws. In this perspective, each law provides the duty and responsibility for individuals to perform and it governs their performance over time. The sealed bid process is one of the laws. However, not all the participants of the tendering process may have understood the informal agreements. The aspect of universality in Kant`s ethics in this case was not followed because all individuals should understand the law from all different aspects of their operations. The lack of clarity on the laws on the other hand may have led some of the interested parties not to present their bids at the appropriate time. Furthermore, individuals should operate on a level of moral absolutism, which indicates that they should perform actions with the purpose of doing well to the other parties. From this perspective, the morally right thing should guide every action that an individual intends to conduct. Although the sealed bid process did not undermine the process, the informal agreements were not the best way of communication on the deadlines as individuals were not aware of their requirements prior to the deadline. Working with deadlines provided the most suitable manner in achieving the set objectives and tasks.
The contractor was wrong in accepting the Standard`s bid after the informal deadline. In terms of consequences, every action has an effect and result, which is the outcome of the same action. In this case, the action taken to accept the late bids had a consequence or effect on the contestants who had also bided. Additionally, the contractor did this in violation of the informal agreement that had existed earlier on thus the consequence in this case is that other sub-contractors would have felt left out and it would have caused more individuals to send their bids. On the other hand, disregarding the deadline would mean that the work would never start because more and more bids would be coming in and this would delay the process. The consequence is a result and the contractor used this to consider the factor that would be in his best advantage. As such, the consequence on his part is that the project would proceed with lower costs as the Standard Paving on the other hand would provide the best way to proceed with the contract.
According to deontology, every individual who is a rational being should act as if he were legislating member within a universal kingdom of ends. In this perspective, the contractor may have felt that he did the right thing in taking the bid much later because he too would like to have his bid taken in a similar situation. In this perspective, the rational being in the contractor led him to considering that the situation would be different in his case. As such, the contractor perceived that the tendering process had not passed for a long period so it was okay to accept the bid. On the other perspective, the decision to accept the bid appeared as a contradiction to the common practice. The consequence is that individuals in the industry would not respect such informal agreements in the future. Violating the agreement set a precedence, which would allow other individuals within the same situation to violate the agreements thus the industry would not have order.

Conclusion

Ethics play a significant role in any business as they guide the operations the organization conducts. In this case, the contractor violated the informal agreements and worked differently from the means of operation that had been agreed upon. Although the contractor had the authority to either accept or reject the bid, he accepted a late bid, which indicates that the rules may have been bent in order to benefit the contract process. According to the ethics theory presented by Kant, indicate that individuals should act at the best interest of those that are around them. In this perspective, in the case study, the contractor had to ensure that all the viable participants were given a fair chance for competition for the tender. On the other hand, he had a responsibility to ensure that rules whether formal or informal were followed. As such, only the contractor could decide whether the bid would be accepted or not. However, the consequences of failing to accept the bid are that the contractor would have to spend an additional 2000 dollars on the supplies. Although the action of accepting the bid was unethical, the contractor evaluated the costs prior to making his decision on the bid. In this case, the contractor viewed personal interests over the general interests held by the other contractors.