Prior to February 1990, there lacked a single governing body in which Department of Defense (DOD) would issue contracts. (1st ethical issue, page 14) At that time, each individual agency would oversee its own contract issuance. In the 1960’s, the Contract Administration Services, a department within the DOD, was examined for the possibility of consolidating the contract administrating processes. Project 60 as it was called, showed many benefits to consolidation but several agencies retained oversight of contract assignments. This kind of systemic issue would have lead to questions of the morality and legality of issued contracts.
This case is a prime example. B.F. Goodrich (BFG) didn’t care about this contract, only that they received the contract at any cost to further their contract acquisition rates in the future. For BFG, this poses the second ethical dilemma. (2nd ethical issue page 14) Delivering an expected result to bolster future monetary gains can cause unknown harms to others. Several key members of BFG’s team were aware of the issue and did nothing to expose it. Furthermore, they did everything they could to cover it up.
The cover up didn’t just stop with BFG, it was compartmentalized with the team and individuals on the team. The individual aspect of the case study is a large part of the moral issues at hand. The fact that Richard Gloor, Mr. Vandivier’s supervisor, allowed the cover up, placed Mr. Vandivier in a moral dilemma. (3rd issue page 14) The decisions and directives that were handed down to the employees were contradictory to any moral standards we use today. The individuals involved had to remorse for those who would be hurt in the future because of their oversights and misjudgments.
Question 2 – In your judgment, is it morally right or morally wrong for a person in Mr. Vandivier’s situation to...