Sevenson Environmental Services was hired to clean up a Superfund site in Manville, New Jersey, where the soil was contaminated with creosote. (Creosote is a flammable, oily mixture of chemical compounds often used for preserving wood or as a pesticide.) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded the effort. Sevenson’s project manager was Gordon McDonald, whose responsibilities included hiring subcontractors through a bidding process. McDonald made the contamination look as severe as possible to pressure rival bidders to bid higher. He showed the bids to one of the competitors, John Bennett, and permitted him to submit a new “lowest” bid in exchange for a kickback of $13.50 per ton of cleaned soil. Bennett won the contract, which (because of McDonald’s manipulation of the bidding process) covered the amount of the kickback. The scheme was eventually discovered, and Bennett was charged with criminal fraud. [ United States v. Bennett, 688 Fed.Appx. 169 (3d Cir. 2017)] (See Toxic Chemicals and Hazardous Waste.) 

(a) What was Bennett’s ethical dilemma in this case? Using the IDDR approach, discuss and evaluate the actions he chose to resolve it. 

(b) Suppose that Bennett had refused the kickback scheme, had won the contract with an honest low bid, and had been paid for the work, but had not actually performed his part of the deal. Would this situation have been ethically distinct from the true facts? Explain.