Summary of the case:

The case is presented in a form of a letter, where Alexander Gavin writes to a Professor called
Hennessey about an ethical dilemma he faces in his work. Alexander Gavin is a Senior Project
Manager for El Sahd Construction Company in Kuwait. The company is wealthy, efficient and
cost effective. Two months back the company bid a $30 million on a project in Iran to be the
principal subcontractor. There was huge profit in it for them and they also expected to put up a
bargain with Ajax Ltd., the company asking for the bid. However when Alexander Gavin met up
with the manager of Ajax, the manager told him to make the bid $33 million; giving the reason
that $ 1 million would go straight to the pocket of Ajax Ltd’s Managing Director in London and
another $ 1 million into his and the remaining $ 1 million to Alexander Gavin’s account. The
reason for Alexander Gavin receiving a share was that so that he doesn’t talk about this
transaction to any one. Although Alexander Gavin’s company can always raise the bid however
this share of money did not make him comfortable, as a matter of fact this went against his
ethics. So he writes to the professor for giving it a thought putting himself in his shoes.

Identification of the problem:

Alexander Gavin faces an ethical problem. He is put in to a situation where his ethics is in the
line. The daunting prospect of usurping a $ 1 million doesn’t seem right to him in the first place;
more over he has heard of cases like this in which if a bidder fails to cooperate then he might
face some threats of physical harm. Although Alexander Gavin is very well aware of this type
pay offs existing in the Middle East but still this is the first time he is being bullied to take a part
in it himself. This situation has left him in a state that he doesn’t know what to do.
Alternative courses of action:

1. He can stick firm in his ethics and turn down the proposal and wait for its consequences.

2. He can present his case to his superiors to make the necessary decisions.

3. He can try to contact some other manager or executives from the Ajax Ltd to make them
aware of the corruption existing in their company and take legal action against the
manager.

4. He can make an exception and sacrifice his ethics and comply with the offer given by the
manager of Ajax Ltd.

Evaluation of alternatives:
Chosen course of action and justification:

I think the best solution for Alexander Gavin would be number four. I recommend this option
because, although it might look unethical, nevertheless it creates an “I win, you win” situation
for both Alexander and the manager. This is because by giving away three million dollars more
in the bid he is not putting his company at a loss; as he had mentioned in the letter that “we can
always raise our price” (line 34 of the letter) which means that his company is willing or it has
the potential to invest more.

I think by sacrificing a little bit of his ethics Alexander can create an opportunity for his
company to make a huge profit; as he says “we had built a heavy profit into the $ 30
million”(line 26) this line gives me the impression that an extra three million of investment can
not hamper this ‘heavy profit’ that his company predicts can be made out of the whole business.

Moreover this particular deal means a lot to Alexander’s company. This is proven when he says
in the line 30 “This job meant a lot to us. We had put a great deal of planning into it, and it was
exactly the kind of work that we do best”. His constant use of the word ‘we’ indicates that a lot
of people’s interests are forfeited to this deal. This deal can be a great source of income for the
ordinary employees and workers of the company.

If Alexander refuses this offer then he might keep his ethical beliefs and values intact and gain
some mental satisfaction however the stakes for this will be very high. He would have to deprive
his company from a deal worth millions of dollar. Incidentally here he might face other ethical
dilemmas, if he cancels the deal; what right does he have to draw back from a deal which could
have been a source of income for the employees of Sahd Construction Company? Only for his
selfish ethical reasons do he has a right to forfeit the interests of all the people who works in the
company? Here he has to decide weather to take a decision which will favor the majority of the
people.

More over if he cancels the deal some other construction company might make the deal and do
the task and Sahd Construction Company would be unnecessarily left out of it.
Since literally no harm will be done if the deal is made and since it concerns the source of
income for a lot of people and finally keeping the fact of utilitarianism in mind I come to the
conclusion that accepting the offer and going ahead with the deal will be the perfect solution to
this problem.