The Whistleblower, the Gift Register, and the Tender
An infrastructure contractor is bidding for a $60 million public tender. Two weeks before submission, an anonymous whistleblower alleges that a regional sales director paid $25,000 to a "consultant" who is a relative of a tender evaluation official. The gift register shows the director accepted hospitality worth $1,800 from a subcontractor and did not record the consultant payment. The company has a code of conduct, a gifts policy with a $200 threshold, and a whistleblowing hotline run by an external provider. The director denies wrongdoing and says the payment was a legitimate marketing retainer. The tender submission is due in 14 days.
1. What immediate steps should management and the board take, and who should lead the investigation?
Read the worked answer
The company should treat the allegation as credible enough to investigate immediately. It should preserve documents, suspend the consultant payment and any further payments, and separate the director from the tender process pending investigation. The investigation should be led by someone independent of the regional sales function, reporting to the audit committee or a special committee of independent directors, with external forensic support if needed. The whistleblower's identity should be protected and the hotline provider should confirm receipt.
The gift register gap is a separate breach of policy: the $1,800 hospitality exceeded the $200 threshold and should have been recorded and approved. The board should ask whether this is isolated or systemic. The director's denial does not resolve the conflict; the key question is whether the payment was intended to influence the tender. Management should not interview the director without a documented plan and should consider legal advice on employment and privilege issues.
2. What should the company do about the tender submission while the investigation is open?
Read the worked answer
The company should not submit the bid as if nothing had happened. It should assess, with legal advice, whether the alleged payment triggers mandatory disclosure or debarment rules in the procurement regime, and whether continuing to bid creates a risk of misrepresentation. If the allegation is substantiated even partially, withdrawal or a disclosure to the procuring authority may be required. If it is not yet substantiated, the board should still ensure the bid team is independent of the director and that no improper advantage is claimed.
The board should document its decision and reasoning. A common failure is to let commercial pressure override integrity controls; a $60 million bid is exactly when pressure is highest. The board should also review the consultant engagement, the gifts policy, and third-party due diligence, and report outcomes to the audit committee. If the allegation proves false, the company should still correct the gift register and consider reputational communication.