Calder Instruments: Year-End Pressure, a Lapsed Certificate and a Dubai Invitation
Calder Instruments is a publicly funded research institute. Dana, head of procurement, is running the renewal of a $1.2m facilities-management contract held by Vantage Services for six years. Vantage's account director has offered to sponsor Calder's annual staff away-day ($18,000) and to host Dana and two colleagues at a two-day industry conference in Dubai, covering flights, hotel, hospitality and the $1,400 delegate fee. Separately, Dana's divisional director emails: 'We need this signed before 31 March so we don't carry the accrual. Skip the tender, use the single-source exemption - I'll sign it off.' Dana's reading of the exemption is that it covers sole-source supply or genuine urgency only. A contract analyst has also found that Vantage's asbestos-handling certification lapsed 11 weeks ago, and site staff have continued working without it. Vantage is one of three qualified local suppliers; a director of one of the others sits on Calder's audit committee. Dana's line manager is the divisional director.
1. Identify and classify each issue in the scenario, and state which are reportable and to whom.
Read the worked answer
1. Offers of hospitality and sponsorship - conflict of interest, potentially bribery. Timing is the aggravating factor: an $18,000 sponsorship and a fully funded overseas trip offered during a live $1.2m renewal create an obvious inducement. Most public bodies have a low gift threshold; an all-expenses trip would almost certainly breach policy and may meet the legal definition of a financial or other advantage offered to secure an improper performance of a function. Reportable: declare on the gifts and hospitality register, decline in writing, inform the line manager in writing (creating the record even though he is implicated), and notify the audit committee chair.
2. Directed single-source award - procurement irregularity and possible fraud indicator. 'Avoid the year-end accrual' is not genuine urgency; accrual treatment is an accounting consequence, not an operational emergency. Misapplying an exemption is a policy breach and may be a regulatory breach if the institute is subject to public procurement rules. Reportable: to the CFO and head of internal audit.
3. Lapsed asbestos certification - compliance and safety, highest urgency. This is a live health-and-safety exposure with potential criminal liability and a duty to report internally immediately. Stop the affected work before anything else in this case is resolved.
4. Audit committee director bidding - governance and independence. Needs declaration and recusal from any discussion of the tender; reportable to the committee secretary.
5. Dana's position - structural conflict. Her line manager is the person giving the instruction, so normal escalation is compromised; the whistleblowing or speak-up route is the appropriate channel.
2. Set out what Dana should do and in what order, including how she should respond to the divisional director's instruction.
Read the worked answer
Order matters - safety first, then evidence, then escalation.
- Today: instruct Vantage in writing to suspend all asbestos-related work until a valid certificate is produced; confirm receipt; notify the health and safety lead and the facilities director. No renewal decision should be taken while an unlicensed contractor is on site.
- Today/tomorrow: decline the sponsorship and the trip in writing, and complete the gifts and hospitality declaration. Do not accept 'it's just marketing'.
- Reply to the divisional director in writing, not verbally, requesting the specific exemption clause and legal or finance advice supporting it, and confirming that she will not sign without it. Suggested wording: 'I can't sign on the basis described. Avoiding an accrual isn't a valid ground under the exemption, which I read as limited to sole-source supply or genuine urgency. Please send me the clause and legal's view, or confirm we run a competitive process. I'll turn a compliant three-quote process around inside three weeks.' This is firm, non-accusatory and creates a contemporaneous record.
- Escalate if the instruction is repeated: CFO first, then head of internal audit and the audit committee chair, with the email trail. The instruction plus the vendor's offers, taken together, is exactly the pattern the speak-up channel exists for.
- Flag the audit committee independence issue to the committee secretary and ask for the director's recusal.
- Document everything contemporaneously, including dates, the certificate lapse and the actions taken.
What she should not do: raise it verbally only, sit on the certificate issue while resolving the politics, or sign 'under protest' - signing transfers the accountability to her.
3. Recommend the systemic controls Calder should adopt, and describe how you would test that each one actually works rather than merely exists.
Read the worked answer
Controls and tests, paired.
| Risk | Control | Test |
|---|---|---|
| Single-source abuse | Exemption register requiring legal sign-off, a stated ground, a value ceiling and a time limit; approvals above a threshold require a second, independent approver | Sample 25 exemptions per quarter; count how many were approved by the same director and how many had legal sign-off before signature |
| Hospitality as inducement | Gifts register with a low monetary threshold, mandatory pre-clearance during any live procurement, and an annual declaration of interests | Reconcile the register against accounts-payable for vendor-funded expenses; test whether live-tender conflicts were pre-cleared |
| Contractor competence | Certificate expiry tracking with automated alerts at 60 and 30 days, and a hard block in the work-order system when a certificate is invalid | Attempt to raise a work order for a vendor with an expired certificate; check whether the block fires. Cross-check site attendance records against certificate dates |
| Independence | Audit committee members' interests published, with recusal minuted | Inspect minutes for declarations and recusals over the last four meetings |
| Year-end pressure | Contract renewal pipeline with lead times of at least 90 days, reviewed quarterly by the executive | Test whether renewals due in the next two quarters are already on the pipeline; look for renewals clustered in the final month of the financial year |
| Speak-up | Confidential channel with a defined triage time and an annual trend report to the audit committee | Test the channel with a control enquiry and confirm it responds within the stated time; review whether cases reach the committee |
The final and hardest test is cultural: compare the exemption rate and the median approval time for the divisional director's area against peers. If his exemptions are materially more frequent, the control works on paper only.