Undisclosed Interest, Hospitality and Labour Risk in a Facilities Tender
Meridian Construction Group is tendering a £60m five-year facilities-management contract. During clarifications, the procurement manager, Dev, learns that one bidder, Arden FM, is 40% owned by the brother of Meridian's operations director. Arden has not declared the link. A second bidder invites Dev to a golf day and mentions consultancy work for Dev's team after retirement. A third, low-cost bidder relies on subcontractors in Qatar; the pre-qualification questionnaire shows no modern slavery statement, no site audit in three years and two unexplained payroll gaps. The tender evaluation panel is due to meet in 48 hours. Dev's manager says the operations director has recused himself informally, and the CFO wants to keep all three bidders to maintain competition. Dev also finds that a site manager has already shared the evaluation weighting with Arden.
1. Identify the ethical and governance issues and set out the immediate actions Dev should take before the panel meets.
Read the worked answer
The red flags are: (1) Arden's undisclosed ownership link to the operations director, an apparent conflict of interest; informal recusal is not enough because the director may still influence specifications or evaluation. Record it and consider excluding Arden or requiring an independent probity review. (2) The golf and consultancy approach is a bribe or post-employment inducement. Decline, record it and consider excluding the bidder. (3) The site manager's disclosure of evaluation weightings is a confidentiality breach that could invalidate the process. Preserve evidence, restrict access and investigate. (4) The Qatar subcontractor raises modern slavery and labour-exploitation risk; missing statements, no audit and payroll gaps require clarification or exclusion.
Immediate actions: stop the panel, document everything contemporaneously, and escalate to the CPO, company secretary or audit committee. Take legal advice. Ensure the operations director and site manager do not influence evaluation. Inform bidders only as legally advised. The CFO's desire for competition cannot override integrity. Recommend suspending Arden pending investigation, excluding or re-evaluating the hospitality bidder, and requiring the low-cost bidder to provide audit evidence before evaluation.
2. Recommend how Meridian should strengthen governance for this and future tenders, including supplier due diligence and conflicts of interest.
Read the worked answer
Introduce annual and per-tender conflict declarations for all evaluators and directors, covering family, financial and other interests. Keep a central conflict register and require managed recusal with a written record. Use an independent chair or probity adviser for high-value tenders. Separate specification, evaluation and award duties.
Use a secure data room with audit logs, a gift and hospitality register with thresholds, and post-employment cooling-off rules. For due diligence, require a supplier code, modern slavery statement, subcontractor mapping, site audits and payroll verification, with escalation triggers. Evaluate total cost and compliance, not lowest price.
For this tender, re-run the evaluation with a clean panel if the leak affected weightings, and give unsuccessful bidders defensible reasons. Add a whistleblowing channel and protection. Report lessons learned to the board. The principle is that transparency, objectivity and conflict avoidance protect competition and trust, not just procedural comfort.