Probity in a waste tender
A local authority is evaluating four bids for a seven-year waste collection contract worth £22m. The panel includes a waste manager who holds £15,000 of shares in Bidder B through a managed fund; an operations lead whose brother is a depot supervisor employed by Bidder C; and a finance officer who accepted a £120 dinner from Bidder A at a conference. Bidder D's submission includes a £10,000 'community fund' payment to a local charity whose trustee is the council leader. The procurement officer is told to 'just get on with it' because the tender deadline is tight and re-running the competition would delay service start by four months. None of the interests has been recorded in the register. The evaluation has not yet begun.
1. Identify the probity and ethical issues in this evaluation and explain the action required for each.
Read the worked answer
Each situation must be recorded and assessed for materiality, not left informal.
- Waste manager with £15,000 in Bidder B via a managed fund: a financial interest, even indirect, can create bias. Declare it, consider recusal, and have the monitoring officer assess whether the fund is managed without influence.
- Operations lead whose brother works for Bidder C: a close family connection is a conflict. Declare and remove from evaluation or any influence over Bidder C.
- Finance officer's £120 dinner from Bidder A: hospitality that could influence judgement; record it, refuse or repay it, and investigate whether the gift policy was breached.
- Bidder D's £10,000 community fund linked to the council leader: potential inducement and a political dimension; seek legal and monitoring officer advice before evaluation.
The fact that nothing is in the register is itself a governance failure. Pause evaluation, document declarations, replace or recuse affected members, re-brief the panel, and keep an audit trail. If any evaluation has already occurred, re-evaluate that bid with a clean panel.
2. Explain how the authority should manage conflicts of interest and gifts/hospitality to protect the integrity of the tender.
Read the worked answer
Protect integrity with a declared, documented and independently reviewed process. Before evaluation, every panel member signs a conflict-of-interest and confidentiality declaration; the register is checked against bidders' ownership, directors and subcontractors. Conflicts are classified: register and manage (low), recuse (material), or escalate to the monitoring officer (potential criminal or political issue).
Gifts and hospitality should follow the authority's policy: nominal hospitality only, declared in a public register, and refused or repaid if it could create an obligation. The £120 dinner should be recorded and assessed; if it breached policy, investigate and remind the panel. Separate commercial, technical and financial evaluation; use a moderated scoring process and consensus meetings. Keep bidder contact through a single procurement point.
Do not let the tight timetable justify skipping probity; a flawed award is more costly than a four-month delay. Consider a probity adviser for a contract of this value.
3. Advise on the treatment of Bidder D's community fund payment.
Read the worked answer
Treat the £10,000 payment as a potential inducement, not a normal community benefit. The link to the council leader is a political and conflict risk; it could be seen as buying influence. Do not allow it to be scored unless the tender documents expressly required a community benefit and all bidders had the same opportunity.
Ask Bidder D to clarify the legal basis, timing, recipient and whether the payment is conditional on award. Seek advice from the monitoring officer and legal services; check the authority's gifts, sponsorship and election rules. If it is a voluntary donation, it should be outside the evaluation and, if accepted at all, handled after contract award under a separate policy. If it is offered as part of the bid, it must be evaluated transparently and consistently, and any conflict involving the leader must be managed.
Record the decision and inform all bidders if the tender is clarified. Consider whether the offer triggers a bribery or misconduct risk and whether to refer it.