Public Tender, Success Fee, and a Conflict of Interest
Meridian Fabrication is one of three bidders for a two-year government bridge-panel contract worth $5.2 million. Winning would use 70% of plant capacity and protect 60 jobs; losing would likely force a shift reduction. Two weeks before the bid, a local consultant, Eastern Access Partners, tells the CEO that an 8% success fee ($416,000) paid to an offshore account is standard practice and will help the bid move through the ministry. The consultant refuses to name the officials involved or provide a written scope. Separately, the CFO learns that a non-executive director's brother-in-law sits on the technical evaluation panel; the director has not disclosed this. The CEO pressures the CFO to approve the fee as a marketing cost and says competitors will do the same. The bid document requires bidders to certify compliance with anti-bribery laws.
1. Assess whether Meridian should approve the success fee. Identify the red flags and the consequences of proceeding.
Read the worked answer
Meridian should not approve the fee. A payment that is contingent on winning, routed offshore, described as helping the bid move through the ministry, and supported by no written scope or named officials is a classic bribery red flag. The amount is material: 8% of $5.2m = $416,000. The CEO's justifications, that it is standard practice and competitors do it, are rationalizations, not a defence. Consequences include criminal and regulatory liability for the company and individuals, debarment from public contracts, repayment or voiding of the contract, reputational damage, and loss of the very jobs the bid is meant to protect. The bid certification would also be false. The ethical test is not only whether the company wins, but whether it can defend the payment publicly and legally. It cannot. The correct decision is to refuse the fee and document the refusal.
2. Recommend how Meridian should handle the director's undisclosed conflict and govern the bid process.
Read the worked answer
The director must disclose the family relationship immediately and recuse from all bid discussions, decisions, and communications involving the evaluation panel. The board or audit committee should record the conflict, assess whether any information was improperly shared, and take independent legal advice. For the bid itself, Meridian should reject the success fee, require a written scope and fixed fee for any legitimate adviser, conduct third-party due diligence, and use transparent local counsel rather than an offshore intermediary. It should certify compliance accurately and retain documentation of the bid decisions. A pre-bid ethics review should cover gifts, hospitality, agent payments, and conflicts. The CFO should escalate the CEO's pressure to the audit committee or board, because a controls environment where a senior executive can override anti-bribery controls is itself a governance failure.