A Friend's Bid and a Paid Engagement During Tender Evaluation
A quantity surveyor is a senior associate in a small consultancy appointed by a district health board to prepare pre-tender estimates and evaluate tenders for a $40 million hospital refurbishment. One of the shortlisted mechanical subcontractors, Meridian Mechanical, is 12% below the next bid. Meridian's commercial manager is a close personal friend of the QS. Meridian has also offered the QS's firm a $60,000 paid engagement to provide a commercial review on a private development, starting next month. The QS's firm has had a poor year and the engagement would cover a staff member's salary. The QS has verbally told the client's project director that Meridian is a friend's company but has not mentioned the offer. The tender evaluation report is due in three days. The QS's manager says the private engagement is unrelated and does not need disclosure.
1. Identify the ethical issues and explain the QS's professional obligations in this situation.
Read the worked answer
There are two overlapping conflicts. The first is the personal relationship with Meridian's commercial manager. The second is the financial offer of a $60,000 engagement from the same subcontractor whose bid the QS is evaluating. The second is more serious because it creates a direct financial interest in a party that benefits from the evaluation outcome, even if the engagement is described as unrelated.
The QS's obligations include impartiality, independence, honesty, confidentiality and avoidance of conflicts of interest. A verbal mention that Meridian is a friend's company is not adequate disclosure. The client needs to know the nature of the relationship, the offer, its value, its timing and the fact that the firm is under financial pressure. The manager's view that the engagement is unrelated is not a sufficient ethical test. The relevant question is whether a reasonable outsider would perceive the QS's judgement as potentially influenced. Here, the answer is clearly yes.
The QS must not use confidential tender information, must not discuss the evaluation with the friend, and must not accept the engagement while the evaluation is live. If the conflict cannot be managed with the client's informed consent, the QS should withdraw from the evaluation. The firm's commercial difficulty does not justify accepting a benefit from a bidder during a live competition.
2. Recommend a course of action for the QS and the firm, including immediate steps before the evaluation report is issued.
Read the worked answer
The QS should immediately put the disclosure in writing to the client's project director and to the firm's compliance or ethics lead. The disclosure should cover the friendship, the $60,000 offer, the date it was made, the scope of the proposed work, the firm's financial position and the fact that the QS has not accepted it. Verbal disclosure is not enough for a decision of this significance.
The firm should decline or at least defer the Meridian engagement until well after the tender evaluation and any standstill period. If the firm wants to accept it later, the client should decide whether that is acceptable, and information barriers should be put in place so that the QS has no access to the tender file or evaluation discussions. In practice, the safest course is for the QS to step aside from the evaluation entirely and for another qualified person to lead the assessment, with an independent review of the QS's earlier work.
The QS should tell the manager in writing that the engagement is not unrelated for conflict-of-interest purposes. There should be no contact with the friend about the tender, no access to the other bids and no involvement in scoring or moderation. The QS should document all steps, including the client's response. If the client consents to continued involvement with safeguards, the QS should still consider whether an objective observer would accept that the conflict is managed; if not, withdrawal is the only defensible option.