Tender Evaluation and a Spouse's Board Appointment in Enugu
An architect serves on a five-member tender evaluation panel for a ₦4.2 billion public hospital in Enugu. Three contractors submitted bids; the technical envelopes are opened before the financial envelopes. Two days before the evaluation meeting, the architect learns that her spouse has been appointed a non-executive director of Meridian Constructs Ltd, one of the bidders, and that Meridian's financial envelope remains sealed. Her firm also provided preliminary design services to Meridian on an unrelated project 18 months ago. The panel chair says: 'Just score the technical envelope; no one needs to know about the family link.' The procurement law requires written declarations of interest, and the evaluation report must be signed by all panel members.
1. Identify the conflicts of interest and the architect's immediate obligations.
Read the worked answer
There are two conflicts. The spouse's non-executive directorship is a close family and pecuniary interest in a bidder; even if the spouse has no operational role, the relationship could influence the architect's judgement or be seen to do so. The firm's prior preliminary design work for Meridian is a business relationship, though it is 18 months old and unrelated; it still creates a familiarity and possible loyalty concern. Both are material and must be declared in writing to the panel chair and the procurement authority before any scoring. The architect must not accept the chair's suggestion to keep quiet. She should withdraw from evaluating Meridian and, if her presence could taint the whole evaluation, offer to withdraw from the panel entirely. She should not access Meridian's financial envelope or discuss the bid outside the formal process.
2. How should the evaluation panel proceed to preserve the integrity of the tender?
Read the worked answer
The chair should record the declaration in the minutes and inform the procurement authority immediately. The panel should decide whether the architect can continue on the other bids or must be replaced. If she remains, she must recuse herself from all scoring and deliberation concerning Meridian, and an independent substitute member should score Meridian's technical envelope. Any scores already made by the architect should be discarded and the affected envelope re-scored. The financial envelopes must remain sealed until the technical evaluation is complete. The panel should keep a written record of the conflict, the recusal, and the replacement process, and ensure no informal communication with Meridian. If the panel cannot be properly constituted, the procurement authority should reconstitute it. The integrity of the whole tender depends on demonstrable impartiality, not just actual impartiality.
3. What are the consequences of non-disclosure under the procurement law and professional code?
Read the worked answer
Non-disclosure could invalidate the tender or the award. Under Nigeria's public procurement framework, bidders and evaluators must declare conflicts; failure can lead to disqualification of the bidder, cancellation of the process, or criminal or administrative sanctions. The architect could face disciplinary action under the ARCON code for failing to declare a conflict and for acting in a way that compromises professional integrity. If Meridian wins and the conflict later emerges, the award could be challenged, the project delayed, and the architect's reputation damaged. The chair and other panel members could also face consequences for suppressing the information. The architect should therefore make a contemporaneous written declaration, keep a copy, and refuse to sign any evaluation report that omits the conflict. Silence is not a neutral act in a regulated procurement.