Tender Evaluation Offer to an Engineer's Family
An engineer is the technical member of a tender evaluation panel for a ₦480 million water treatment plant in Kaduna State. Six bids are being evaluated. The lowest compliant bidder, whose technical score is 78/100, invites the engineer to a technical clarification meeting at a hotel. At the meeting the bidder's managing director says the company will sponsor the engineer's daughter's overseas postgraduate studies, worth about ₦3.2 million, as a gesture of goodwill if the engineer helps the panel see that the bidder's proposed clarifier design is equivalent. The bidder also offers to fly the engineer and two panel members to Ghana to inspect a similar plant. The engineer's daughter has already received an admission letter and the family cannot afford the fees. The panel is due to submit its report in five days. No other panel member knows about the offer.
1. Identify the ethical issues and the engineer's obligations under professional conduct rules.
Read the worked answer
The offer is a bribe or conflict of interest because it is timed to influence a live procurement decision and is directed at the engineer's personal interest. The engineer's duty is to the public, the client and the integrity of the evaluation, not to the bidder. Under professional conduct rules he must not accept gifts, hospitality or benefits that could influence his judgement; he must disclose any conflict; he must not use confidential information; and he must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The fact that his daughter needs the money makes the conflict more serious, not excusable. The Ghana trip is also a benefit and should be treated the same way. He should not discuss the bidder's design with the bidder outside the formal clarification process.
2. What immediate actions and communications should the engineer take?
Read the worked answer
He should immediately decline both offers orally and in writing. He should not accept any payment, travel or promise of future benefit. He should inform the panel chair and the procurement or ethics officer before the report is submitted; if the chair is implicated, he should go to the next appropriate authority. He should make a dated file note recording the place, persons and exact words. He should ask that the bidder's conduct be referred to the procurement authority for investigation. If his impartiality could reasonably be questioned, he should recuse himself from evaluating that bidder or from the panel. He should not destroy evidence or coach other panel members. He may also need to inform his employer.
3. How should the panel treat the bidder's bid after the offer is disclosed?
Read the worked answer
The panel should evaluate the bid on its technical and commercial merits, not punish or reward it informally. The bidder's conduct should be handled under the procurement rules: the chair should document the offer and refer it to the authority responsible for bidder integrity. Depending on those rules, the bid may be disqualified or the bidder may be required to explain; the panel should not decide this alone if it lacks authority. The evaluation report should show that the clarification meeting did not improperly change the technical scoring. If the engineer recuses, another qualified evaluator should replace him. The key is to separate the technical evaluation from the misconduct allegation and to preserve an auditable record.