1,200 Tents in 72 Hours: Emergency Procurement with a Disclosed Conflict

Arithmetic first: A = 1,200 × 18,500 = PKR 22.2 million, day 8. B = 1,200 × 21,000 = PKR 25.2 million, hour 48. C = 1,200 × 16,900 = PKR 20.28 million, day 15. Engineer's estimate = PKR 23.04 million. Budget = PKR 24 million.

The deadline removes open competitive bidding as an option. C is the cheapest and A is close to the estimate, but neither can deliver inside 72 hours. Advertising and evaluating a tender takes longer than the time in which 4,800 people must be under canvas at 9°C. The emergency provision is therefore properly invoked - but only if the file records the urgency, the market enquiry actually conducted, the three quotations received, and the specific reason each alternative was excluded. An emergency award without that record is indistinguishable from a favour.

Preferred award: B for the full 1,200 at PKR 25.2 million is unaffordable, so restructure the requirement. Accept the NGO's 600 tents into the district stock, which reduces the purchase to 600. Buy 600 from B at PKR 12.6 million for delivery in 48 hours: within budget, inside the weather window, and at 9.4% above the engineer's estimate - a premium defensible on delivery time, not on product.

Place the second tranche competitively in parallel. Tender the remaining 600 to A and C on a 10-day basis; C at 600 × 16,900 = PKR 10.14 million keeps the total at PKR 22.74 million, inside the PKR 24 million ceiling, and provides replacement and surge stock.

Sign the written justification before the award, not after, because the PKR 12.6 million single-source tranche exceeds the PKR 5 million threshold. Record that the split is on delivery time and stock, not to avoid a threshold - a split done to evade a limit would be indefensible.

The disclosure is necessary but not sufficient. The governing test is not whether the officer is honest; it is whether a reasonable observer, reading the file afterwards, would be satisfied. A cousin's firm winning an emergency award, on a file handled by the cousin, fails that test however scrupulous the officer was.

• Recuse the officer in writing from evaluation, negotiation, drafting the justification and signing anything connected to Supplier B. Note the time and date of recusal on the file.
• Constitute a three-member award committee that does not include the officer, with a finance or audit representative on it, to compare quotations against the engineer's estimate and to record the price-reasonableness finding.
• Do not disqualify Supplier B. The conflict attaches to the officer, not the firm. Disqualifying B on the basis of a relationship would be unfair to the firm and would also destroy the only bid that meets the deadline.
• Verify no contact. Record that the officer had no communication with B after disclosure, with the file as evidence.
• Obtain an independent price check. A market survey of tent prices from two neighbouring districts, and the engineer's estimate reconciled to current market rates, will show whether PKR 21,000 is a delivery premium or an inflated price.
• Report the disclosure upward to the administrative secretary and, if the rules require it, to the anti-corruption establishment, at the same time as the award - not after a complaint is made.

Documenting all six steps is what protects both the officer and the award.

Accept the tents, negotiate the attribution. The two are separable and should be treated separately.

• The tents: 600 free tents avoid PKR 12.6 million of expenditure at Supplier B's price, in the exact window when the money cannot be spent fast enough. Refusing them on grounds of pride or protocol would be indefensible to the 4,800 people on the embankment.
• The logo at the camp: acceptable. Donor recognition is a normal condition and costs nothing operationally.
• 'Lead responder' in all press releases: negotiate down. The district is legally accountable for targeting, safeguarding and camp management; naming an NGO as lead responder misinforms the public about who is responsible when something goes wrong, including if a tent is unsafe or aid is misdirected. Offer joint branding, a factual acknowledgement of the contribution at every briefing, and a signed MoU - but keep the district's accountability visible.
• Conditions to attach before acceptance: a written MoU; inspection of the 600 tents for habitability, fire safety and completeness (used tents frequently arrive without poles or with rotten fabric - a tent that fails in rain is worse than no tent because it displaces a family twice); entry of the stock into the district stock register with quantities and condition; no distribution conditional on attendance at any event or on data collection for the NGO's other purposes; and safeguarding rules for staff in the camp.
• Say so publicly. Announcing both the acceptance and the condition protects the district from the accusation of refusing help, and protects the NGO from the accusation of spin.

If the NGO insists on exclusivity of attribution after negotiation, accept the tents anyway and record the disagreement. The welfare of the displaced population outranks the framing of a press release.