Bribery of site engineer

The whistleblower has also alleged that the RA’s site engineer was bribed by BuildWell to overlook the alleged defects in quantity and quality.

The following paragraphs summarise the evidence that the investigator should examine to ascertain whether this allegation is justified.

If the investigation into the quantity and quality issue has found sufficient evidence that BuildWell did not provide the correct contractual quantity and/or quality, then it is reasonable to investigate why these issues were not detected by the RA’s site personnel.

Identify who on behalf of the RA was responsible for verifying correct quantity and quality.  This could be an RA employee, or a third party appointed by the RA to perform this function (e.g. a consulting engineer).  Assume for the purposes of this case study that it was the RA’s site engineer (an employee of the RA).

Identify the role and responsibilities of the site engineer.

Interview the site engineer as to:

• how much time they spent on site
• what steps they were meant to take to verify and record quantity and quality
• what steps they actually took to verify and record quantity and quality: e.g. personal verification, measurement, photographs, tests, certificates
• whether they were instructed by any other person to approve quantity or quality even if defective (e.g. by the RA Chief Executive or by a public official)
• whether they received any payment, gifts, entertainment or hospitality from BuildWell or any parties in connection with the project (other than salary).

Assess any inconsistency between the site engineer’s claimed actions and any approvals issued (e.g. that quantity and quality issues should have been obvious to the engineer, but were approved by the engineer even though incorrect).

Investigate the bank accounts of the engineer and BuildWell to assess whether there are any receipts from BuildWell, or payments to the engineer, or other unexplained receipts or payments.

Interview other project personnel to assess whether they saw anything suspicious (e.g. the engineer receiving gifts or hospitality from BuildWell).

To the extent that there is evidence that the engineer approved the delivered quality and quantity as being in accordance with the contract requirements when it was actually not, does the evidence suggest that the engineer’s failure was:

• Negligent:  The engineer should have checked properly, but failed to do so, but approved the works genuinely believing that they were in accordance with the contract.  The engineer had no dishonest intent.
• Reckless:  The engineer did not care about checking, and signed documents without caring about their accuracy, knowing that they may be incorrect.
• Deliberate:  The engineer knew that the works were not in accordance with the contract, but approved them as in accordance.

If the actions of the engineer were reckless or deliberate, the engineer is likely to have committed fraud.

If, in addition to evidence of reckless or deliberate conduct as above, any evidence can be established that the engineer received any benefit from Buildwell (e.g. cash, gifts or entertainment), then it is likely that it can be inferred that the cash, gifts or entertainment was a bribe given in return for the approvals.