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 of the site engineer.

Interview the site engineer as to:

• how much time s/he spent on site
• what steps s/he was meant to take to verify and record quantity and quality
• what steps s/he actually took to verify and record quantity and quality: e.g.
  • personal verification
  • measurement
  • photographs
  • tests
  • certificates
• whether s/he was 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 s/he 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 her/him 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 failed in her/his actions, does the evidence suggest that the failure was:

• accidental with no corrupt intent (a genuine mistake)
• negligent with no corrupt intent (the engineer approved without checking)
• deliberate with corrupt intent (evidence of receipt of gifts or hospitality would strengthen an argument that it was corrupt).