Specification favoured Ice Cold

The whistleblowing report alleges that the specification favoured a particular air conditioning supplier, Ice Cold. The investigator could examine the following relevant matters. 

• Identify whether Ice Cold won the contract for the air conditioning supply.
• Identify the supply contract.
• Identify where Ice Cold was located in the contract structure (e.g. was it supplying under a contract with the RA, or with BuildWell, or with a sub-contractor).
• Consider all documents which could potentially favour Ice Cold, not just the specification, as the corrupt practices could be broader or in a different form than the whistleblower realised.
• In particular, relevant documents may include the tender invitation, tender requirements, tender timetable, tender evaluation, contract conditions, drawings, specification and programme.

Is there any aspect in the documents reviewed which could favour Ice Cold.  E.g:

• the specification, drawing or other contract document expressly names Ice Cold or specifies a system or output which only Ice Cold could provide
• a tender timetable or contract programme favours Ice Cold (e.g. a very short tender programme, together with evidence that Ice Cold was warned about the opportunity earlier than other potential suppliers)
• tender evaluation points are weighted towards Ice Cold’s technology
• tender evaluation reasoning seems designed to favour the appointment of Ice Cold.

If any aspect is identified which could favour Ice Cold, interview the persons responsible for the relevant aspect (e.g. the design engineer, procurement manager, or tender evaluator) to ascertain the reasons for the aspect.

Are the reasons for the creation of the favourable aspect reasonable, objective and legitimate, or do they appear to have a corrupt purpose? 

For example, it may be reasonable for the RA to specify Ice Cold’s product if the RA definitely needed that product, and only that product would be suitable, and there were not any other reasonable alternatives.

However, in most cases, a range of alternative options should have been open for consideration, and Ice Cold’s product should not have been specified.

If there are aspects favourable to Ice Cold which appear to have a corrupt purpose, can corrupt intent be proven or inferred from the evidence?