Most attempts to define probity are based on the Webster dictionary definition which reads as follows:

Whilst this definition is superior to its abridged equivalents, it still does not refer specifically to the proposals process nor differentiate between equity and transparency of process.  

Furthermore the definition (understandable) does not seek to clarify the difference between administrative and compliance related issues as they pertain to probity and the proposal process.

Administrative Issues

Tendering is a process and as such involves front and back office related administrative issues. Issues such changing the composition of an evaluation team after a tender is published is neither inequitable nor a breach of standard probity.

Changes that affect all respondents equally and that do not change the conditions of tendering nor the evaluation criteria, should be viewed in a non purist light. It would be a self perpetuating argument to suggest that administrative or project changes documented as part of the probity process in fact represent a breach of probity.

Equity and the Fairness Plan

Issues relating to equitable treatment of all potential respondents are best dealt with via a fairness plan. 

Requesting that respondents submit their proposals in a expensive proprietary documentation format frequently generates claims of a probity breach. However the arguments submitted in support of such claim generally relate to equity and not probity. Dealing with issues similar to aforementioned example in fairness plan leads to a much smoother tender cycle.

Furthermore it is prudent to educate potential respondents in the areas of equity, fairness and probity during the industry briefing phase of the tender process.

The Consultative Selling, Bid & Tender Cycles

Compare the consultative selling, bid and tender cycles side by side as illustrated in the table below:

The synergy between the consultative selling and bid cycles is generally quite good, however synchronisation with the tender cycle is typically more problematic. 

The first three stages of the tender cycle surrounding business planning and information gathering often remain undisclosed to the supplier community. However more commonly opportunities likely to flow from the first three stages are only known to incumbent suppliers. 

Whilst both scenarios have the potential to generate probity issues the latter is the more common source of issues. Unless there has been a unjustified deliberate attempt to withhold information from non-incumbent suppliers then there is no breach of either probity or equity. Tender publishers are not responsible for synchronising the bid and consulting cycles of potential respondents. If a supplier fails to implement appropriate bid capture procedures then they alone bear responsibility for such failures.

Briefing Sessions

If a tender publisher conducts an open industry briefing session it is not a breach of probity to publish a list of attendees. At most briefing sessions attendees from various organisation will mingle freely and consequently are well aware as to who was in attendance.

Complaints from smaller companies that the distribution of attendee lists promotes unfair competition in the form of biding consortiums are groundless. Most companies have pre-existing partnering arrangements and as such are unlikely to form consortiums based on a briefing session attendee list.