Probity Advisers: Fairness commandos or simply sign-offs?

Same acronym - different roles

Image of spectacles over a spreadsheet

Today the confusion between probity advisors and auditors remains evident, according to Neil Adams, a probity advisor with Adams Consulting & Training.

"A probity adviser tends to focus on the areas where there is the greatest risk - not the more mundane aspects," he told iTnews.

Another advisor, who declined to be named described the probity advisors' role as "sitting alongside the project [as] a part-owner of the procurement decisions, in that respect."

A probity auditor, by contrast, "would do the more comprehensive review and a broader mandate, [with] more time to explore and re-check certain matters that a probity advisor doesn't have."

As recently as February this year, a Health Department spokesperson added to this confusion by defending the re-engagement of IBM without an open tender on the basis that "a probity auditor [sic] was engaged at the outset of the procurement process to advise the department on the integrity of the procurement process."

Probity Advisors hate it when they are brought into a procurement project after critical decisions have already been taken.

"Ideally, a probity advisor should be first external advisor appointed as soon as a go-ahead is given on the procurement decision," Withers said.

"The best time is Day One. A good probity advisor can help the agency to design a process that will meet their business objectives – as well as oversighting procedural fairness.

"There have been times when we've been called in after a problem has emerged. We had this issue with a council procurement. We saw a fundamental problem as soon as we got the brief and declined to bid for the project as they seem determined to follow through irrespective."

War Stories

Probity Advisors tend to be handled by individuals that expect to have their counsel noted and taken on board. From accounts relayed to iTnews, advisors tend to fight hard for the fairness flag.

In several instances, iTnews was informed of situations where they had considered resigning because their advice was being disregarded.

"It was a definite option for us," said one advisor. "Our advice wasn't being considered on its merits and our advice was not being properly recorded by the client, if at all.

"[At other times], a client refuses to accept our advice and is not prepared to have the required discussion in order for the advice to be well considered.

"To some extent we are protecting our own brand as experienced and reliable advisors, if we don't make clear to the client there is an issue and a real risk present."

Withers recalls four instances where a Government agency has declined, refused or not accepted his advice.

"In at least one of those, the procurement proceeded and it could fail if challenged. There was a fundamental process flaw. They dealt with that by disengaging themselves from our contract. They didn't like the advice we gave them."

Two of the four cases concerned conflicts of interest.

"One organisation was involved in the evaluation of the tender but was also through another office part of a respondent's bid," Withers recalls.

"That was an irreconcilable conflict of interest. It's just there and cannot be managed and fatally flaws the process."

"In both instances they got my advice to discontinue the procurement process with the particular organisation that tainted the procurement prior to the completion of the tender. Either move the group out of the evaluation or eliminate them from further tender consideration," he said.

He also recalls when a Government agency went to the market with a set of requirements that put a lot of financial risk onto the contractor, but in later contract negotiations relieved the contractor of that burden," he said.

"That materially changed the scope of the work advertised," Withers said. "If they advertised the project they ultimately negotiated, they would have attracted a bigger range of much better responses as well."

Ethical Dilemmas

The ethical dilemma for probity advisors is the extent of their duties when faced with evidence of an unlawful procurement after the event.

"What do I do with it? In theory it's not my issue because I acted properly and the people disengaged me so there was no further issue as far as I was concerned," one advisor noted.

Withers believes there should be scope for a different model of engagement for probity advisors.

This might see probity advisors engaged by a central Government agency such as Finance, the Audit Office or an ICAC-like agency and assigned to major procurement processes with an obligation to report back.

Have you noted conflicts of interest in government IT procurement decisions? Was there a probity advisor brought in? We'd like to hear your take below.