Para 3.6 — NONCONSULT_MANUAL

NONCONSULT_MANUAL

Risk Mitigation 1. Hospitality: Hospitality (including facilitation of travel, lodging, boarding and entertainment during official or unofficial programs) from service providers may tend to cross the limits of ethical/ occasional/ routine/modest/ normal business practice. Officials sent to the firm’s premises for inspections/ meetings may mistakenly presume entitlement to hospitality from the firm, even if other Hospitality must never be solicited, directly or indirectly. The frequency, scale and number of officials availing hospitality should not be allowed to identify the recipient in a public way with any particular contractor, supplier or service provider or raise doubts about its neutrality. It should not involve significant travel, overnight accommodation, or trips abroad. Particular care should be taken in relation to offers of hospitality from firms (say, participating in current or imminent tenders or their execution) who
3.6. Conduct of Public Servants in Public Procurement – Risks and Mitigations
Chapter 3: Participation of Bidders and Governance Issues
Risk Mitigation arrangements are available at the location. stand to derive a personal or commercial benefit from their relationship with the recipient. 2. Gifts: Gifts from service providers may tend to cross the limits of ethical/ occasional/ routine/modest/ normal business practice, especially during the festive season. Since the value of the gift may not be known to the recipient, it may cause an inadvertent violation of Conduct rules. Gifts must never be solicited, directly or indirectly. An official should not accept and retain gifts that are more valuable than the limit as laid down in the conduct rules. Cash, gift cheques or any vouchers that may be exchanged for cash may not be accepted, regardless of the amount. Particular care should be taken in relation to gifts from firms (say, participating in current or imminent tenders or their execution) who stand to derive a personal or commercial benefit from their relationship with the recipient. Any gift received inadvertently in violation of the above must immediately either be returned or reported and deposited in Toshakhana/ Treasury. 3. Private Purchases from Official Service Providers: Procuring Officials may mistakenly consider it innocuous to seek discounts in private procurements from service providers having official dealings or its allied firms (especially from Rate Contract holders). Officials involved in Public Procurement must never indulge in any non-official pecuniary transaction with the contractors, suppliers, or service providers with whom they have official dealings, including seeking or accepting special facilities or discounts on private purchases (particularly the same items that are being ordered officially on rate contracts). 4. Sponsorship of Events: Procuring Officials may mistakenly consider it innocuous to seek financial favours (donations, advertisements for souvenirs, and contributions in cash or kind) in relation to sponsoring cultural, social, charitable, religious, or sporting events in the false belief that since they are personally not benefitted, it would not be a violation of CIPP. Officials involved in Public Procurement must never indulge in any non-official pecuniary transaction with the contractors, suppliers, or service providers with whom they have official dealings, including soliciting of sponsorship for unofficial and private cultural, social, sporting, religious, charitable, or similar organisations or events. 5. Conflict of Interest (COI): para 3.3.3-2-a-v) Code of Integrity for Public Procurement has a provision that defines Conflict of Interest as:” “…any personal, financial, or business relationship between the bidder and any personnel of the procuring entity who are Interpretation of Conflict of Interest would depend on the organisational structure and its unique circumstances and cannot be laid down universally. However, some illustrative examples are given below to provide context. a) Officers that can be considered to be related to the tender or execution process would depend on the organisational structure and sensitivity of
Manual for Procurement of Non-Consultancy Services, 2025
Risk Mitigation directly or indirectly related to procurement or execution process of the contract, which can affect the decision of the procuring entity directly or indirectly……” There may be dilemmas regarding the officers related to the tender or execution process and, even if minor, routine transactions. their role in procurement. It may cover key officials (and any external consultants/ advisors) involved in making a recommendation, various approvals, or making a major decision at any stage in procurement – i.e., during need determination/ indenting, Tender Document preparation/ preparation of comparative tabulation; Technical and Financial evaluation of Bids; negotiation/ signing of Contract; execution of the contract; payments to the contractor. b) As an illustration – COI (actual, potential, or perceived) can arise if such officers (or his close family31) have: i) Substantial business interests in the firm31 (e.g., shares more than 0.1% of market cap), taken a loan or other financial obligation (say discounts) from the firm or its personnel), etc. ii) Business relationships with the firm – say previously worked for the firm or availed hospitality/ gifts beyond the limits laid down in the Code of Conduct of the organisation, etc. iii) Familial relationship31 with the personnel of the firm. iv) close personal friendships or regular (say, more than once in a quarter) social interactions (e.g., clubs, games, social associations) with the Firm’s personnel, etc. c) Resolution of COI: It shall be the responsibility of such officials to declare COI (to the extent he is aware of, in normal course) with reference to a procurement process to the Competent Authority/ next higher officer. The competent officer may evaluate the level of COI and the sensitivity of the function assigned to the official. He may either determine i) COI is insignificant enough to influence the type of function
Chapter 3: Participation of Bidders and Governance Issues
Risk Mitigation performed by the official and ask the officer to continue his function. ii) If COI or the type of function is significant, nominate any alternative officer to perform the function (partly or fully) of this official in that procurement process.

NONCONSULT_MANUAL

Risk Mitigation 1. Hospitality: Hospitality (including facilitation of travel, lodging, boarding and entertainment during official or unofficial programs) from service providers may tend to cross the limits of ethical/ occasional/ routine/modest/ normal business practice. Officials sent to the firm’s premises for inspections/ meetings may mistakenly presume entitlement to hospitality from the firm, even if other Hospitality must never be solicited, directly or indirectly. The frequency, scale and number of officials availing hospitality should not be allowed to identify the recipient in a public way with any particular contractor, supplier or service provider or raise doubts about its neutrality. It should not involve significant travel, overnight accommodation, or trips abroad. Particular care should be taken in relation to offers of hospitality from firms (say, participating in current or imminent tenders or their execution) who
3.6. Conduct of Public Servants in Public Procurement – Risks and Mitigations
Chapter 3: Participation of Bidders and Governance Issues
Risk Mitigation arrangements are available at the location. stand to derive a personal or commercial benefit from their relationship with the recipient. 2. Gifts: Gifts from service providers may tend to cross the limits of ethical/ occasional/ routine/modest/ normal business practice, especially during the festive season. Since the value of the gift may not be known to the recipient, it may cause an inadvertent violation of Conduct rules. Gifts must never be solicited, directly or indirectly. An official should not accept and retain gifts that are more valuable than the limit as laid down in the conduct rules. Cash, gift cheques or any vouchers that may be exchanged for cash may not be accepted, regardless of the amount. Particular care should be taken in relation to gifts from firms (say, participating in current or imminent tenders or their execution) who stand to derive a personal or commercial benefit from their relationship with the recipient. Any gift received inadvertently in violation of the above must immediately either be returned or reported and deposited in Toshakhana/ Treasury. 3. Private Purchases from Official Service Providers: Procuring Officials may mistakenly consider it innocuous to seek discounts in private procurements from service providers having official dealings or its allied firms (especially from Rate Contract holders). Officials involved in Public Procurement must never indulge in any non-official pecuniary transaction with the contractors, suppliers, or service providers with whom they have official dealings, including seeking or accepting special facilities or discounts on private purchases (particularly the same items that are being ordered officially on rate contracts). 4. Sponsorship of Events: Procuring Officials may mistakenly consider it innocuous to seek financial favours (donations, advertisements for souvenirs, and contributions in cash or kind) in relation to sponsoring cultural, social, charitable, religious, or sporting events in the false belief that since they are personally not benefitted, it would not be a violation of CIPP. Officials involved in Public Procurement must never indulge in any non-official pecuniary transaction with the contractors, suppliers, or service providers with whom they have official dealings, including soliciting of sponsorship for unofficial and private cultural, social, sporting, religious, charitable, or similar organisations or events. 5. Conflict of Interest (COI): para 3.3.3-2-a-v) Code of Integrity for Public Procurement has a provision that defines Conflict of Interest as:” “…any personal, financial, or business relationship between the bidder and any personnel of the procuring entity who are Interpretation of Conflict of Interest would depend on the organisational structure and its unique circumstances and cannot be laid down universally. However, some illustrative examples are given below to provide context. a) Officers that can be considered to be related to the tender or execution process would depend on the organisational structure and sensitivity of
Manual for Procurement of Non-Consultancy Services, 2025
Risk Mitigation directly or indirectly related to procurement or execution process of the contract, which can affect the decision of the procuring entity directly or indirectly……” There may be dilemmas regarding the officers related to the tender or execution process and, even if minor, routine transactions. their role in procurement. It may cover key officials (and any external consultants/ advisors) involved in making a recommendation, various approvals, or making a major decision at any stage in procurement – i.e., during need determination/ indenting, Tender Document preparation/ preparation of comparative tabulation; Technical and Financial evaluation of Bids; negotiation/ signing of Contract; execution of the contract; payments to the contractor. b) As an illustration – COI (actual, potential, or perceived) can arise if such officers (or his close family31) have: i) Substantial business interests in the firm31 (e.g., shares more than 0.1% of market cap), taken a loan or other financial obligation (say discounts) from the firm or its personnel), etc. ii) Business relationships with the firm – say previously worked for the firm or availed hospitality/ gifts beyond the limits laid down in the Code of Conduct of the organisation, etc. iii) Familial relationship31 with the personnel of the firm. iv) close personal friendships or regular (say, more than once in a quarter) social interactions (e.g., clubs, games, social associations) with the Firm’s personnel, etc. c) Resolution of COI: It shall be the responsibility of such officials to declare COI (to the extent he is aware of, in normal course) with reference to a procurement process to the Competent Authority/ next higher officer. The competent officer may evaluate the level of COI and the sensitivity of the function assigned to the official. He may either determine i) COI is insignificant enough to influence the type of function
Chapter 3: Participation of Bidders and Governance Issues
Risk Mitigation performed by the official and ask the officer to continue his function. ii) If COI or the type of function is significant, nominate any alternative officer to perform the function (partly or fully) of this official in that procurement process.

Para 3.6 — NONCONSULT_MANUAL

Original Rule Text

Para 3.6 — NONCONSULT_MANUAL

Original Rule Text