Procurement Plan For Tendering
[Procurement Type / Project Name]
[Business Unit Name]
Prepared By: [Name]
[Release Date]
Notes on document use:



Yellow highlighted sections must be completed
Blue highlighted sections may be amended as necessary
Non-highlighted areas are generic conditions or requirements that may be changed where
necessary but should be generally used in the majority of cases.
Please remove this box and all highlighting prior to document release
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
About this Procurement Plan
This Procurement Plan explains the principles and procedures, responsibilities and reporting
requirements that must be complied with by the University, its officers, employees, contractors,
consultants, and all other people (whether internal or external to the University) involved in the
procurement process involving this Tender.
In addition to this Procurement Plan, all people involved in the procurement process for this Tender
are expected to also comply with codes of practice or conduct listed at the back of this document.
Any departure from, or variation to, the processes set out in this plan may only occur if there is a
sound and justifiable reason for doing so. Any such departure or variation must first be approved
by the Chair of the TEC, set out in writing, and include full reasons for doing so.
1.2
Purpose of Procurement Plan
Promoting probity is a critical element of procurement of products and services by the University.
The broad objectives of any probity process are to:

ensure compliance with approved University processes;

improve accountability;

encourage competitive neutrality by ensuring that all tenders are assessed according to the
same criteria;

achieve best value for money;

promote confidence in the University’s processes; and

ensure that any potential for legal or administrative challenges to decision-making are
minimised and that decisions can be defended;
These objectives are underpinned by these essential principles:

an open competitive process;

fairness and transparency of processes;

identification and resolution of conflicts of interest;

accountability; and

monitoring and evaluating performance.
The Tender Evaluation Committee appointed to evaluate this tender will consider these principles
throughout all stages of the procurement and contracting process.
1.3
Glossary of terms
Throughout this Procurement Plan, the following words have the meaning ascribed to them as
shown:
RFT
The request for tender referred to in section 2.4
TEC
The Tender Evaluation Committee referred to in section 2.8
University
Western Sydney University
Project Manager
University employee responsible for managing the tender process
[Insert Term]
2
TENDER PROCESS AND OUTCOMES
2.1
Purpose of tender
[Outline the purpose in terms of the procurement outcomes you are aiming to achieve]
2.2
Type of tender
[Describe the type of procurement that will be undertaken. This may be an Open or Selective
Tender, Expression of Interest or a Multi Stage Tender. Indicate why you have chosen this type of
process]
2.3
Value
[Outline the expected value of the procurement. You should note if the engagement is one off or it
will be an ongoing contract. The value should be detailed across the contract term if applicable]
2.4
Selected tenderers
[Identify the suppliers that will be asked for responses. An indication of where the suppliers were
sourced from should be included. This may involve previous suppliers, pre-approved panels, State
Government Contract suppliers. This section is not required for an Open Tender]
2.5
Request for tender
[Attach a copy of the Tender Documents that will be issued as part of the Process. Identify who
prepared the document]
The University may, at any time before the due date for closure of tenders, make minor alterations
to the specifications or tender evaluation process. If this occurs, the University must notify all
selected tenderers and, if reasonable, extend the deadline for close of tenders.
2.6
Late, incomplete or non-conforming tenders
[Make a statement on late / incomplete responses. A closing date/time should be set for
responses. Generally late responses should not be accepted. This should be considered on an
individual basis however late responses should not be accepted if they provide a material
advantage to an one respondent]
Late, incomplete or non-conforming responses will only be accepted if they do not offer any
disadvantage to the other respondents.
2.7
Tender Lodgement
[Identify how the responses will be received. This should be by use of the Tenderlink system
which is electronic tender issuing and lodging system. Univeristy Procurement staff can assist with
lodging tenders by this means]
Tenders are to be issued and responses lodged using the Tenderlink system.
2.7
Key outcomes of tender
Key outcomes for this tender are:
2.8

[Identify what these are as these will form the basis of the evaluation process]

[Could include firm pricing, alternative products, schedules of rates or a solution to meet a
functional requirement]
Tender Evaluation Committee
[Depending on the type of product being sourced, a Tender Evaluation Committee may be formed.
Simple purchases may only require the purchaser to make a recommendation. Outline the method
of evaluation and who will be undertaking this task]
In accordance with the University’s Procurement Policy, the responses will be evaluated by:
[Name]
[Position / Title]
Additional advice or assistance may be obtained from other advisers as and when determined by
the TEC, including with respect to pricing and financial information. The TEC may also establish
sub-committees or working parties to investigate and report on specific issues in connection with
the evaluation process.
2.9
Tender Evaluation Schedule
The following table outlines the key activities and tasks underpinning this procurement process,
together with the individual and/or agency responsible for the activity/task:
[Name / Group]
[Initials]
Task
Responsibility
Due date
Complete Requirements / Specifications
[Initials]
Day/Month/Year
Issue Tender
[Initials]
Day/Month/Year
Tender Closes
[Initials]
Day/Month/Year
Evaluate Responses
[Initials]
Day/Month/Year
Prepare Recommendation
[Initials]
Day/Month/Year
Notify Successful Supplier
[Initials]
Day/Month/Year
[Add or Delete as necessary]
2.10 Tender evaluation methodology
The TEC in accordance with the evaluation methodology specified in the RFT and reproduced in
this document will evaluate all tenders. This methodology involves the following process, which is
in four stages:
[Outline the criteria to be used for evaluating the responses. An evaluation for general or generic
products may be based on price alone however more complicated purchases will require a more
detailed approach taking into consideration qualitative factors and balancing these with cost to
determine ‘value for money’. The 4 Steps shown below may not be required for all purchases but
are included as a preferred methodology:

Stage 1 - Initial assessment based on mandatory criteria. If a supplier does not meet these
then their response may not be considered further. These criteria serve as a means of
filtering suppliers out of the process and are generally not required for pre-qualified or preselected suppliers as these would be expected to meet minimum criteria before their
inclusion.

Stage 2 - Establishing qualitative evaluation criteria based on non-price factors. These
must be relevant to the goods/services and should reflect their relative value to the sourced
product or service. Factors such as compatibility with existing products, training, consultant
experience and availability, documentation, or training content may be considered. These
are weighted to reflect their importance.

Stage 3 - Establishing cost evaluation criteria based on offered price. This will generally be
a single item if a lump sum price is offered or there may be several factors included such as
ad-hoc rates for service or costs of repairs or spare parts. Where practical these should be
weighted to reflect their importance.

Stage 4 – Value for Money assessment. In this section the relative weighting for qualitative
and cost factors are determined. For general products cost may have a higher weighting
however where the quality of the service is more critical, qualitative factors may be
weighted above price
When conducting the evaluation, weighted scores in Stages 2 and 3 are calculated by multiplying
the score for each criteria by its weighting. The weighted scores will be totalled for each tenderer.
In stage 4 the totals are normalised across all responding suppliers so that the normalised highest
total equals the maximum weighting given to that section. Other scores are proportioned back
from that point.]
Stage 1 - Mandatory criteria
Responses will initially be assessed for compliance with the mandatory criteria and the process.
Compliance with the process is taken to mean:
(a)
submission of responses by the closing date and in accordance with all other lodgement
instructions,
(b)
provision of all of the information requested in the documents; and
(c)
demonstrated ability to meet all mandatory criteria and specifications.
The following table details the mandatory criteria.
Mandatory criteria
Yes/No
[Insert Criteria]
These criteria will not be point scored. Each response will be assessed on a strictly Yes/No basis
as to whether the criterion is met satisfactorily. An assessment of ‘No’ against any criterion should
eliminate the respondent from further consideration.
Stage 2 – Qualitative evaluation criteria
Compliant responses will be evaluated against the following weighted qualitative (ie, non-price)
evaluation criteria. The following table details the evaluation criteria and their weightings:
Qualitative Evaluation Criteria
[Insert Criteria. Refer to section 2.8]
Weight
%
%
%
%
Total
100%
Satisfaction of qualitative criteria will be assessed on the basis of scores allocated by the EC by
consensus in response to questions relating to each criterion and then weighted as detailed above.
Scores will depend on the degree of meeting the requirements set out in the documentation. A
maximum score for each criterion will apply if there is full compliance with the criterion and with no
risks or weaknesses. Scores are to be reduced proportionately in relation to the extent of any
non-conformities, discrepancies, errors, omissions, or risks for the University.
Scores will be allocated as follows:
Score
Description
Full Description
10
Exceptional
Full achievement of the requirements specified for that criterion.
Demonstrated strengths, no errors, weaknesses or omissions.
8 to <10
Superior
Sound achievement of the requirements specified for that
criterion. Some minor errors, risks, weaknesses or omissions,
which may be acceptable as offered.
6 to <8
Good
Reasonable achievement of the requirements specified for that
criterion. Some errors, risks, weaknesses or omissions, which can
be corrected/overcome with minimum effort.
4 to <6
Adequate
Satisfactory achievement of the requirements specified for that
criterion. Some errors, risks, weaknesses or omissions, which are
possible to correct/overcome and make acceptable.
2 to <4
Inadequate
Minimal achievement of the requirements specified for that
criterion. Several errors, risks, weaknesses or omissions, which
are possible, but difficult to correct/overcome and make
acceptable.
>0 to <2
Poor to
deficient
No achievement of the requirements specified for that criterion.
Existence of numerous errors, risks, weaknesses or omissions,
which are very difficult to correct/overcome and make acceptable.
0
Unacceptable
Totally deficient and non-compliant for that criterion.
Each score will provide a numeric basis for comparison of the responses and recommendation of
the preferred shortlist will be based on scoring comparisons.
Stage 3 – Cost evaluation criteria
This criterion will be assessed based on the offered price. Criteria will be used to reflect any price
elements to be considered as part of the response:
Cost Evaluation Criteria
[Insert Criteria]
Weight
%
%
%
%
Total
100%
Stage 4 – Value for money assessment
This assessment balances the cost and qualitative factors. The relative weighting between the
qualitative and cost factors are shown on the Table. To score, the totals are normalised across all
responding suppliers so that the normalised highest total equals the maximum weighting given to
that section. Other scores are proportioned back from that point.
Value for Money Evaluation Criteria
Weight
Cost Factors
%
Qualitative Factors
%
Total
100%
2.11 Aborting the tender process or setting aside tenders
The TEC may, after close of tenders and if there are no successful or complying tenders, abort the
tender process, or commence direct negotiations with any person (including any tenderer).
If any tender clearly does not meet the requirements of the RFT, or has no reasonable prospect of
exhibiting the best value for money compared with other tenders, then it will be excluded from
detailed evaluation. The reasons for exclusion of any tender on this basis must be identified and
defensible in the context of the requirements of the RFT.
2.12 Tenderer presentations
[Indicate if a supplier presentation or demonstration is likely to be required. For more complicated
procurement, the respondents may be requested to make a formal presentation to clarify their
tender and provide the opportunity for the Evaluation Committee to ask questions. No new or
additional information will be requested or permitted at this point (see section 8.3 – Interviews with
shortlisted tenderers)]
The University may request tenderers to make a formal presentation to the TEC to clarify their
tender and provide the opportunity for the Evaluation Committee to ask questions. No new or
additional information will be requested or permitted at this point (see section 2.9 – Requests for
Clarification).
2.13 Evaluation Report
[Once the evaluation process is completed, the results must be documented and should include:
(d)
details of any selected tenderer who declined to respond;
(e)
details of any tender who did not proceed to the shortlist;
(f)
a comprehensive record of the evaluation method;
(g)
the relative ranking of the tenders;
(h)
a recommendation as to the preferred tender; and
(i)
the rationale used to select the preferred tender.
The evaluation report must also specify any key issues that must be addressed in any subsequent
contract negotiations and/or require ongoing scrutiny once the contract has commenced.
If a TEC is used, the Evaluation Report must be signed by all TEC members.
Indicate who will be responsible for documenting the Evaluation.]
3
POST-TENDER NEGOTIATIONS AND CONTRACT
3.2
Negotiations
A period of negotiation with the successful tenderer may arise following approval of the successful
tender, which may involve meetings and correspondence between the University and the
successful tenderer. It is the responsibility of the Project Manager to ensure that any negotiations
do not result in any material changes to the requirements of the RFT and that the outcomes of all
negotiations are reflected in the final contract documents.
All negotiations must be open and fair and meet the needs of the University and can be
accommodated within the tenderer’s resources.
3.3
Contracts
All draft contract documents must be prepared or reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel before
execution. The Project Manager must ensure that the Office of Legal Counsel receives adequate
and appropriate instructions and documents to enable preparation and review of documents.
3.4
Contract execution
All contract documents must be properly executed by the authorised delegate(s) of both parties,
and the contract must not commence unless and until this occurs.
4
DE-BRIEFING UNSUCCESSFUL TENDERERS
4.1
About the process
All unsuccessful tenderers will be offered the opportunity to be debriefed. The purpose of this is to
provide opportunities for more competitive tenders in the future by identifying and suggesting
improvements to unsuccessful tenderers. This process will be conducted by a member or
members of the TEC and may be carried out by telephone, letter or by interview.
Any debriefing is to be documented and retained with the other tender documentation.
4.2
Details to be included in RFT
Advice about debriefing arrangements must be included in the RFT, and must specify that
debriefing will be limited to the unsuccessful tenderers only. The advice should also state that no
comparisons will be made with the successful tender and the debriefing process is not a process
used to justify the selection of the successful tender.
5
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
5.1
Responsibility
Following execution, the contract will be managed by the Project Manager or [insert name(s) of
one or more contact officers for the contract (if appropriate)].
5.2
Requirements
It is the responsibility of the Project Manager specified above to ensure that:
(a)
a copy of the executed contract is filed in the University’s records management system
(known as TRIM);
(b)
if the total value of the contract is worth $150,000 or more, that the contract details (and, if
applicable, copies of the contract documents) are recorded in the Register of Contracts
maintained pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2010 (NSW);
(c)
if the contract documents create any security interests over University assets (such as
mortgages, guarantees, bills of sale, liens, etc), then such security interests are recorded on
the University’s Asset Management Register; and
(d)
any milestones or deadlines are notified to relevant University staff involved in any
transactions or functions on which those milestones or deadlines depend.
6
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS
6.1
Summary
The University expects all those involved in the tender (including tenderers) to adhere to the
following ethical principles:
(a)
the parties must conduct the tender process with honesty and fairness at all levels;
(b)
the parties must comply with all their legal obligations;
(c)
the parties must not engage in any behaviour or practice, such as offering improper
inducements, which may give one party an improper advantage over another;
(d)
all conditions of the tender must be the same for each potential tenderer;
(e)
there must be equality of opportunity for all potential tenderers;
(f)
all necessary requirements must be clearly specified in the RFT and other tender documents,
and criteria for evaluation must be clearly indicated;
(g)
evaluation of proposals must be based on the conditions of the tender, and selection criteria
as defined in the RFT;
(h)
parties must not disclose confidential information of others;
(i)
any party with an actual or potential conflict of interest must declare that interest as soon as
that party becomes aware of it;
(j)
all parties must ensure stages of the tender are conducted in an open and transparent
manner.
6.2
Conflict of interest declarations
All tenderers, contractors and consultants involved in this tender process will be asked to sign a No
Conflict of Interest Declaration (refer Schedule 1), unless already provided for in a separate
contract.
[Complete the Conflict of Interest Declaration and attach to the Procurement Plan]
6.3
Dealing with conflicts of interest
Anyone involved in the tender process must avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest (refer
to the University’s Conflict of Interest Policy), and must notify these to the other party as soon as
he or she becomes aware of any actual or potential conflict. If the conflict involves:
(k)
a tenderer, the Project Manager or a member of the TEC (who is not the chair), then that
person must disclose the conflict to the Chair of the TEC;
(l)
the Chair of the TEC, then the chair must disclose the conflict to the Probity Adviser.
The Chair of the TEC, with advice or after investigation by the Probity Advisor, or (as appropriate)
the Probity Adviser, will determine whether a conflict of interest exists and may determine an
appropriate action to manage this. If a conflict of interest is identified but classified as nonmaterial, this should be recorded and include details of any management action required to prevent
any later perception that the conflict was material and influenced any relevant decision.
Any suspected undisclosed conflicts of interest should be notified immediately to the Chair of the
TEC or Probity Adviser.
6.4
Gifts and other inducements or benefits
Any person involved in the tender process (including tenderers) must not seek, receive or offer any
gifts, hospitality, or other benefits or inducements. Any suspected breaches of this requirement
should be reported immediately to the Chair of the TEC or the Probity Adviser. The Probity
Adviser will then conduct an investigation and inform the Chair of the TEC of his or her findings
and recommend appropriate action. This may include, as appropriate, disqualification of a
tenderer, dismissal of a contractor or consultant, or a misconduct investigation against a member
of the University’s staff.
If the allegation is established but classified as non-material, this should be recorded and include
details of any management action required to prevent any later perception that the matter was
material and influenced any relevant decision.
6.5
Offers of employment
Any person involved in the tender process (including tenderers) must not solicit or offer
employment with a potential tenderer to a University officer, employee, contractor or consultant
involved in the tender process. Any suspected breaches of this requirement should be reported
immediately to the Chair of the TEC or the Probity Adviser. The Probity Adviser will then conduct
an investigation and inform the Chair of the TEC of his or her findings and recommend appropriate
action. This may include, as appropriate, disqualification of a tenderer, dismissal of a contractor or
consultant, or a misconduct investigation against a member of the University’s staff.
If the allegation is established but classified as non-material, this should be recorded and include
details of any management action required to prevent any later perception that the matter was
material and influenced any relevant decision.
Routine business meetings, conferences and social activities may continue as usual. However
caution should be exercised in discussions with potential proponents, and business matters that
could affect, or are connected to, the tender processes should not be discussed.
6.6
Unrelated business dealings or communications
Caution should be exercised where University officers, employees, consultants or contractors
encounter tenderers or prospective tenderers in unrelated circumstances, such as business
meetings, conferences and social gatherings. Under no circumstances should the tender (or the
tender process) be discussed.
Where a tenderer or prospective tenderer organises or sponsors a particular function, then the
University officer, employee, consultant or contractor must first seek the written permission of the
Chair of the TEC to attend. Under no circumstances should that person receive any payment
(including reimbursement of expenses) for attending that function from the tenderer or prospective
tenderer.
7
CONFIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIALLY-SENSITIVE INFORMATION
7.1
General
All University officers, employees, consultants and contractors involved in the tender process must
treat all commercially sensitive information as confidential, and must never use that information for
personal gain or in a manner that could prejudice a fair, open and transparent tender process.
Information relating to the market process should only be distributed to others within the University
on a strictly “need to know” basis, and should not be disclosed to any other party without express
permission for the purpose of properly evaluating tenders.
Any contractors or consultants engaged by the University to assist in the tender process must sign
a Confidentiality Agreement unless there are already adequate confidentiality provisions in the
consultancy agreement. If unsure, advice should be obtained from the Office of Legal Counsel.
If the tender process involves disclosure of any confidential or commercially sensitive information
belonging to the University, tenderers or prospective tenderers may first be required to execute a
Confidentiality Agreement. Again, advice should first be sought from the Office of University Legal
Counsel.
Any suspected breaches of confidentiality should be notified to the Chair of the TEC or Probity
Adviser.
7.2
Statutory limitations on confidentiality
The University is subject to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2010 (NSW), which
grants members of the public the right to access information of governments, government agencies
and various statutory bodies, including NSW universities.
Those involved in the tender process (including prospective tenderers) need to be aware of the
requirements under the GIPA Act for disclosure of certain contract details on the University’s
website where the total value of contracts is $150,000 or more. For more information, please see
the University’s Right to Information website.
8
COMMUNICATIONS
8.1
Dealing with media
In order to ensure fairness and transparency, the tender process must not be discussed with the
media. Any media request should be directed to the Chair of the TEC who will consult with the
University’s Office of Public Affairs.
8.2
Dealing with tenderers and prospective tenderers
Before the closing date for tenders, and during their evaluation, contact with tenderers and
prospective tenderers should be minimal and occur only through the Chair of the TEC. Tenders
and prospective tenderers may only communicate with the Chair of the TEC through the email
address specified in the RFT. All enquiries and requests for information must be made directly to
the Chair of the TEC.
After close of tenders, the Chair of the TEC may make written contact with tenderers for the
purpose of obtaining clarification of tenders, or to seek additional information. However, any such
contact must be in writing and must be done in a manner that does not prejudice the Ethical
Principles set out in this plan.
As a general guide, the following precautions should be taken:
(a)
All telephone conversations and meetings with tenderers or prospective tenderers should be
recorded in writing and a copy maintained on the University’s file. Copies of any agendas
and minutes should also be maintained on file;
(b)
any information or documents provided by the University to one tenderer or prospective
tenderer should be provided or made available to all others;
(c)
tenderers and prospective tenderers should be advised to specify whether any information or
documents they provide to the University are confidential or contain commercially-sensitive
information;
(d)
if a tenderer or prospective tenderer requests a meeting, they must specify in writing to the
Chair of the TEC the matters they wish to discuss with at least five business days’ notice in
advance;
(e)
only factual answers to specific and written questions should be provided to tenderers or
prospective tenderers. If that information is relevant to all tenderers or prospective
tenderers, then it should be provided to all others in order to avoid the perception of any
unfair advantage.
8.3
Interviews with shortlisted tenderers
Interviews with shortlisted tenderers should be approximately of the same duration and comprise
core questions and discussion points. Questions of clarification specific to a proposal are
expected. Interviews should be scheduled to avoid delays and minimise the risk of unplanned
meetings between competing tenderers.
All shortlisted tenderers should be given the same amount of notice of interviews, which should be
confirmed in writing and also include a list of those attending.
9
SECURITY OF TENDERS
9.1
General
It is the responsibility of the Chair of the TEC to establish and maintain procedures to ensure
security in the way that tenders are received, handled and maintained.
As a general guide:
(a)
all tenders are to be treated as commercial-in-confidence, and access will only be granted on
a strictly “need to know” basis;
(b)
all documents (whether in hard copy or electronic form) are to be stored in secure conditions
(including password protected conditions for electronic information) that only allows access
or removal by persons first authorised by the Chair of the TEC; and
(c)
no information or documents may be accessed or removed without first obtaining the written
approval of the Chair of the TEC.
10
RECORD-KEEPING
10.1
Generally
Complete and accurate records of the whole of the tender process must be established and
maintained in accordance with the University’s Records Management Policy to ensure compliance
with its obligations under the State Records Act 1998 and Government Information (Public Access)
Act 2010.
10.2
Tender process
The Chair of the TEC is responsible for establishing and maintaining records throughout the whole
of the tender process including:
(a)
all meetings and communications with tenderers and prospective tenderers;
(b)
all meetings and communications between members of the TEC;
(c)
all meetings and communications with members of the TEC and any consultants,
contractors, the Probity Adviser and any other advisers (such as the Office of Legal
Counsel);
(d)
all documents relating to the evaluation of tenders, including tender evaluation methodology;
(e)
all signed No Conflict of Interest declarations;
(f)
all signed Confidentiality Agreements.
10.3
Other
The Project Manager is responsible for all other aspects of record-keeping in relation to the tender,
including:
(a)
as specified in section 5 [contract management];
(b)
all documents and communications relating to the development and finalisation of the RFT
(including with any consultants, contractors, the Probity Adviser, and legal and other
advisers).
11
Sign Off
Prepared By:
Name: (in Block Letters) ………………………..................................................
Position: …………………………………………..................................................
Date: ……………
Location/Department: ………………………….................................................
Phone: …………..
Endorsed By (Financial Delegate):
Name: (in Block Letters) ………………………..................................................
Position: …………………………………………..................................................
Date: ……………
Location/Department: ………………………….................................................
Approved By:
Name: (in Block Letters) ………………………..................................................
Position: …………………………………………..................................................
Date: ……………
Approval is to be noted in the Tender Committee Minutes
SCHEDULE 1 – NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION
Name and number of
tender/project
Name of declarant
Organisation
Position held
A ‘conflict of interest’ refers to a conflict between official University duties and private interests and personal relationships, where
the private interests or personal relationships could improperly influence the way in which a person carries out their official duties.
This can include a ‘perceived conflict of interest’ where a reasonable person might perceive that such improper influence as
described in the previous sentence. ‘Personal relationships’ means relationships with individuals or people that extend outside of
the University or University duties, or a relationship where a reasonable person might perceive that there could be some bias, either
positive or negative, resulting from that relationship. These include relationships with: (i) immediate family, e.g. spouse or partner,
parents, children, step-children, etc; (ii) close relatives, e.g. aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, nieces etc; (iii) friends where the
friendship extends outside the workplace; (iv) sexual partners; (v) rivals, e.g. competitors or persons with whom one has a history of
serious conflict or enmity; and (vi) the relatives of any of those listed in (iii) to (v). ‘Private interests’ refers to any interests that
involve potential gain or loss (financial or non-financial) for an individual or for any other person or organisation that individual
may wish to benefit (e.g. family, friends, or associates) or disadvantage (e.g. competitors, rivals).
The above is given as an example of how the University perceives conflicts of interest and is not intended to be an exhaustive
definition. You will need to assess your circumstances and make such declarations as are appropriate in light of the above examples.
I represent and warrant that, as at the date of this declaration, I am not aware of any actual or
perceived conflict of interest, or potential conflict of interest, except as follows:
[Insert details of any conflicts of interest or if none, write “none”]
(a)
I acknowledge that I must not become involved in any agreements, schemes or
arrangements of any description (whether of a contractual nature of not) that may give rise to
an actual or perceived conflict of interest in relation to my involvement or that of my
organisation (listed above) in the tender or project listed above;
(b)
Notify the University promptly if I become aware of an actual or potential conflict of interest
and provide sufficient information about it to enable the University to review my continued
involvement (or that of my organisation) in the tender/project.
Signature of declarant
Date
SCHEDULE 2 - CODES OF PRACTICE OR CONDUCT
Publisher
Publication
Website access
Independent
Commission
Against Corruption
Probity and Probity Advising: Guidelines for
Management Public Sector Projects,
November, 2005
www.icac.nsw.gov.au
NSW Government
Tendering Guidelines, July 2010
www.nswprocurement.com.au
NSW Government
Code of Practice for Procurement, January
2005
www.nswprocurement.com.au
Australian
Government
National Public Private Partnership
Guidelines, December 2008
www.infrastructure.gov.au
Australian
Government
National Public Private Partnership Policy
Framework, December 2008
www.infrastructure.gov.au
Independent
Commission
Against Corruption
Practical Guide to Corruption Prevention,
1997
www.icac.nsw.gov.au
University of
Western Sydney
Procurement Procedures and Tender Board
Policy
www.uws.edu.au
University of
Western Sydney
Records Management Policy
www.uws.edu.au
University of
Western Sydney
Purchasing Procedures
www.uws.edu.au
NSW Premier
Premier’s Memorandum 2000-11:
Disclosure on Information on Government
Contracts with the Private Sector, 27 May
2005
www.dpc.nsw.gov.au