Anti-Bribery for Sales · Module 2 of 2

Tender

A $2.8M bid. Five days from submission, your bid manager wants to send Wallabies tickets to the prospect's procurement lead.

Portrait of Cooper Banks, Senior Account Director at Meridian Australia
Your Role

Cooper Banks

Senior Account Director, Meridian Australia

Module 1 was Caleendar. You were on the receiving end. The renewal is signed. Now you're running point on a new bid. $2.8M of pressure-testing kit for the Westpine Group's east-coast programme. Submission Friday next week. You have not won this account before. Today, your own bid team wants to send hospitality the other way.

The bid. Three suppliers shortlisted by Westpine: Meridian, Brightline Industrial, and Nordic Precision AS. Submission deadline next Friday. Award decision the Monday after.

Meridian's giving-side rule. Any hospitality offered to a prospect during a live tender must be pre-cleared by Lila. The threshold is the same $250 you saw in Module 1, applied in the giving direction.

The cast. Mark Stelovich runs your bid. Lila Tran is still compliance. Sasha O'Brien is still CFO. Bree Galanti is Procurement Director at Westpine and the person scoring your bid. Toby Lassiter is the BD analyst Mark assigned to the bid, eight months in, attended your onboarding.

Before You Start

How This Works

A branching scenario. The choices you make shape whether the bid lands cleanly, whether it lands at all, and where you sit on the right side of NSW s.249B.

+3 The move that protects the bid AND keeps Meridian off the AFP's file.
+1 Defensible but partial. You'll see what got missed.
−2 Looks like sales hustle. Reads as a corrupt reward to a state DPP.

Tip: Highlighted text like NSW s.249B is clickable. Tap to read the underlying law in full.

Portrait of Mark Stelovich, Bid Manager
Monday, 5:55 PM · bid room, Meridian HQ
Narrator

Bid wash-up. Mark at the whiteboard. Pricing locked. Technical narrative still the only piece anyone is awake for.

Mark Stelovich

Cooper, one thought. Bree Galanti at Westpine. Never won her, never lost her. Brightline took her to Allianz Stadium in March, hosted box. I've got two tickets in my drawer for England v South Africa next Saturday.

Cooper Banks

Submission's Friday week. Award the Monday after.

Mark Stelovich

That's why I want to send them now. Get our face in front of her before the proposal lands. Brightline's going to do it again. If we don't match, our paper does all the lifting and Bree doesn't know us.

Two tickets, England v South Africa, Allianz Stadium, hosted box~AUD $480
Hospitality (food, drinks)~AUD $140
Estimated total per recipientAUD $620
Mark Stelovich

I'll log it the moment we send. Let me get this moving tonight.

Portrait of Cooper Banks
⚖ Decision Point 1 of 3

Mark's twenty-two years in. He's won deals you haven't. AUD $620 a head. Ten days from submission. You're the senior on the bid, so whatever goes out goes out under your name too. Mark hasn't asked Lila.

What do you say back to Mark?

Your choice

Stop the tickets. Propose a working lunch instead, through Lila.

Tell Mark the tickets don't go. AUD $620 a head, ten days from submission, to the buyer scoring the bid hits both NSW s.249B indicators. Counter-propose a working lunch, sub-AUD $100 a head, agenda shared in advance, pre-cleared by Lila this week.

Your choice

Tell Mark to hold. Take it to Lila first thing tomorrow.

Don't say yes, don't say no. Walk into Lila's office Tuesday with the offer on paper. Defensible. But you've punted rather than made the call, and Mark thinks it's still live.

Your choice

Send the tickets tonight. Log them in the register after the bid lands.

Mark knows this market. Brightline's going to send tickets. NSW s.249B doesn't prohibit reasonable hospitality. Send them, log them post-award, brief Lila after.

Portrait of Mark Stelovich
Monday, 6:08 PM · bid room +3
Cooper Banks

Mark, the tickets don't go. Not this side of the award. AUD $620 ten days from submission is the textbook s.1 problem. I'm telling you now because the answer is no.

Mark Stelovich

Brightline will. We lose this on whose face she remembers.

Cooper Banks

Then we get face-time differently. Working lunch, sub-AUD $100 a head, agenda shared, three engineers walking her through the test rig. Lila pre-clears by tomorrow lunchtime.

Cooper Banks

She wants the technical case, not a hosted box. Brightline sending tickets isn't a strategy. It's a habit.

Narrator

Mark doesn't agree. Doesn't push. Tickets stay in the drawer. You email Lila at 7:14 PM. Pre-clear lands at 11:02 the next morning.

Why This Held Up

The NSW s.249B test asks whether the advantage was given intending to induce improper performance. Stopping the tickets before they leave removes the offer entirely. The AFP / NSW DPP hospitality guidance names value and timing as the two flags. The sub-AUD $100 working lunch with shared agenda is legitimate technical engagement. ISO 37001 Cl.4 is satisfied, and the pre-clear lands in writing before the spend.

Portrait of Lila Tran
Tuesday, 8:35 AM · Lila's office +1
Cooper Banks

Mark wants to send these to Bree Galanti. AUD $620 a head. Submission Friday week. I told him to hold.

Lila Tran

Refused. Twice the threshold, into the buyer's diary, ten days from a AUD $2.8M award. There's no version of this that pre-clears.

Lila Tran

But Cooper, you knew the answer last night. Mark's spent fifteen hours assuming this might still go.

The Gap That Cost You The Top Mark

Holding overnight and getting Lila to refuse is defensible. But under ISO 37001 Cl.7, the salesperson closest to the deal is the one the procedure expects to recognise the s.1 indicators on the spot. Punting to Lila signals to Mark that this was a procedural question rather than an obvious no, which makes the next ask harder to refuse. The AFP / NSW DPP hospitality guidance is the same: value plus timing equals inducement risk.

Portrait of Mark Stelovich
Monday, 7:42 PM −2
Cooper Banks

Send them. Courier, gift card, "looking forward to the proposal next week". Log it tomorrow, brief Lila after the bid lands.

Narrator

Tickets go out Tuesday morning. Bree's PA photographs the gift card at 11:08 and forwards it: "Submission Friday week. Tickets received today. Logging on the buyer-side register, flagging to internal audit. Recommend declining."

The "Everyone Does It" Trap, Mirrored

NSW s.249B makes it an offence to give a financial or other advantage intending to induce improper performance. The AFP / NSW DPP hospitality guidance names value and timing as the strongest indicators, and AUD $620 ten days before a AUD $2.8M award hits both. Logging after sending documents the offence rather than preventing it. Meridian's ISO 37001 defence is now harder to run.

Wednesday, 2:18 PM · bid room
Narrator

Toby Lassiter catches you by the bid-room kettle. Eight months at Meridian. He sat through the same anti-bribery onboarding you sat through twelve years ago.

Toby Lassiter

Cooper, can I check something. Mark asked me yesterday to quietly find out Bree Galanti's home address. He didn't say why. I haven't done it. I'm assuming the rugby thing is still alive in his head, even after Monday.

Toby Lassiter

Also. I asked Lila for a quick read on what we can and can't do, and she said the only person on this bid who's pre-cleared anything is you. Mark hasn't filed a single hospitality entry in eighteen months. I don't know if that's normal.

Narrator

It's not normal. It means whatever Mark sent on previous bids, he sent without ledger trail. Before you take that anywhere, you owe yourself one careful look at this bid file.

Wednesday, 2:40 PM · your laptop

Westpine bid file, one page.

Bid tracker and giving-side register, side by side.

DetailValue
ProspectWestpine Group · UK water & energy infrastructure
Bid valueAUD $2.8M · pressure-testing, North Sea
Buyer scoring the bidBree Galanti, Procurement Director
SubmissionFriday next week
Award decisionMonday after
Hospitality from Meridian (this bid)None recorded
Mark's giving-side register, 18 monthsZero entries
Mark's proposed offer (Monday)2 tickets · ~AUD $620 to Bree
Today's request to TobyBree's home address, no reason
Pre-clear threshold (tender)AUD $250

Either the gap is hygiene and rugby's a first. Or Mark sends gifts off-register, rugby's a pattern, and the home-address request changes what kind of pattern.

Lila has just emailed: "Free at 4? Want to walk through what I have on Mark's giving history."

Activity · Score Mark's Gift Against The Indicators

Three AFP / NSW DPP indicators sit across the top. Five facts about Mark's offer sit down the side. Click the indicator column under which the offer fails most clearly. One column is the load-bearing one a prosecutor would lead with.

Fact about the offer Timing & proximity to decision Value Recipient role
10 calendar days from submission High — —
Award decision the Monday after High — —
~AUD $620 per recipient (2.5x policy threshold) — Mid —
Recipient is the buyer scoring the bid — — High
No prior relationship between Mark and Bree Mid — Mid
Portrait of Sasha O'Brien, CFO
⚖ Decision Point 2 of 3

Sasha walks in before the 4pm slot with Lila. "Cooper, Mark told me you killed the rugby thing. Westpine's AUD $2.8M we don't currently win, and you've ruled out the move our competitor will definitely make. I'm asking what we do instead, and whether 'a working lunch with engineers' closes a procurement director who's never met us."

How do you respond?

Your choice

Hold the line on hospitality. Compete on the bid.

Working lunch is the bridge. Proposal is the close. Tighter technical narrative plus a half-day site visit at the test rig post-submission, on the books, agenda shared. Lila writes a short file note confirming the rugby idea was raised, considered, refused.

Your choice

Restage as a sponsored industry roundtable.

Sponsor a North Sea pressure-testing roundtable next month. Ten attendees, all three shortlisted suppliers' clients invited, agenda set with an industry body. Pre-clear with Lila, sub-AUD $200 a head, no individual gift to Bree. The line between "industry event" and "marketing aimed at the buyer" thins under scrutiny.

Your choice

Find a smaller gesture that stays under the threshold.

Drop the rugby. Send Bree a AUD $200 conference ticket, an industry book, a hand-written note. Under the AUD $250 threshold. Log it on the way out. Reads to Bree the way the AUD $620 ticket reads, just smaller.

Portrait of Sasha O'Brien, CFO
Wednesday, 4:05 PM · Sasha's office +3
Cooper Banks

No tickets, no roundtable, no gift card. The proposal closes the bid. Tighter technical narrative plus a post-submission site visit, on the books. Lila files the note today: raised, considered, refused.

Sasha O'Brien

If we lose this and Brightline took her to the rugby, you know what I'll hear in the post-mortem.

Cooper Banks

If we lose because Bree scored a hosted box over a AUD $2.8M technical proposal, that's a procurement we never held. Cost of finding out is ten days. Cost of not is on a register the AFP / NSW DPP can subpoena.

Sasha O'Brien

Lila, file the note. Cooper, technical narrative draft tonight.

Why This Held Up

Holding the line under commercial pressure is the load-bearing test of ISO 37001 Cl.7: staff believe procedures are real only when senior people apply them in front of senior money. Lila's note is the documented decision ISO 37001 expects. The site visit is on-the-books engagement the AFP / NSW DPP guidance contemplates: tied to the technical case, agenda shared.

Portrait of Lila Tran
Thursday, 10:15 AM · Lila's office +1
Cooper Banks

Sponsored North Sea pressure-testing roundtable, four weeks out. All three shortlisted suppliers' clients invited, agenda set with the BPMA, sub-AUD $200 a head.

Lila Tran

I can pre-clear it. Two conditions. Agenda visible to all three bidders before bid close. Invite list not tilted toward Westpine.

Lila Tran

One more thing. If the AFP / NSW DPP read the invite list and see it went out the week before submission, they'll ask if the event existed before the bid did. BPMA's emails predate the bid window.

Where The Compromise Holds, And Where It Doesn't

ISO 37001 Cl.4 wants procedures proportionate to the risk. A genuine industry event, external organiser, agenda visible to all bidders, no asymmetric advantage, sits inside the lane the AFP / NSW DPP guidance contemplates. An event invented inside the bid window, paid for by Meridian, reads as marketing dressed as networking. The pre-clear note has to capture why Lila was satisfied it was the first kind.

Wednesday, 4:30 PM −1
Cooper Banks

Drop the rugby. Single AUD $200 conference ticket, industry book, hand-written note from Mark. Under the threshold. Log it on the way out.

Sasha O'Brien

Sensible. Proportionate.

Narrator

The package goes out Thursday. Bree's PA logs the conference ticket and the book in Westpine's incoming-hospitality register the same morning. Bree doesn't decline, doesn't accept, doesn't acknowledge. The bid lands the following Friday. Whoever scores it has now seen Meridian's name on the buyer-side register the week before they read the proposal.

Below The Threshold Is Not Below The Test

Pre-approval thresholds are a procedural backstop, not the legal test. The NSW s.249B test asks whether the advantage was given intending to induce improper performance, and the AFP / NSW DPP hospitality guidance reads value alongside timing and recipient role. A AUD $200 conference ticket aimed personally at the buyer, sent by the bidder during the bid window, hits the timing axis whether or not it clears the AUD $250 hurdle. ISO 37001 Cl.4 expects judgement, not threshold-shopping.

Friday, 9:55 AM · bid room, two days before submission
Narrator

Toby knocks before stepping in. He has a single sheet of A4 with him.

Toby Lassiter

Cooper, before the bid goes Friday. I went back through Mark's expense reports for the Westpine pre-bid period. Two dinners with Bree's procurement analyst at restaurants Mark didn't pre-clear. Both under AUD $250. Both inside the bid window. Neither on the giving-side register.

Toby Lassiter

I'm not raising this to get Mark in trouble. I'm raising it because the proposal goes out Friday and I'm putting my name on the cover page as the BD lead under your sign-off. I want to know we're not going to have a problem the day after the award.

Narrator

Toby is doing the M1 Mark-Harding move on you, the right way round. The bid is two days from going out. The procedural question is what happens before submission so the bid stands up to retrospective review.

Activity · Pre-submission ethics checklist

Six statements about the Westpine bid as it stands today. Check the ones you believe are true or defensible. Leave the rest blank. Wrong ticks and wrong blanks both lose points.

Checked = you think the statement is true / defensible. Unchecked = you think it's false / overreach.

Portrait of Lila Tran, Compliance Manager
⚖ Decision Point 3 of 3

Bid goes out Friday. Westpine near-miss is on the file. Mark's eighteen-month register gap is a separate question Sasha wants on her desk Monday. She's asked for a joint BD/Compliance recommendation, not a Compliance edict. What does it say about giving-side hospitality?

What do you put in place?

Your choice

A BD-side pre-clear flow, retrospective audit of Mark's prior bids, and quarterly board reporting on giving-side hospitality.

Mirror M1's receiving-side rules: 90-second pre-clear form above AUD $250, 24-hour Lila SLA, auto-block during a tender. Quiet retrospective audit of Mark's last 24 months for s.249B / ISO 37001 exposure. Quarterly board reporting.

Your choice

Drop the giving-side threshold during tenders and send a company-wide reminder.

Lower the threshold from AUD $250 to AUD $100 during active tenders. Policy reminder to BD staff, raised at the next sales kick-off. Proportionate. No new system, no audit. Rules clearer for the next bid.

Your choice

File the incident note. The policy already covers it.

Procedure exists. Lila has the note. Rugby tickets never went. Bid went out clean. An incident note for next year's audit is enough. More risks a witch hunt of a senior bid manager.

Portrait of Sasha O'Brien, CFO
Following Monday, 9:00 AM · Sasha's office +3
Sasha O'Brien

Walk me through it.

Cooper Banks

Three pieces. BD-side pre-clear: 90-second form, anything over AUD $250 to a prospect, 24-hour Lila SLA, auto-block during a live tender. Retrospective audit on Mark's last 24 months. Quarterly aggregate reporting to the board.

Sasha O'Brien

The audit's the part the board will fight. If it finds something, every bid manager thinks they're next.

Cooper Banks

If it finds something, the AFP / NSW DPP find it faster and costlier. ISO 37001 asks whether we had adequate procedures. An audit is what they look like in motion.

The Three Pillars On The Giving Side

Cl.4 (Proportionate): a 90-second form, hard blocks during tender windows. Cl.8 (Due Diligence): retrospective audit of prior BD activity, not just suppliers. Cl.9 (Monitoring): quarterly board reporting is what the AFP / NSW DPP expects in practice.

Friday, 2:00 PM +1
Cooper Banks

Giving-side threshold drops to AUD $100 during active tenders. Reminder out Monday. Lila and I cover it at the next sales kick-off.

Sasha O'Brien

Sensible. Not heavy-handed.

Narrator

The email goes out Monday. Open rate is 68%. By Friday it's been forgotten. Six months later a different bid lead at Meridian sends two AUD $90 dinners to the same procurement analyst on a different account. Each event is below threshold. The pattern is the one Toby flagged about Mark, with a different name on the file.

Communication Is Not A System

ISO 37001 Cl.7 separates communication (telling people the policy exists) from training and procedural enforcement (making sure they apply it under pressure). An email and a kick-off slide are the first. A pre-clear form with hard blocks and a retrospective audit are the second. Without the audit, prior bids stay in the file unexamined, and the ISO 37001 defence on those contracts depends on procedures the company has now noticed weren't being followed.

Eighteen months later −2
Cooper Banks

File note's drafted. Procedure's there. Lila has the trail. We don't need to make it heavier than it needed.

Sasha O'Brien

Fair. These things happen.

Narrator

Mark's register gap is never audited. Two years on, Brightline loses a bid in the same sector and gets its lawyers to look at how Meridian wins. They find five contracts where Mark led BD and the giving-side register is empty across the bid window. They write to the AFP / NSW DPP, whose first request is the giving-side register for those tenders.

Individual Note Versus Systemic Fix

ISO 37001 places the duty on the company. The defence asks whether procedures were adequate across every bid Meridian ran. A single file note is no monitoring, no training, no improvement. Cl.9 requires review in light of experience. Meridian had the experience. Nothing was reviewed.

Six months on

Where the Westpine bid sits

The bid went out without rugby tickets. Whether Meridian won or lost the account matters less than what now sits on the file about how Meridian sells. What happens between Cooper, Mark and the next prospect depends on what Cooper put in place.

Module complete. Take the knowledge check when you're ready. Take the Module Quiz →
Your Result
/ 17

Your Decisions

What to take into the next bid

1. A line for the bid room: "AUD $620 a head, ten days out, hits both s.1 indicators. Bridge through a working lunch, agenda Lila has signed."
2. Below the threshold is not below the test. Pre-clear values plus timing plus recipient role, not value alone.
3. A register gap on a senior bid manager is a flag, not hygiene. Retrospective audit is what adequate procedures look like once the gap is noticed.
4. "Brightline will" is not a defence. The bar is what your company can stand behind in a regulator's office.

Key Legal References

NSW s.249B

Bribing another person

AFP / NSW DPP Guidance

Hospitality approach

ISO 37001

Failure to prevent

Corporations Act 2001 Pt 9.4AAA

Whistleblower protection

ISO 37001 Cl.8

Due diligence

ISO 37001 Cl.9

Monitoring & review

Take a copy for your records

Download a personal-record certificate. Your LMS may also issue an organisation-branded one when it picks up your completion.

Ready to complete this module?

Take the 5-question knowledge check to record your completion.

Take the Module Quiz →
Course Complete · Module 2 of 2

That's the course.

Two angles on the same regulation. M1 was hospitality coming at you. M2 was hospitality going out. Same s.1 test: value, timing, recipient role.