The Tender With a Familiar Name

Purchasing officer Nela was reviewing bids for a digital visitor system when she recognised the director of one company. They had studied together and still exchanged birthday messages. His bid was technically strong and cheaper than the others. She had no financial connection with him, but she knew that choosing his company could look suspicious.

The deadline was close, and her manager suggested that a casual friendship did not matter. Nela agreed that knowing someone was not automatically evidence of unfairness. Still, she had already discussed the project at a public networking event where her former classmate had been present. She could not remember whether she had mentioned details that were absent from the written tender.

She documented the relationship and the conversation as accurately as possible. Another officer took over scoring that bid, while Nela answered general technical questions for all applicants through the same channel. Her former classmate phoned to complain that she was treating him like a stranger. She explained that distance was the only way she could avoid helping or harming him unfairly.

His company lost because its maintenance plan was weaker, despite its lower price. Nela felt an unreasonable urge to apologise, then resisted it. Several weeks later, he sent her a birthday message containing only a cake emoji. She replied with thanks and nothing about the contract. Their friendship might recover, or it might become a yearly exchange of pictures. What she could preserve immediately was a record showing that neither warmth nor awkwardness had decided the purchase.