26 February 2026
9(2)(a)
Senior Procurement Specialist
Te Poutāhū (Curriculum Centre)
Ministry of Education
WELLINGTON
Dear 9(2)(a)
PROBITY AUDIT REPORT ON THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCESS FOR THE
STANDARDISED TOOL FOR ASSESSMENT AND AROMATAWAI CONTRACT
i. Introduction
We refer to the agreed Consultancy Services Order (“CSO”), dated 10 February 2025, for McHale Group
to provide real-time (“live”) probity assurance services to the Ministry of Education (“MOE”) over the
open competitive Request for Proposal (“RFP”) process for the Standardised Tool for Assessment and
Aromatawai Contract.
We now provide you with our probity audit report covering the completed RFP process up to the point
where a recommendation on the preferred respondent was made to the MOE appropriate delegated
authority/ies as per the Evaluation Recommendation Report (dated 11 June 2025).
MOE issued to the market via the Government Electronic Tender Service (“GETS”) on 7 March 2025 the
RFP document. The closing date and time for receipt of proposals was Tuesday, 8 April 2025 at 5pm. Our
probity assurance work commenced in February 2025.
ii. Probity audit objectives
Our probity assurance services were conducted with SAE 3100 (Revised) issued by the NZ Auditing and
under the Official Information Act 1982
Assurance Standards Board, to enable us to report to you whether:
The RFP process and related documentation as designed, were consistent with; the MOE’s
procurement policies the procurement policies, the New Zealand Government Procurement Rules
(“GPR”), related procurement principles and charter, Audit Office procurement guidelines, and with
good public sector practice, and incorporated the necessary probity principles (such as
consistency, impartiality, managing conflicts of interest, fairness, transparency, accountability, and
good ethical behaviour);
Released
The RFP process and related documentation were planned and implemented consistently with
those principles and with integrity, in such a way that minimised the risk of probity failure due to
potential weaknesses in the process, and that no parties were treated unfairly;
1
© McHale Group Ltd 2026
Ethical behaviour was practised throughout the procurement process and was guided by the
principles of honesty, integrity, fairness, trust, respect, and these were evidenced; and
Given the sensitive and competitive nature of the RFP process, potential probity risks (including
possible complex conflict of interest management, supplier interactive meetings, and
communication protocols) were identified in real-time, planned for, and mitigating action (where
appropriate) was initiated, in partnership with MOE.
iii. Activities conducted
We conducted the following real-time probity audit activities:
Undertook an initial probity risk assessment and supplied probity advice/guidance (where required)
to MOE.
Developed and issued on 13 March 2025 our Probity Expectations Statement to MOE describing the
minimum expectations from a probity perspective that as the Probity Auditor, we would expect to
see in place over the RFP process up to the point where the MOE report on the outcome of the RFP
process was made to the appropriate MOE delegated authority/ies.
Developed and issued on 8 April 2025 our Probity Documentation and Information Request Check-
sheet detailing the minimum key documents and RFP process-related information we required MOE
to supply to us.
Reviewed and supplied probity advice in respect of: the Procurement Plan, RFP document (including
Response Forms), RFP Approach slides, conflict of interest declarations and associated
management plans (where these were required), documentation relating to procurement process
information security management, all communications with respondents (that was supplied to us
for review) including GETS clarification question and answers and addendums issued during the
open phase of the RFP process, documentation relating to the receipt and opening of proposal
submissions, Procurement Fairness Statement for the Dialogue Sessions (interactive meeting
probity protocols/expectations) Evaluation Scoring Sheets, Evaluation Recommendation Report
(dated 11 June 2025) and Approval of Preferred Respondent Memo for contract negotiations (dated
13 June 2025).
We also supplied real-time probity review comments/advice/guidance, both verbal and written to
MOE representatives (involved in the management of the RFP process) where required, for the
under the Official Information Act 1982
duration of the RFP process.
Attended the following meetings in a probity observation and advisory capacity (on a sample basis,
based on our probity risk assessment):
- Evaluation Panel moderation meeting held on 14, 15, and 16 April 2025.
- Shortlisted Respondents’ Dialogue Sessions held on 14, 15, and 19 May 2025.
Held regular discussions with/briefings from/to key personnel involved in the management of the
Released
RFP process and supplied probity advice and guidance (where required) during the RFP process.
2
© McHale Group Ltd 2026
iv. Probity Opinion
We were satisfied as to the probity of the RFP process for the Standardised Tool for Assessment and
Aromatawai Contract up to the point where a recommendation on the outcome of the RFP process was
made to the appropriate MOE delegated authority/ies as per the Evaluation Recommendation Report
(dated 11 June 2025) and Approval of Preferred Respondent Memo for contract negotiations (dated 13
June 2025). In our opinion, the RFP was carried out in accordance with:
The RFP document and related GETS Question and Answer notices;
The RFP evaluation methodology;
The New Zealand Government Procurement Rules (4th Edition) and related principles;
Our expectations of good public sector probity practice; and
Due regard for probity principles.
In our opinion
The RFP process and related documentation as designed, were consistent with; the MOE’s
procurement policies the procurement policies, the New Zealand Government Procurement Rules
(“GPR”), related procurement principles and charter, Audit Office procurement guidelines, and with
good public sector practice, and incorporated the necessary probity principles (such as
consistency, impartiality, managing conflicts of interest, fairness, transparency, accountability, and
good ethical behaviour);
The RFP process and related documentation were planned and implemented consistently with
those principles and with integrity, in such a way that minimised the risk of probity failure due to
potential weaknesses in the process, and that no parties were treated unfairly;
Ethical behaviour was practised throughout the procurement process and was guided by the
principles of honesty, integrity, fairness, trust, respect, and these were evidenced; and
Given the sensitive and competitive nature of the RFP process, potential probity risks (including
possible complex conflict of interest management, supplier interactive meetings, and
communication protocols) were identified in real-time, planned for, and mitigating action (where
appropriate) was initiated, in partnership with MOE.
under the Official Information Act 1982
In determining our expectations of good practice probity principles in competitive procurement, we
have taken into account the relevant public sector probity guidance promulgated by the Office of the
Auditor-General (“OAG”) and the Public Service Commission in respect of procurement, sensitive
expenditure, and the management of conflicts of interest together with any relevant reports previously
issued by external agencies, the New Zealand Government Procurement Rules and the five procurement
principles, and the probity guidance issued by the Independent Commission Against Corruption
(“ICAC”) in New South Wales and the Australian National Audit Office, and other appropriate overseas
Released
jurisdictions, together with our significant experience of conducting probity audits of major public
sector procurement processes.
3
© McHale Group Ltd 2026
At the time of writing this probity report, we are not aware of any other outstanding probity issues.
Basis for Opinion
We conducted our engagement in accordance with Standard on Assurance Engagements (SAE) 3100
(Revised) Compliance Engagements issued by the New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards
Board. We believe that the evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for
our opinion.
MOE's Responsibilities
MOE is responsible for compliance with the good practice probity principles in respect of the RFP
process.
Our Independence and Quality Control
We have complied with the relevant ethical requirements relating to assurance engagements, which
include independence and other requirements founded on fundamental principles of integrity,
objectivity, professional competence and due care, confidentiality, and professional behaviour.
In accordance with the Professional and Ethical Standard 3 (Amended), McHale Group maintains a
comprehensive system of quality control including documented policies and procedures regarding
compliance with ethical requirements, professional standards, and applicable legal and regulatory
requirements.
Our Responsibilities
McHale Group’s responsibility is to express an opinion on MOE’s compliance, in all material respects,
with good practice probity principles in respect of the RFP process.
SAE 3100 (Revised) requires that we plan and perform our procedures to obtain reasonable assurance
about whether MOE has complied, in all material respects, with good practice probity principles in
respect of the RFP process throughout the procurement process.
An assurance engagement to report on MOE’s compliance with good practice probity principles in
respect of the RFP process involves performing procedures to obtain evidence about the compliance
activity and controls implemented to meet the good practice probity principles in respect of the RFP
process. The procedures selected depend on our judgement, including the identification and
under the Official Information Act 1982
assessment of risks of material non-compliance as evaluated against the good practice probity principles
in respect of the RFP process.
Other than in our capacity as independent assurance practitioners we have no relationship with, or
interests in, MOE.
Inherent Limitations
Because of the inhe
Released rent limitations of evidence gathering procedures and limitations in compliance
systems, it is possible that fraud, error or non-compliance may occur and not be detected. As the
procedures performed for this engagement are not performed continuously throughout the
engagement and the procedures performed in respect of MOE’s compliance with good practice probity
4
© McHale Group Ltd 2026
principles are undertaken on a test basis, our reasonable assurance engagement cannot be relied on to
detect all instances where MOE may not have complied with good practice probity principles.
Use of Report
This report has been prepared for the management of MOE. We disclaim any assumption of
responsibility for any reliance on this report to any persons or users other than the management of
MOE, or for any purpose other than that for which it was prepared.
Way forward
The issuance of this report completes our real-time probity audit for MOE over the completed RFP
process for the Standardised Tool for Assessment and Aromatawai Contract up to the point where a
recommendation on the outcome of the RFP process was made to the appropriate MOE delegated
authority/ies as per the Evaluation Recommendation Report (dated 11 June 2025) and Approval of
Preferred Respondent Memo for contract negotiations (dated 13 June 2025).
If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact your Client Relationship Manager for this
engagement, 9(2)(a)
or myself on 9(2)(a)
Yours sincerely
9(2)(a)
Shaun McHale
Managing Director
McHale Group Limited
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released
5
© McHale Group Ltd 2026
