Here's a development test question (hypothetical):
Step 1 - An RFP is issued by a major donor organization for roll-out of an existing project.
Step 2 - Bidder A has been on the ground for over one year, working with a large local field team to implement a pilot designed to bring more people in a very poor country into the economy.
Step 3 - Bidder B has never been in the country before and has no experienced local staff.
Step 4 - Bidder B sends a senior executive to the bidder's conference.
Step 5 - Bidder B's senior executive has a private lunch with the director of the beneficiary entity of the project results just prior to the bidder's conference. It so happens that the director of the beneficiary had worked for Bidder B in the past and that said director's contract expires at the end of the roll-out period.
Step 6 - The beneficiary has shown active hostility toward Bidder A.
Step 7 - Bidder A is made aware of the private meeting.
Step 8 - The supervising project implementation unit is made aware of the private luncheon.
Step 9 - Bidder A submits its proposal according to the parameters of the RFP.
Step 10 - Bidder B submits its proposal outside of the parameters of the RFP resulting in a considerable cost reduction.
Step 11 - Bidder B is awarded the contract.
Question: What position would you take in determining if the award was tainted.
Supplementary Question: Find the word derived from Middle English (1250 - 1300) that best describes the result. (Hint - it is the past participle of corrumpare - latin)
Prize: A cookie