3.1. Checking the results

Risks

• Helvetas taking over the responsibility from the partner in approving the activity. This conflicts the approach of Helvetas aiming to empower the partner.
• Helvetas does not have access to sufficient information to assess the activity conducted by the partner.
• Assessment is focussed on details while losing the big picture (for example not checking whether the activity was in line with the objectives, if the results make sense, etc).
• There is favouritisms or at least perceived favouritisms (for example the same company is often selected by the partner). This could imply reputational risks, especially if the partner procures on behalf of Helvetas.
• Helvetas staff influenced, or at least perceived as being influenced, by a kickback in the process of assessing partner’s activity.

Good practice

• When approval by Helvetas is required, it should be limited to the adequacy of the process rather than the results of the process.
• Get all the possible information to assess if the partner conducted the activity as per the agreed rules. Go a step further in the review process by checking the compliance of the activities and results with the agreed objectives, but also the values of Helvetas. If necessary, conduct field visits.
• Check other awarded contracts by the partner to see if the selected supplier is the favoured company of the partner. Responsibility for selection of supplier should be with the partner.
• Monitor the complaints process (especially about selection of supplier) and the quality of deliverables.
• Engage an independent party in the process (for example independent expert, peers, staff from the finance team or a superior) to assess the activity and ensure higher objectivity.
• Discuss consequences if the partner did not comply with the obligations (for example penalties).

Risks

• Helvetas does not have access to the necessary documentation of the partner. This may especially be the case when the partner must follow the rules of the government. Alternatively, Helvetas is involved in the process but is not able to act.
• Documentation may look correct, but the results are not in line with the expected objectives or Helvetas values.
• Learning that the initial partner assessment did not reveal all the challenges that the partner has in implementing the agreement.

Good practice

• Check that the partner kept the required documentation.
• Engage an independent party in the process (for example independent expert, peers, staff from the finance team or a superior) to conduct the review. If necessary, conduct field visits to ensure that the results are real and not only on paper.
• Crosscheck the initial assessment with the actual situation and adapt control efforts accordingly. This will provide information for future cooperation with the partner.