1.1. Identification of the partner

Risks

• Rushing into collaboration without doing the necessary assessment / due diligence.
• The partner is already defined by the donor but is not the most suitable for the project.
• Mismatch of values, especially with the private sector which is profit oriented.

Good practice

• Conduct assessment to identify all possible partners suitable for the collaboration. When appropriate, initiate open calls.
• Analyse the identified partners (for example simple pros and cons or more elaborate SWOT or similar analysis) to narrow down the list, before a more thorough partner’ procurement capacities are assessed.
• Document rationale for the decision based on the analysis.
• Negotiate with the donor, if possible, to select a more suitable partner compared to the one given by the donor. If the donor insists on the partner, get an acknowledgement that the donor has been informed of the risks and reflect on Helvetas’ responsibilities.

Risks

• No sufficient information about partner’s procurement rules, regulations, and practices, especially in the civil society organisations or private sector. There may be lack of experience and/or interest to share information.
• When a partner is a public institution (ministry, municipality, etc), application of the procurement rules and regulations of the partner are mandatory, which are difficult to be influenced by Helvetas. Very often these partners have too detailed and complex procedures, but limited capacities to fully implement them. The procedures change too often and/or there is a big staff turnover, whereby our assessment may soon become outdated.
• Written procedures may be good on paper, but partner is not able to put them into practice.

Good practice

• Define minimum standards that the partner needs to meet and the “no GOs”. Define inclusive and comprehensive criteria.
• Assess the partner’s procurement systems and procedures and their implementation in practice, which may include the following elements:
  • Values of the partner.
  • Quality of partner’s procurement procedures and capacity to implement them:
    • Criteria for appointment of Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) members and observers (for example qualifications, rotation, representation from different departments, code of conduct, etc).
    • Roles and responsibilities of TEC members.
    • Opening of offers.
    • Complaint mechanisms (for example appointment of members and observers, their qualifications, timelines and handling of complaints, etc).
  • Procedures for provisional and final acceptance of deliverables.
  • Quality control mechanisms (for example review and approval of technical specifications, deliverables, fraud and corruption, etc).
  • Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms (for example roles and responsibilities of parties involved, report templates, frequency, etc).
  • Payment and internal financial control procedures.
  • Audit (for example audit standards, terms of references, selection criteria, mechanisms for following up on audit recommendations, etc)
  • Documentation, filing and archiving systems.
• Pay attention to the quality, rather than quantity, of partner’s rules and procedures. Ideally more than one person is involved, and information is triangulated from several references. Assess partner in two aspects: 1. fulfilment of minimum standards, which allows the collaboration to start and for partner to conduct procurement activities, and 2. identification of the gaps and weaknesses to better monitor and to define modalities of support for the partner.
• Revisit the assessment if partner’s rules change or important staff members change. Note: assessment is not a single event but a continuous process.

Risks

• Proceeding with the partnership although the partner does not meet the minimum standards.

Good practice

• Explore an alternative partner that meets the minimum standards.
• Identify gaps and weaknesses and agree with the partner on a clear monitoring plan.
• Develop appropriate measures to reduce the risks arising of the weaknesses of the partner.
• Agreed with the partner on the modalities of support for the partner.