Collusive practices in subcontracting and conflicts-of-interest involving consultants during project design
Design and supervision functions are compromised when consultants and subcontractors collude or maintain undisclosed relationships that affect quality, cost and integrity.
Red Flags & Indicators
- Design and supervision packages are steered to affiliated firms, or competition is limited without a documented justification.
- Unclear segregation of duties: designers, consultants, reviewers, and approvers overlap, and sign‑offs occur without a documented review process.
- Deliverables show quality deficiencies (missing calculations, inconsistencies, copy‑paste sections) but are accepted without review.
- Conflict-of-interest checks are absent, incomplete, or not updated as subcontractors and consultants change throughout the design phase.
Stakeholder Guidance
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes pressure to use affiliated firms; weak review processes; increased rework and defect risk; cost escalation and higher liability risk; and reputational risk.
Decision Point
Before design approval, conduct conflict-of-interest checks on consultants and subcontractors, and ensure the selection process is documented.
Mitigation Actions
• Avoid dual roles and maintain separation of duties for review and sign-off across the supply chain
• Use competitive selection for design and supervision consultants and document the entire process, justifying exceptions, across the supply chain
• Retain evaluation records, approvals, and an auditable contract file, across the supply chain
• Update conflict-of-interest checks when subcontractors or key personnel change
• Adopt a lobbying policy that sets clear limits on gifts and hospitality and applies to agents and intermediaries
• Use internal compliance escalation processes and whistleblower channels, where available, to flag any requests for side payments, undisclosed commissions, or favouritism toward firms
Mitigation Resources
Apply anti-corruption and disclosure requirements to consultants, subcontractors, agents, and other third parties involved in design or supervision; require disclosure of beneficial ownership, subcontracting arrangements, and any changes in key personnel or subcontractors.
Supplier and subcontractor integrity controls — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/supplier-and-subcontractor-integrity-controls/Require conflict-of-interest declarations and documented conflict management for personnel involved in consultant selection, subcontracting, design review, and sign-off; exclude conflicted parties until conflicts are resolved and recorded.
Conflict-of-interest management and ethics controls — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/conflict-of-interest-management-and-ethics-controls/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes conflicted supervision; weakened quality assurance; a higher risk of defects and safety incidents; increased delays and claims; reduced project value; and ESG and reputational risk.
Decision Point
At the design delivery or milestone payment stage, require independent review of conflict-of-interest declarations and subcontract awards.
Mitigation Actions
• Apply enhanced due diligence for advisers and affiliated firms involved in high-value, high-impact projects
• Condition engagement on documented selection and award rationale for consultants and subcontractors, and on quality-assured deliverable
• Require independent technical review when conflicts or weak segregation of duties are identified
• Include covenants for ongoing conflict disclosure, audit and information rights, and remediation
• Retain suspension/exit rights if undisclosed affiliations, steering toward firms, or quality failures persist
Mitigation Resources
Conduct integrity due diligence on consultants, subcontractors, advisers, and affiliated firms involved in design or supervision; require disclosure of roles, fees, conflicts, and beneficial ownership where feasible, use issue tracking and enhanced review where red flags arise, and retain audit, remediation, and suspension or exit rights until issues are resolved.
Investor integrity due diligence and monitoring — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/investor-integrity-due-diligence-and-monitoring/Screen sponsors, advisers, consultants, subcontractors, and counterparties involved in consultant selection and subcontracting; verify beneficial ownership, related-party links, PEP exposure, and sanctions risks, and escalate concerns or withhold support where unresolved red flags remain.
Counterparty integrity screening and due diligence — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/counterparty-integrity-screening-and-due-diligence/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes undermined quality and competition; cost overruns and poor performance; higher risks of safety failures and legal liability; and loss of public trust.
Decision Point
Before approving design teams and subcontractors, verify that conflict-of-interest checks are in place and document the outcomes.
Mitigation Actions
• Require conflict-of-interest declarations, beneficial ownership disclosure where feasible, and recusals for conflicted reviewers
• Publish consultants’ contracts and key deliverables
• Separate design and supervision advisory roles from tender evaluation and approval roles
• Maintain an auditable consultant file (terms of reference, scoring, approvals, change orders)
• Update conflict-of-interest checks when teams and subcontractors change
• Request an independent review of design and supervision contracts and appointments when poor performance and cost overruns are not addressed
• Refer credible conflict and collusion concerns to independent oversight bodies for investigation, documenting outcomes and corrective actions
Mitigation Resources
Require and document conflict-of-interest declarations, recusals, and conflict reviews for officials and advisers involved in consultant selection, subcontracting decisions, design review, and approval; exclude conflicted individuals until conflicts are assessed, resolved, and recorded.
Conflict-of-interest management and ethics controls — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/conflict-of-interest-management-and-ethics-controls/Require consultants, subcontractors, and affiliated firms to disclose beneficial ownership where feasible, related-party links, and relevant commercial relationships during design appointments and subcontracting; screen these disclosures and escalate unresolved red flags through the competent authority.
Counterparty integrity screening and due diligence — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/counterparty-integrity-screening-and-due-diligence/Publish and maintain public access to consultant selection records, contracts, key design deliverables, change orders, and relevant conflict-management and ownership-disclosure records, with only lawful redactions.
Transparency and data disclosure standards — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/transparency-and-data-disclosure-standards/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes opaque consultant and subcontractor ties; reduced accountability around design quality; higher risk of safety and quality failures affecting communities; blurred responsibility; and increased risk of retaliation against communities when collusion is reported
Decision Point
At the time of pipeline publication or, where it is not available, during site mobilisation, submit access to information to request clarification on design and supervision scope of work and contracts. Decide whether to (a) escalate through oversight channels to report information gaps, or (b) monitor while safely gathering evidence on potential conflict/collusion.
Mitigation Actions
• Use access to information to request disclosure of time and cost overruns associated with design and supervision contracts
• Collect community evidence on potential conflicts in the appointment of consultants, such as revolving-door indicators and favouritism toward affiliated and connected firms
• Engage oversight bodies to raise concerns about opaque consultant appointments, non-competitive awards, material design scope changes and overruns in design and supervision contracts (use safe, confidential reporting and anonymisation where the risk of retaliation is significant)
• Advocate for disclosure of project information based on recognised infrastructure data standards such as the OC4IDS
Mitigation Resources
Request access to non-public decision records on consultant selection, subcontracting, conflict declarations, consultant deliverables, and material design changes, so opaque appointments, undeclared affiliations, unexplained design changes, or undisclosed payments can be examined and raised through oversight, complaint, or referral channels.
Access-to-information and demand-side transparency — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/access-to-information-and-demand-side-transparency/Review publicly disclosed consultant selection records, contracts, key design deliverables, change orders, and conflict declarations; identify opaque appointments, non-competitive awards, unexplained design changes, or gaps in disclosure, and raise concerns about non-disclosure with an oversight body.
Transparency and data disclosure standards — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/transparency-and-data-disclosure-standards/