Ghost operations (fictitious maintenance, parts, or labour)
Maintenance work, parts, or staffing are falsely reported (e.g., ghost workers, phantom services, fictitious parts), enabled by weak asset records and verification controls.
Red Flags & Indicators
- Work orders are closed without verifiable site evidence (photos, GPS, time stamps, sign-offs), with repeated copy-paste narratives or identical timestamps across jobs.
- Parts are billed or issued without serial numbers, asset references, and traceable usage records.
- Absence of an updated inventory of infrastructure assets or inventory records show inconsistencies, and unexplained stock reductions and variances.
- Absence of standards and clear guidelines for infrastructure asset maintenance.
- Headcount or overtime spikes do not match workload, including duplicate and invalid identities or “temporary” staff who never appear on site.
- Duties are not separated: one person initiates, approves, and certifies O&M work, with limited independent spot checks or re-performance checks.
- Asset condition worsens despite “completed” maintenance, with recurring breakdowns in the same locations or shortly after servicing.
Stakeholder Guidance
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes payments for non-existent work, staff or parts; inventory losses and unexplained variances; high risk of fraud allegations, audits and potential debarment; increased performance penalties and outages from neglected assets; and reputational risk.
Decision Point
Before closing work orders and certifingy labour and parts, identify whether only with verifiable on-site evidence; keep items open and trigger re-inspection
Mitigation Actions
• Reconcile parts issuance and inventory to work orders (serial numbers and asset records, stock counts, variance logs)
• Document shrinkage and repeat variances before certifying costs
• Segregate duties for requesting, verifying, and approving work and invoices
• Apply surprise audit and risk-based independent spot checks for high-value or repeat-failure assets, retaining an auditable evidence pack
• Use internal compliance escalation processes and whistleblower channels, where available, to report any pressure to close work orders or certify non-existent works
• Stop invoicing and request re-inspection when evidence cannot be produced
Mitigation Resources
Control maintenance work orders, parts records, labour records, and completion evidence through formal evidence requirements, asset-linked records, independent review, and verification before invoicing or internal sign-off.
Change control, delivery verification, and payment integrity — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/change-control-delivery-verification-and-payment-integrity/Assess fraud risks and apply prevention, detection, investigation, and corrective action controls to maintenance work orders, parts records, labour records, inventory reconciliation, and completion evidence, including ghost workers, phantom services, fictitious parts, or unexplained variances.
Fraud control management — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/fraud-control-management/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes uncontrolled maintenance funds; higher risk of asset deterioration and outage; fraud and ESG risk; higher remedial capex and service disruption; decrease in project value; and reputational harm.
Decision Point
Before acceptin O&M outputs and release payments, verify with independent asset/site verification, or suspend payment and require audit sampling when discrepancies appear
Mitigation Actions
• Require surprise audit and risk-based spot checks by an independent engineer or monitor body
• Treat repeated discrepancies (copy-paste work orders, identical timestamps, unexplained inventory shrinkage, headcount and overtime spikes, recurring failures) as a suspension trigger
• Require disclosure of staffing records and key parts procurement and inventory records for high-risk assets and subcontractors
• Include audit/verification rights over O&M outputs
• Commission independent operational review when discrepancies remain, pausing payments pending review and corrective action
Mitigation Resources
Require, through financing conditions, formal evidence and independent verification for maintenance work orders, parts records, labour records, inventory or issuance records where relevant, and completion evidence before disbursement decisions.
Change control, delivery verification, and payment integrity — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/change-control-delivery-verification-and-payment-integrity/Use an independent technical adviser or monitor to verify work-order evidence, parts records, labour records, inventory reconciliation where relevant, and completion evidence, and to challenge weak or inconsistent support for reported maintenance activities.
Independent technical due diligence and monitoring — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/independent-technical-due-diligence-and-monitoring/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes spending without maintenance delivered; payroll and parts fraud; asset failures and service disruptions; higher risk of audit, investigation and recovery actions; and loss of public trust.
Decision Point
Before approving O&M work orders and payroll related payments, conduct physical verification and segregation-of-duties checks; stop approval in case of discrepancies.
Mitigation Actions
• Require evidence-based completion before payment certification
• Conduct internal audit in parts and staffing records (inventory counts, variance logs, roster-to-attendance-to-payroll reconciliation), documenting discrepancies
• Require independent spot checks when discrepancies persist
• Publish key maintenance performance metrics, maintenance records and exception reporting (repeat failures, rework, high callout rates)
• Refer credible fraud concerns to independent oversight bodies
Mitigation Resources
Require complete maintenance records, including work orders, asset-linked job logs, parts issue records, labour records, and completion evidence, and verify them before approving certification or payment.
Change control, delivery verification, and payment integrity — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/change-control-delivery-verification-and-payment-integrity/Prioritise internal audit and follow-up on maintenance work orders, parts records, labour records, completion evidence, and payment approvals; test controls, investigate repeat anomalies, and focus assurance on high-risk assets, repeated discrepancies, and suspected fictitious maintenance, parts, or labour.
Risk-based internal audit planning — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/risk-based-internal-audit-planning/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes limited service improvement despite spend; low transparency on work orders and staffing; reduced ability to verify outputs; accountability gaps for asset condition; high risk of retaliation when flagging discrepancies.
Decision Point
During project operation, submit access to information to clarify O&M performance and costs. Decide whether to (a) escalate through oversight channels to report suspected fraudulent reporting and charging, and lack of transparency, or (b) monitor while safely gathering evidence.
Mitigation Actions
• Monitor service reliability (downtime, repeat faults, response times) to identify inconsistencies with performance trends and claimed work completion
• Mobilise communities around the importance of full transparency of O&M information to ensure value-for-money and accountability
• Engage available grievance channels and oversight bodies to report suspected fictitious maintenance or staffing (use safe, confidential reporting and anonymisation where the risk of retaliation is significant)
Mitigation Resources
Track reported maintenance outputs, staffing, callout patterns, and spending against service reliability trends, such as downtime, repeat faults, response times, and rework; flag repeated maintenance claims, unexplained staffing patterns, or claimed work that does not improve service performance.
Expenditure tracking and leakage analysis — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/expenditure-tracking-and-leakage-analysis/Use independent monitoring or social accountability to compare disclosed maintenance and performance records with service reliability and maintenance delivery in practice; document unexplained gaps, track follow-up actions, and raise them through oversight channels.
Independent monitoring, assurance, and social accountability — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/independent-monitoring-assurance-and-social-accountability/Review publicly disclosed maintenance and performance records, such as maintenance plans, KPI dashboards, exception reports, and major maintenance updates; identify disclosure gaps, missing justifications, or inconsistencies with service reliability, 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/