Undue influence over delivery model selection
Procurement and delivery modalities are chosen or designed under undue influence to allocate responsibilities and risks in ways that benefits particular actors rather than maximise value-for-money.
Red Flags & Indicators
- The delivery model is selected before the options appraisal is completed or is inconsistent with the documented value-for-money assessment and supporting evidence.
- Risk allocation, technical requirements, or contractual conditions are structured in ways that unnecessarily restrict competition or favour particular counterparties.
- Unnecessary interfaces, exceptions, bespoke terms, or contractual complexity reduce the comparability of options and limit effective review and scrutiny.
- Independent review, market sounding, challenge, or assurance processes are limited in scope, rushed, inadequately documented, or bypassed without justification.
- Broad change provisions, weak performance triggers, or poorly defined renegotiation mechanisms are embedded at an early stage, increasing the risk of cost escalation, value leakage, or post-award manipulation.
Stakeholder Guidance
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes a reduced access for bidders due to a model designed for specific parties; pressure to endorse skewed risk allocation; higher costs to prepare bids; higher renegotiations and claims risk; and reputational exposure from “rigged” model choice.
Decision Point
Before decision to bid under the proposed delivery model and risk allocation, assess whether appraisal is documented and supported by evidence.
Mitigation Actions
• Avoid adviser-and-bidder dual roles, or apply independence safeguards where separation is permitted
• Provide evidence-based input on delivery options and risk allocation (cost drivers, risks, performance), documenting assumptions, limitations, and any deviations from standard practice
• Decline or pause engagement when the delivery model or risk allocation is selected without documented appraisal or a value-for-money rationale, or where terms seem shaped to favour a specific counterparty
Mitigation Resources
Evaluate the assumptions, costs, benefits, and scenarios underpinning delivery-model appraisal; benchmark and challenge cases where the preferred model, risk allocation, or value-for-money case is not supported by reliable analysis.
Appraisal and cost-estimate assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/appraisal-and-cost-estimate-assurance/Require conflict-of-interest declarations and documented conflict management for advisory roles, bidder-adviser dual roles, and other interests affecting delivery-model selection; exclude conflicted parties from the decision process until conflicts are resolved and documented.
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 biased investability analysis; delivery model that misallocates risks; higher renegotiation risk; higher ESG and reputational risks; and decrease in project value from flawed delivery model.
Decision Point
Before investment committee decision, agreeing term sheet conditions and committing resources, verify whether delivery model and risk allocation are documented and supported by appraisal evidence.
Mitigation Actions
• Treat missing analysis/evidence to support the delivery model or inconsistencies as a no-go condition
• Commission independent review for complex contracting structures (including analysis related to risk transfer, interfaces, renegotiation pathways)
• Document decision rationale to invest based on available evidence
• Include covenants on disclosure and renegotiation rights regarding side letters, material deviations and need of approvals
• Provide suspension/exit rights if terms are reshaped to favour specific counterparties
Mitigation Resources
Apply stage-gate reviews, readiness checks, and documented approval logs before approving delivery-model selection; return the case for further work where the preferred model, risk allocation, or value-for-money rationale is not supported by transparent appraisal or independent review.
Stage-gate governance and independent assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/stage-gate-governance-and-independent-assurance/Conduct integrity due diligence on sponsors, investees, and counterparties linked to delivery-model selection; use covenants, monitoring requirements, and enhanced due diligence triggers where counterparty influence, opaque terms, side letters, or renegotiation risks could distort model selection.
Investor integrity due diligence and monitoring — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/investor-integrity-due-diligence-and-monitoring/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes a poor risk allocation; reduced competition and higher life‑cycle costs; higher legal challenge risk; higher renegotiations risk; and loss of public trust.
Decision Point
Before approving the procurement strategy, assess whether appraisal is documented and evidenced, as well as consistent with the selected delivery model and risk allocation.
Mitigation Actions
• Document the rationale for the delivery model selection
• Require a documented appraisal
• Publish appraisal documentation as a transparency rule
• Use independent review for complex structures
• Commission independent review when appraisal documentation is weak or contested
• Maintain an auditable record of internal conversations, responses and decisions taken regarding the procurement strategy
• Pause decisions and refer to independent oversight bodies for investigation when conflicts-of-interest, lobbying pressure, or unclear arrangements in appraisal is detected, documenting outcomes and corrective actions
Mitigation Resources
Apply stage-gate reviews, readiness checks, and documented approval logs before approving delivery-model selection; return the case for further appraisal where the preferred model, risk allocation, or value-for-money case is not adequately justified.
Stage-gate governance and independent assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/stage-gate-governance-and-independent-assurance/Evaluate the assumptions, costs, benefits, and scenarios underpinning delivery-model selection; benchmark and challenge cases where the preferred model, risk allocation, or value-for-money case is not supported by reliable analysis.
Appraisal and cost-estimate assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/appraisal-and-cost-estimate-assurance/Publish and maintain public access to delivery-model appraisal and approval records, including selection criteria, value-for-money evidence, risk-allocation rationale, committee papers, and reasons for material changes, 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 rationale for delivery model choices; unclear project costs and risks; poor social value from project choices; and increased intimidation and retaliation risk when challenging “tailored‑to‑fit” terms.
Decision Point
During budget cycle allocation and/or pipeline publication, request disclosure of appraisal documentation and rationale of the delivery model choice. Decide whether to (a) escalate through oversight channels, or (b) monitor while gathering evidence safely.
Mitigation Actions
• Use access to information to request disclosure of the officials involved in procurement strategy decision making
• Use access to information to request disclosure of advisers and consultants involved in the procurement strategy, including their roles, contractual scope, fees/commissions, and declared interests
• Use access to information to request information on conflict-of-interest declarations and beneficial ownership checks conducted for officials, intermediaries, and advisers involved in the procurement strategy
• Engage oversight bodies to raise concerns about unsupported delivery model choices and suspected conflicts-of-interest (use safe, confidential reporting and anonymisation where the risk of retaliation is significant)
• Mobilise communities affected by poor project planning to highlight the importance of assessing fiscal risks before deciding on the procurement strategy
• 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 delivery-model selection, such as committee minutes, option appraisal notes, records explaining changes in risk allocation, declared interests, adviser roles or fees, and approval recommendations, so unexplained shifts in the preferred model, opaque advisory influence, or weak justification can be examined and raised through oversight channels.
Access-to-information and demand-side transparency — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/access-to-information-and-demand-side-transparency/Review publicly disclosed delivery-model appraisal and approval records at an early stage; identify disclosure gaps, unexplained changes in the preferred model, missing reasons for key decisions, or missing information on adviser roles, fees, or conflict management, 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/