1. ADB’s Project Cycle: Managing Procurement Risks and Governance

2. What are the implications of a risky procurement environment?
This presentation is divided into 2 parts that are meant to address 2 questions.
The 1st question may seem like a rhetorical one, because the answer may seem obvious to some of us.
Lets consider some studies and real-life examples that highlight the implications of a risky procurement environment.

3. Value of Public Procurement
Public procurement can cost:
Around 8-20% of GDP
As high as 30% of total public expenditure
Leakages through fraud, abuse and waste can be 20% to 70% of spending (if we estimate that 15% of GDP is spent on public procurement)
Implication: conservative estimate of 3% of GDP is lost through public procurement corruption and waste (Source : WB and OECD)
- ADB, The Strategic Importance of public Procurement: OECD estimates public procurement globally amounts to approximately 15% of GDP.
- Bandiera, Prat and Valletti study:
Italy: public procurement amounts to around 8% of GDP; 15% of public spending
- Thai and Roman study:
OECD-DAC countries: public procurement costs around 20% of GDP
EU countries: public procurement amounts to around 10-15% of GDP; 30% of public expenditure
Latin American countries: public procurement amounts to around 20% of GDP
U.S.: public procurement amounts to around 35% of GDP
Asia: public procurement amounts to around 20-40% of GDP
State and local level: government spend on average up to 40% of their budgets for purchases
PHL: public procurement amounts to around 3.86% of GDP; 21.2% of government budget
Korea: public procurement amounts to around 10% of GDP
- Schooner report to ADB:
WB and OECD estimate that leakages through fraud, abuse and waste can be 20% to 70%
2009 Global Corruption Report of Transparency International estimates that corruption increased public purchasing costs by approximately 10%, resulting in global losses of $300-$500 billion.
The following data on actual transactions support the general statistics and estimates on waste.
- UK example of price differences is based on data gathered over the last decade.

4. Estimated Cost Implications for ADB
Country
2009 GDP
(Mn US$)*
Est. Public Procurement
(Mn US$) (15% of GDP)
Est. loss to corruption / waste (Mn USD) (20% of Procurement Budget)
14,177
2,126
425 Million
89,360
13,404
2.7 Billion
1,259
189
37 Million
1,310,170
196,525
39 Billion
1,473
221
44 Million
12,531
1,880
376 Million
161,990
24,298
4.8 Billion
41,979
6,297
1.2 Billion
TOTAL
48 Billion
Transpose the estimated costs of leakages to some of ADB’s member countries, and some interesting possible implications can be presented in the given table.
* Based on World Bank/ADB figures

5. Unfinished and substandard projects
Net effect:
Unfinished and substandard projects
Procurement corruption and waste undermines aid effectiveness
Some pictures of actual examples.
PHOTO CREDITS: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

6. risks in ADB’s project cycle:
Managing procurement
risks in ADB’s project cycle:
10 Point Action Plan
For the second part of the presentation, we would share what we are doing in ADB. We are also embarking on an action plan – which balances risk and timely project implementation and effective use of resources. You may notice in the next few slides that it starts with assessing procurement risk/capacity to set a datum – for measurement and monitoring purposes.

7. Overview: Past Procurement Governance in ADB’s Project Cycle
2017/4/7
Overview: Past Procurement Governance in ADB’s Project Cycle
Generally no in-depth procurement involvement during project preparation, as approach of ADB’s is basically reactive
Country level procurement assessments seldom conducted
Country risk assessments are rarely updated
Procurement method and review thresholds are not linked to country risks
Most CPSs do not have country action plans to mitigate risks
Procurement prior and post reviews are undertaken on the basis of submitted documents, without a full appreciation of the operating environment and risk factors that surround, drive or feed into each transaction. In accordance with Appendix 1 of ADB's Procurement Guidelines, ADB reviews the procurement arrangements proposed by the borrower in the Procurement Plan for its conformity with the financing agreement and the Guidelines.
The use of prior or post reviews depends on the provisions of the Procurement Plan, which is theoretically based on the results of the Procurement Capacity Assessment of the EA. However, in practice procurement thresholds and review requirements have generally been predetermined, and post reviews conducted by user divisions are limited by the Guidelines to the following three documents:
a. The signed original of the contract;
b. The evaluation report including the analysis of the respective proposals; and
c. The recommendation for award.
Procurement Capacity Assessments, or their updates, are now undertaken as a standard operating procedure during project design (until recently, this was not the case), but these are accomplished perfunctorily by project consultants. Also, Procurement Plans are linked neither to a prior capacity/risk assessment, nor to any continuing evaluation and monitoring activity. As such, no actual assessment of the procurement risk within an executing agency is undertaken during implementation and no determination is made as to whether an earlier Procurement Capacity Assessment and/or related capacity building exercise has actually reflected or translated to more efficient and effective procurement outcomes.
Procurement risk assessments and performance monitoring and evaluation are integral elements of a Country Partnership Strategy (CPS). The CPS Guidelines, stress that one of the assessments required for CPS preparation is risk assessment with a risk management plan, including public financial management, procurement and corruption. In the same light, ADB's Second Governance and Anticorruption Action Plan (GACAP II) (July 2006) identifies the strengthening of program and project administration, including portfolio management, as a Key Result Area (KRA), i.e. KRA 3, where it states that "[M]anaging finances, procurement, and corruption risks during implementation requires the right mix of skill and resources."
However, ADB’s recent Procurement Governance Review showed that ADB rarely undertakes procurement risk assessments, and that it generally relies on assessments of other multilateral development banks (MDBs), which may not be attune to a number of areas in ADB’s operating environment and are rarely updated. For example, country procurement risk assessments are usually led by the World Bank through the Country Procurement Assessment Report (CPAR); but it may be pointed out that ADB recently led the 2012 CPAR exercise for the Philippines. The review also mentioned that the procurement thresholds are generally not regularly updated, and are not linked to robust country procurement assessments (which, as pointed out already, are rarely undertaken); and so this tends to make ADB’s procurement procedures unnecessarily stringent. Since robust and updated country procurement risk assessment are rarely conducted, most CPSs lack time-bound action plans and resource allocations to minimize procurement-related risks.

8. Overview: Past Procurement Governance in ADB’s Project Cycle
2017/4/7
Overview: Past Procurement Governance in ADB’s Project Cycle
Procurement Capacity Assessments completed by project preparation consultants, and viewed by procurement specialist during the review of entire RRP (Report & Recommendation of the President)
Procurement Capacity Assessments tend to be accomplished perfunctorily
At present, ADB's approach to procurement risk assessment and performance monitoring and evaluation is reactive. Procurement prior and post reviews are undertaken on the basis of submitted documents, without a full appreciation of the operating environment and risk factors that surround, drive or feed into each transaction. In accordance with Appendix 1 of ADB's Procurement Guidelines, ADB reviews the procurement arrangements proposed by the borrower in the Procurement Plan for its conformity with the financing agreement and the Guidelines. The use of prior or post reviews depends on the provisions of the Procurement Plan, which is theoretically based on the results of the Procurement Capacity Assessment of the EA. However, in practice procurement thresholds and review requirements have generally been predetermined, and post reviews conducted by user divisions are limited by the Guidelines to the following three documents:
a. The signed original of the contract;
b. The evaluation report including the analysis of the respective proposals; and
c. The recommendation for award.
Procurement Capacity Assessments, or their updates, are now undertaken as a standard operating procedure during project design (until recently, this was not the case), but these are accomplished perfunctorily by project consultants. Also, Procurement Plans are linked neither to a prior capacity/risk assessment, nor to any continuing evaluation and monitoring activity. As such, no actual assessment of the procurement risk within an executing agency is undertaken during implementation and no determination is made as to whether an earlier Procurement Capacity Assessment and/or related capacity building exercise has actually reflected or translated to more efficient and effective procurement outcomes.
Procurement risk assessments and performance monitoring and evaluation are integral elements of a Country Partnership Strategy (CPS). The CPS Guidelines, stress that one of the assessments required for CPS preparation is risk assessment with a risk management plan, including public financial management, procurement and corruption. In the same light, ADB's Second Governance and Anticorruption Action Plan (GACAP II) (July 2006) identifies the strengthening of program and project administration, including portfolio management, as a Key Result Area (KRA), i.e. KRA 3, where it states that "[M]anaging finances, procurement, and corruption risks during implementation requires the right mix of skill and resources."
However, ADB’s recent Procurement Governance Review showed that ADB rarely undertakes procurement risk assessments, and that it generally relies on assessments of other multilateral development banks (MDBs), which may not be attune to a number of areas in ADB’s operating environment and are rarely updated. For example, country procurement risk assessments are usually led by the World Bank through the Country Procurement Assessment Report (CPAR); but it may be pointed out that ADB recently led the 2012 CPAR exercise for the Philippines. The review also mentioned that the procurement thresholds are generally not regularly updated, and are not linked to robust country procurement assessments (which, as pointed out already, are rarely undertaken); and so this tends to make ADB’s procurement procedures unnecessarily stringent. Since robust and updated country procurement risk assessment are rarely conducted, most CPSs lack time-bound action plans and resource allocations to minimize procurement-related risks.

9. Overview: Past Procurement Governance in ADB’s Project Cycle
2017/4/7
Overview: Past Procurement Governance in ADB’s Project Cycle
Desk review of procurement arrangements and Procurement Plan
Procurement Plans and review thresholds are rarely linked with actual country and project risk assessments
Since prior and post review thresholds are pre-determined and based on contract value rather than risk, these are not sensitive to the actual capacity of executing agency
At present, ADB's approach to procurement risk assessment and performance monitoring and evaluation is reactive. Procurement prior and post reviews are undertaken on the basis of submitted documents, without a full appreciation of the operating environment and risk factors that surround, drive or feed into each transaction. In accordance with Appendix 1 of ADB's Procurement Guidelines, ADB reviews the procurement arrangements proposed by the borrower in the Procurement Plan for its conformity with the financing agreement and the Guidelines. The use of prior or post reviews depends on the provisions of the Procurement Plan, which is theoretically based on the results of the Procurement Capacity Assessment of the EA. However, in practice procurement thresholds and review requirements have generally been predetermined, and post reviews conducted by user divisions are limited by the Guidelines to the following three documents:
a. The signed original of the contract;
b. The evaluation report including the analysis of the respective proposals; and
c. The recommendation for award.
Procurement Capacity Assessments, or their updates, are now undertaken as a standard operating procedure during project design (until recently, this was not the case), but these are accomplished perfunctorily by project consultants. Also, Procurement Plans are linked neither to a prior capacity/risk assessment, nor to any continuing evaluation and monitoring activity. As such, no actual assessment of the procurement risk within an executing agency is undertaken during implementation and no determination is made as to whether an earlier Procurement Capacity Assessment and/or related capacity building exercise has actually reflected or translated to more efficient and effective procurement outcomes.
Procurement risk assessments and performance monitoring and evaluation are integral elements of a Country Partnership Strategy (CPS). The CPS Guidelines, stress that one of the assessments required for CPS preparation is risk assessment with a risk management plan, including public financial management, procurement and corruption. In the same light, ADB's Second Governance and Anticorruption Action Plan (GACAP II) (July 2006) identifies the strengthening of program and project administration, including portfolio management, as a Key Result Area (KRA), i.e. KRA 3, where it states that "[M]anaging finances, procurement, and corruption risks during implementation requires the right mix of skill and resources."
However, ADB’s recent Procurement Governance Review showed that ADB rarely undertakes procurement risk assessments, and that it generally relies on assessments of other multilateral development banks (MDBs), which may not be attune to a number of areas in ADB’s operating environment and are rarely updated. For example, country procurement risk assessments are usually led by the World Bank through the Country Procurement Assessment Report (CPAR); but it may be pointed out that ADB recently led the 2012 CPAR exercise for the Philippines. The review also mentioned that the procurement thresholds are generally not regularly updated, and are not linked to robust country procurement assessments (which, as pointed out already, are rarely undertaken); and so this tends to make ADB’s procurement procedures unnecessarily stringent. Since robust and updated country procurement risk assessment are rarely conducted, most CPSs lack time-bound action plans and resource allocations to minimize procurement-related risks.

10. 10 Point Action Plan New Procurement Risk Assessments2
New ICB Thresholds 3
New Prior Review Limits 4
New Procurement Committee Level and Decision Authorities 5
Project Procurement Classification at Concept Clearance 6
Launch Procurement Review System or PRS 7
Agree Master Bid Document(s) during Project Preparation 8
New Streamlined PC Process 9
New Procurement Approval Form 10
End-to-end Consulting Services Process Review
The multi-level procurement risk assessment prepared as part of CPS of DMCs will determine the procurement parameters to be used in the country. Such assessments will help establish thresholds and limits for shopping, ICB &NCB, Procurement Committee reviews, and include options to mitigate associated procurement risks. Based on the assessment, the CPS should also recommend whether or not ADB may use country systems for procurement.

11. ADB’s Improved Procurement Governance and Risk Management and Project Implementation Efficiency – Action Plan
Country level risk assessment with linked thresholds
1. Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) 1
6. Evaluation 6 2
2. Concept 4
4. Loan Negotiation&
Board Approval 5
5. Implementation 3
3. Preparation
Sector Procurement Capacity Assessment
Mid-term review of procurement outcomes
During CPS preparation, regional departments will work with OSFMD to determine risk and establish procurement thresholds for each developing member country, based on multi-level procurement risk assessments, using a Country Procurement Profile methodology. A sector level review will be informed by risk assessments of key agencies in the sector, as well as market practices and capacities; so critical procurement-related issues and risks in the targeted sector are flagged, and appropriate risk mitigating measures may be recommended.
To better service clients, while addressing risks and rationalizing staff resources, project procurement risk assessments will determine whether the project should be deemed “low risk” or “high risk”. Regional departments will work with OSFMD to determine the procurement risk categorization of each proposed project. The risk categorization will then determine the level of fiduciary reviews to be undertaken in a given project, as well as the extent to which reviews will be delegated to the regional departments. Regular assessments of procurement processes and documentation will be conducted to verify achievement of desired procurement objectives and outcomes. In turn this will enrich the next round of the CPS and country level risk assessment with information on actual procurement practices in key sectors.
Proactive participation of OSFMD for complex projects
Delegated reviews for low risk projects
More responsive Procurement Plans

12. Improved Procurement Governance at CPS Stage
CPS will be informed by robust multi-level procurement risk assessments
There will be country specific thresholds for ICB based on market capacity . Reviews within ADB and the level at which they occur will be determined by the risk level
The multi-level procurement risk assessment prepared as part of CPS of DMCs will determine the procurement parameters to be used in the country. Such assessments will help establish thresholds and limits for shopping, ICB &NCB, Procurement Committee reviews, and include options to mitigate associated procurement risks. Based on the assessment, the CPS should also recommend whether or not ADB may use country systems for procurement.

13. Concept of Risk-Based Procurement Approach at National & Project Levels
Step 1: Risk Assessment at National Level
Step 2: Risk Assessment at Project Level
When
With CPS Preparation
Project Processing
Objectives
To consider the country systems & procurement capacity
To decide PC, NCB and Shopping thresholds at national level
Categorize Low or High Risk
Low Risk: Delegation of procurement decisions to regional depts. with thresholds, with proper risk management
High Risk: OSFMD and OGC’s active engagement
Key features of the risk-based procurement approach are:
Delegation to regional departments based on procurement risk assessment.
For high risk projects, prioritization of OSFMD/OGC involvement on procurement management.
Risk management with enhanced executing agency capacity development and OSFMD staff outposting
We basically need to balance risk with project quicker project implementation.

14. Overview: Present Procurement Governance in ADB’s Project Cycle
Country Risk Assessment & Management Plan (including Procurement)
1. Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) 1
6. Evaluation 6 2
2. Concept 4
4. Loan Negotiation&
Board Approval 5
5. Implementation 3
3. Preparation
Procurement Capacity Assessment
This slide presents an illustrative summary of ADB’s project cycle, and the areas where procurement interventions occurs from ADB’s side.
Desk review of Project documents (RRP & PP)
Prior and Post Reviews
Finalization of Procurement Plan – with risk based thresholds

15. Improved Procurement Governance at CPS Stage
Country Procurement Profile (CPP):
A consolidated platform that generates and presents information on selected procurement-related indicators for a country, focusing on priority sectors
Gathers data from various sources:
National level procurement assessments – CPAR and OECD-DAC BLI
Agency level risk assessments – Project-related Procurement Capacity Assessments and mid-term assessments from earlier projects
Interviews with local industries and CSOs
Matches policy achievements with actual practices
The Country Procurement Profile (CPP) generates information on selected procurement indicators, not only for each country, but also for key sectors, and presents these in a consolidated platform that is easy to read and access. It gathers data from various sources at the national sector and agency levels, so that these may be reflected in such a manner that achievements on the policy front are matched with a picture of actual practices. Some of its features are that it:
Is easy to implement with minimal burden on resources;
Allows for efficient data gathering and processing;
Only looks at key indicators that are focused on principles rather than compliance;
Avoids rating countries, as this may only lead to an unhealthy comparison among governments, which, in turn, may unduly compromise the accuracy of information provided;
Provides quick and ready data on a few focal points, but also raises red flags on areas where more in-depth analysis may be conducted, through the use of other tools in hand; and
Will be applied within the context of existing ADB standard operating procedures, so that the introduction of a new assessment process or requirement and the risk of analysis paralysis are avoided.

16. Improved Procurement Governance at CPS Stage
Purpose:
Identify country and sector level procurement capacity gaps that can inform sector road map and related CPS processes
To frame procurement issues that, if addressed at CPS stage, can improve project implementation
To facilitate informed dialogue on procurement issues as part of setting overall country strategic priorities for ADB interventions
1. Through its multi-level assessment approach, the CPP will provide significant procurement-related inputs to the Country Partnership Strategy (CPS), its mid-term review and the Annual Country Portfolio Review Missions (CPRMs). The information generated by the profile can be used in country based risk management plans, identifying alignments that need to be made in overall focus, priorities, resource allocation and sequencing of projects as these relate to procurement. It will, likewise, enable ADB to acquire in-depth knowledge of oversight measures and systems of checks and balances that can strengthen accountability, predictability and transparency. The information can also help strengthen program/project administration and portfolio management as it provides information based on actual procurement performance. These could also result in the formulation of a national-level procurement risk management plan that could be financed by a stand-alone TA.
2. Procurement assessments are needed at the CPS stage to:
a. Identify and frame any critical public procurement reforms and/or other improvement actions required at the sector or agency level (taking into account the country system and national framework), to potentially improve ADB procurement transactions and governance activities during project/program implementation;
b. Identify potential requirements for broad procurement-related Technical Assistance or capacity building, to be more accurately specified during post-CPS scoping and assessment exercises, jointly conducted with the government and other stakeholders;
c. Appropriately prioritize issues for discussion during the CPS negotiations, taking into account the size of the portfolio; and
d. Frame the approach to national procurement dialog, going forward.

17. Improved Procurement Governance at CPS Stage
Example of Country Procurement Profile showing Written Rules v. Actual Practices:
This is based on 2012 data, but the name of the country has been withheld. The focus is only on a few key indicators, with emphasis on principles than on specific rules, so that the entire assessment takes a less prescriptive approach.
This example shows how significant achievements have been recorded at the policy reform level, but it also shows difficulties faced at cascading these reforms to the line agencies and local governments. In fact, in partnership with ADB and other development partners, the country involved has embarked on a major action plan to push its national reforms down to the implementing agencies and provinces.

18. Improved Procurement Governance at Project Preparation Stage
2017/4/7
Improved Procurement Governance at Project Preparation Stage
Through enhanced agency procurement capacity Assessments:
Identify capacity, procedural and organizational constraints in executing/implementing agency
Determine overall procurement risk
Consider procurement by regular line units of executing/implementing agency (capacity strengthening extends beyond project life)
Identify levels of reputational risks to ADB and DMC
Identify implementation risks – resources, structure and process
Leverage on or consider existing knowledge base, legislative environment and processes
Agree on Action Plan to strengthen capacity and lessen risks
At the project level, ADB’s Project Administration Instructions (PAI 1.01 Paragraph 10, and PAI 3.01 Paragraph 7) require that project divisions and project processing missions assess the capacity of the Executing Agency (EA) and the Implementing Agency (IA), if any, to procure the goods, works and consulting services as part of the project preparation process. This is done through the Procurement Capacity Assessment (PCA). The purpose of the PCA is to:
a. Identify the capacity, procedural and organizational constraints that will hinder effective Project implementation and agree on an action plan with the EA/IA and the developing member country (DMC) concerned, to address these constraints;
b. Determine the overall procurement risk, and establish appropriate review and supervision processes, including thresholds, to mitigate these risks; and
c. To the maximum extent possible, ensure that procurement is undertaken by the regular line units within the EA/IA, and agree on the action plan measures to strengthen and support these units when necessary, so that EA/IA capacity strengthening extends beyond the project’s lifecycle.
In addition to these, the PCA is also meant to:
a. Identify levels of reputational risk to ADB and its DMCs and put in place appropriate prior review and process thresholds to mitigate this risk, balanced with the needs for operational efficiency;
b. Identify any implementation risks present in terms of procurement resources, structure and process, and propose mitigating measures;
c. Build on the existing knowledge base for procurement capacity, legislative environment and processes; and
d. Ensure that local government units have satisfactory procurement capacity and risk levels before any proposal for a decentralized approach to procurement is adopted.
The above is also part and parcel of project readiness. E.g – a project is procurement ready after design or concept has been largely decided.

19. How ADB Assesses Risks at the Project Level
Procurement
Capacity Dev’t
&
Risk Mitigating
Measures
Procurement
Capacity
Assessment
Procurement
Plan
Executing Agency
The PREI will evaluate key indicators and risks that are associated with the EA/IA's procurement performance and link these with the procurement capacity assessment of such EA/IA. In effect, it will validate and reassess the results of the procurement capacity assessment as these are applied during actual project implementation. The output will be risk-mitigating measures in the area of procurement that may be adopted to improve implementation and achieving project effectiveness. Moreover if, after the review, it is determined that the EA/IA's procurement risk is actually higher or lower than the earlier risk assessment rating given to it, then such rating will have to be adjusted and the review requirements of the procurement plan will also have to be revised accordingly.
ALL ABOUT SETTING BENCHMARKS, DEVELOPING AN ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE ISSUES AND MEASURING ACHIEVEMENT.
PREI

20. Improved Procurement Governance at Project Preparation Stage
Regional departments will categorize procurement risk for each project as “high risk” or “low risk”
High risk projects will require more upstream OSFMD involvement on procurement reviews, plus risk mitigating measures
For low risk projects, reviews and approval authority will be delegated to regional departments, plus adequate risk mitigating measures (Action 4)
Current procurement procedures are value-based rather than risk-based. The procurement risk categorization will be the first step to streamline risk-based procurement procedures. Different kinds of risks – such as capacity, integrity and packaging – will be assessed in determining the risk classification. Procurement decisions related to low risk projects will be delegated to regional departments with adequate staff capacity and fiduciary controls. High risk projects will be proactively supported by OSFMD, including during project processing.
ADB’s procurement review processes will also be streamlined. For complex procurement, more upstream involvement of OSFMD staff in loan processing and procurement review will be conducted.

21. Improved Procurement Governance at Project Preparation Stage
2017/4/7
Improved Procurement Governance at Project Preparation Stage
Informed by the results of the assessments at the country, sector and agency levels, a more responsive Procurement Plan should identify:
Procurement/consulting methods and thresholds (Action 2)
Prior/Post review arrangements (Action 3)
Goods/Works/Services Packages and advertising dates
Efficient, economical and effective procurement packages
Agreement with the Government on Master Bid documents (Action 7)
The Procurement Plan should not be predetermined, but actually based on a Procurement Capacity Assessment (PCA) of the executing agency (EA) and all implementing agencies (IAs), because the assessment provides the information needed to reach such decisions as the setting of prior and post review thresholds, procurement methods and the acceptability of national practices. It is also through the PCA that procurement risks are identified and measures to mitigate such risks are agreed upon between ADB and the recipient government.
In accordance with Appendix 1 of ADB’s Procurement Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), ADB also reviews the procurement arrangements proposed by the recipient government in the procurement plan for its conformity with the financing agreement and the Guidelines, and such reviews will take the form of either prior or post reviews. Additionally, well-informed Procurement Plans will have better procurement packages that promote the principles of efficiency, economy and effectiveness, while meeting fiduciary requirements.

22. Improved Procurement Governance at Implementation Stage
Review by Procurement Committee more streamlined with parallel reviews to be conducted internally in ADB (Action 8)
Regular assessments of procurement processes and documentation (for both executing agencies and ADB) will be conducted to verify that the desired procurement objectives & outcomes are being achieved
A central system to compile data on all procurement activities (e.g. Procurement Review System PRS) - Action 9 follows
While the risk-based procurement procedures and streamlined procurement review processes should improve procurement efficiency and speed, it is important that ADB regularly assesses procurement practices. There are high stakes for ADB in improving procurement governance and ensuring quality through appropriate project oversight and monitoring.
ADB also has the fiduciary duty to ensure that any loan, grant and technical assistance is used only for the purposes for which it is provided. Many bidders, contractors and other stakeholders, including the general public, are not aware of ADB’s role in procurement governance and directly complain to executing agencies. A uniform approach will be introduced to enhance transparency and accountability in the processing of complaints.

23. THANK YOU!
This slide provides specific conditions when ADB gets involved during the contract management stage.