By Pascale Hélène Dubois, Chief Suspension
and Debarment Officer at The World Bank, Vice Chairperson of the IBA
Anti-Corruption Committee and Adjunct
Professor at Georgetown University Law
Center
During FY14, the
World Bank Group committed $52.6 billion in financing with the objectives of
eradicating extreme poverty and creating shared prosperity. Since fraud and corruption work against these
objectives by diverting essential resources from poverty eradication efforts,
the World Bank works both on the preventive side and on the enforcement side to
combat fraud and corruption in World Bank-financed projects.
On the enforcement
side, the World Bank sanctions system is comprised of an investigative unit
(the Integrity Vice Presidency) and two tiers of adjudication: 1) the Office of
Suspension and Debarment (OSD) determines whether to suspend or debar firms and
individuals accused of fraud and corruption in World Bank-financed projects; and
2) the World Bank Group Sanctions Board decides appeals of these OSD decisions. I am the Chief Suspension and Debarment
Officer in OSD.
Takeaways from OSD’s Six-Year Report
The administrative
practice of suspending and debarring companies that have engaged in misconduct
is a relatively new response to fraud and corruption, and information on how
these administrative systems work is sometimes scarce. In June 2014, OSD released its first public
report. Entitled “The World Bank Office
of Suspension and Debarment: Report on Functions, Data, and Lessons Learned
2007-2013,” this report (available at http://go.worldbank.org/E3OQKOCVP0) covers the period from the inception
of OSD in 2007 through June 30, 2013. It
provides case processing and other performance metrics related to 224 sanctions
imposed during that time on firms and individuals.
When drafting the
report, my colleagues and I were thinking of what lessons we had learned over those
six years that could be useful for others.
We wrote the “lessons learned” section of the report to hopefully be of
use to national governments and international organizations engaged in setting
up, or expanding, their own suspension and debarment processes. Briefly, the lessons I share with people
studying administrative sanctions systems are:
1. Fraud can be as
significant to development effectiveness as corruption or collusion, because
unqualified consultants and contractors often cannot perform or end up
delivering defective goods and services.
2. A suspension and
debarment office has an adjudicative function that requires independence.
3. Clear terms of
reference are essential.
4. Timeliness should
be measured in every aspect of the suspension and debarment process, and should
be transparent internally and externally.
5. Efficiency also protects
the function’s independence; the SDO cannot be told how to adjudicate
individual cases, but can rightly be asked to account for how time and money is
spent overall.
6. Effective case
management depends on good data collection.
7. Internal processes
are important; documenting one’s thinking and thought process on different
decisions helps ensure equal treatment of all respondents.
8. All instructions,
requests and decisions related to the office’s functioning and decision-making
should be in writing, guaranteeing accountability, and adherence to policy and
precedent.
9. As may be
expected, setting up a suspension and debarment system presents challenges,
especially in an organization where the function is new. A “start-up” checklist
may be found in the report.
10. Establishing
internal administrative policies and procedures will improve quality and,
especially in a small operation, maximize the office’s output.
11. Rules and
guidance should be public, not just for the sake of transparency, but also to
ensure stability.
12. Public reporting
is an essential part of transparency.
As mentioned,
administrative suspension and debarment systems are relatively new. They are only one of many possible ways to
handle misconduct on the part of contractors; suspension and debarment systems
are generally used as supplements to existing criminal and civil law systems
designed to fight corruption. As
government procurement worldwide becomes more sophisticated, I expect the
anti-corruption field to experience rapid growth and administrative suspension
and debarment systems to become more common.
Now is a good time
for academics and student practitioners to become involved in this arena. Examining and considering the goals of these
systems now will help ensure that they evolve to include appropriate due
process considerations. With
knowledge-sharing, and with fresh ideas from new practitioners, these systems
show great promise as an effective response to corruption.
0 comments:
Post a Comment