Selection criteria and separation of responsibilities

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video's topic is selection criteria and separation of responsibilities. By the end, you should be able to design verifiable selection with appropriate responsibilities. We will connect the information available, the criterion guiding the decision and the action that must be recorded. Follow the case and compare your answer with the proposed response. Examples address preventive purchasing controls. Public procurement and private purchasing have different legal frameworks. For public procurement, consider amendment NN 48/2026: general commencement on 16 May 2026, specified provisions on 1 September and the transitional rule for procedures already started.

Control covers when criteria are fixed, their consistent use and independence. Three bids do not help if one person later adjusts the criterion to a preferred result. Public procurement requires its statutory rules and conflict measures. Clear allocation of private-company responsibilities is a recommended control alongside specific obligations.

Apply the following rule: An employer with at least 50 workers generally must establish an internal reporting system. Article 19(3) requires covered employers under specified parts of the Annex to do so regardless of headcount. Appointment of a confidential person and deputy follows Article 20, including proposals by the works council, the authorised trade-union representative or at least 20 per cent of workers where that representation is absent. If no proposal is made, the Act provides for appointment without it. Appointees must consent in writing.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Document criteria, weights where used and reasons for selection. Check evaluators' conflicts and equal access to information. Define exception authority. Verify that approvals are genuine and precede actions where required. Three quotations are not a universal legal rule. The requirement depends on the applicable procedure. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

One person requests a purchase, selects the supplier and confirms delivery. The entity adds independent selection review and receipt verification by someone who understands the service. It adapts and documents controls for the available team. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Are several quotations sufficient if one person can change criteria after seeing them? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Selection integrity also depends on timing and consistent criteria, independence and records. Changes must comply with applicable rules rather than justify an already chosen supplier.

One mistake to avoid is: creating criteria retrospectively to legitimise a preferred supplier.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A subsidiary copies its foreign head office's policy without assessing its own activities and size. What must it check?

Identify the local legal entity, sector, national counting method and any public-sector or territorial regimes. Then link each obligation to a source and a responsible person. A group model can support operations but does not replace this assessment.