Possible favouritism case

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will consolidate a skill: connect warning signs with justified checks. Use the case to test what you would do in a similar situation. We will explain the proposed response step by step so that you can understand each choice and recognise when more information would be needed. Procurement risk spans need, selection, amendments and payment. Public procurement law has a defined scope. A private purchasing control example does not itself make the transaction public procurement.

One sign may have a lawful explanation. Combined signs may justify deeper checks without automatically establishing guilt.

Apply the following rule: The Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania performs the competent-authority functions. Direct reporting follows Article 4 conditions, such as serious danger, possible management involvement, a non-functioning channel or ineffective action. Article 4(5) applies on learning of possible indications of a criminal offence. Public disclosure follows the separate Article 4(10) conditions. A software provider is not the Prosecutor’s Office.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Check criteria, connections, amendments and approvals, preserve relevant material lawfully, and arrange independent assessment and reporting. 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.

At each step, compare the information available with what is still needed for the decision. Arrange continuity when the designated worker is absent. A substitute receives only the information needed for the task, and their actions must remain verifiable.

Mark an unanswered question as a fact to verify. Identify who could confirm it and what access they actually need. A correct exercise choice alone does not show that the reasoning is understood. If the answer depends on an additional fact, state that condition explicitly.

For the workplace task, name the person who can approve the change and the person who will check that it works. Produce a concrete verifiable action, rather than only a promise to follow rules. Check effects on access rights and user information. Record questions that your organisation still needs to resolve.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

The same supplier repeatedly wins against narrow criteria and later contract expansion. Compare needs, competition and reasons for each decision. 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: Do repeated wins alone prove favouritism? 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. Assess the facts together and alternative explanations. Correct control weaknesses separately from final liability decisions.

One mistake to avoid is: equating repeat wins with proven corruption.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A worker is told that reporting to the Prosecutor’s Office requires the manager’s permission. Is that correct?

The Act does not impose such general employer permission. Check the direct-reporting ground under Article 4 and the official submission method. Possible management involvement, a non-functioning channel and ineffective action are circumstances requiring individual assessment. The advice line explains the procedure, but seeking advice is not itself submitting a report. Public disclosure has separate conditions.