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. Risk arises from defining a need through payment and contract changes. For public procurement, check ZJN-3 and current official guidance. Recommended private-purchasing controls do not create identical statutory duties.

Clear criteria reduce arbitrary decisions. Set them at the proper time and apply them consistently. Separating request, evaluation, approval and payment can reduce concentrated power. The arrangement depends on size and applicable rules. Small teams may need compensating review without pretending separation exists.

Apply the following rule: Article 9 generally covers entities with at least 50 employees. A threshold of at least ten applies to the specified principal healthcare, water, waste and environmental activities. Listed state bodies and municipalities are covered irrespective of headcount, and additional sectoral requirements exist. The trusted person, zaupnik, is appointed from employees. An external provider may receive reports, but purchasing a platform does not replace the trusted person’s statutory tasks.

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 the service, selects the provider and confirms receipt. Another signature is added without reviewing evidence. The substance of control must change. 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: Is an extra signature without checking sufficient? 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. Independent assessment and evidence of what was reviewed are needed. Adapt the measure to actual resources.

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 headquarters’ procedure without its own assessment. What must it check?

Identify the Slovenian entity, employees, public or private status and article 9 exceptions. Appoint the trusted person and define tasks. Shared technology or external receipt does not replace national obligations.