• Skip to main content
  • Skip to after header navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Guide to Combating Corruption & Fraud in Infrastructure Development Projects

  • Detection
    • Complaints
      • General initial interview questions
      • How to Generate Complaints and Reports
      • List of fraud reporting sites for Multilateral Development Banks
    • Red Flags
      • Red Flags Listed by Project Cycle
      • “Visible red flags” of Implementation Fraud
      • Proactive Fraud Detection Tests
    • Due Diligence
      • “Top Five” Due Diligence Background Checks
      • Free and Subscription Internet Sites
      • Local and On-Site Due Diligence Checks
      • Due Diligence Service Providers
  • Proof
    • Proving Common Schemes
      • Corruption Schemes
      • Bid Rigging Schemes
      • Collusive Bidding Schemes
      • Fraud Schemes
      • The Basic Steps of a Complex Fraud and Corruption Investigation
    • Elements of Proof for Sanctionable Offenses
      • Elements of Proof of Corrupt Practices
      • Elements of Proof of Obstructive Practices
      • Elements of Proof of Coercive Practices
      • Elements of Proof of Collusive Practices
      • Elements of Proof of Fraudulent Practices
  • Evidence
    • The Basics of Evidence for Investigators
  • Prevention
    • Anti-fraud Resources
Home » Proof » Case Examples » Case Example of Unjustified Sole Source Awards

Case Example of Unjustified Sole Source Awards

Development Agency

The head of corporate procurement for an international development agency became progressively more concerned as she witnessed the award of more than 20 sole source contracts for IT services to a small start-up company, totaling more than $4 million over three years, processed at the personal direction of a senior executive.   Eventually she reported the matter to the agency’s integrity unit, which found the following.

The first contract was for $49,000, just under the $50,000 competitive bidding threshold, followed quickly by two other sole source contracts for a little more than $100,000 each, well above the threshold.  These funds paid for a report on the usefulness of the internet, the contents of which, the investigation revealed, were clipped entirely from existing websites, except for minor edits to remove the evidence of the actual source of the materials.

The investigators found that it took a little more than one day to locate, download and print the documents, which were contained in two, one-inch ring binders.  The IT firm, however, billed for three months of staff time for what it claimed was “original research” on the topic.

The IT company then forwarded the entire proceeds for the internet study to an account designated by the senior executive.  Thereafter, the firm received numerous additional sole source contracts for IT staffing services, most well above the source threshold.

The senior executive was terminated as the result of the investigation and the IT company declared ineligible for further contracts.

 

Category: Case Examples

International Anti-Corruption
Resource Center

Washington, DC
info@iacrc.org

IACRC - International Anti-Corruption Resource Center

© 2025 · IACRC · Guide to Combating Corruption & Fraud in Infrastructure Development Projects · All Rights Reserved