Single version of truth: A Strategic Defence Against the Failure to Prevent Fraud Offence in the UK Construction Sector
- Martin Perks
- Sep 7
- 21 min read
Executive Summary
The enactment of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) marks a watershed moment in UK corporate governance, fundamentally altering the landscape of the construction sector’s risk of criminal liability. The introduction of the 'Failure to Prevent Fraud' (FTPF) offence, effective from 1 September 2025, moves beyond the traditional prosecutorial burden of proving senior management complicity. It establishes a strict liability model where the mere absence of "reasonable procedures" to prevent fraud constitutes the crime. For the construction and infrastructure sectors—industries systemically exposed to opportunistic behaviours and complex supply chains—this legislation presents an acute and existential risk from those you trade with as well as your employees actions.
This blog suggests that Digital Cost Assurance (DCA) represents a foundational and indispensable component of a robust "reasonable procedures" defence for large organisations operating in this high-risk environment. DCA is not merely an incremental technological upgrade but a strategic transformation of governance, risk, and compliance (GRC). Its capacity to generate radical transparency, data integrity, and continuous, automated oversight provides a direct and powerful countermeasure to the industry's endemic risks, which are often modelled by game theory's 'Prisoner's Dilemma'.
Key findings of my analysis are as follows:
Direct Alignment with Legal Defence Standards: The core mechanisms of DCA—including automated auditing, real-time data analytics, and AI-powered anomaly detection—map directly onto the six government-mandated principles for a "reasonable procedures" defence. It provides tangible, auditable evidence of top-level commitment, dynamic risk assessment, proportionate controls, and continuous monitoring.
Systemic Countermeasure to Game Theory Defection: The construction sector's commercial dynamics often incentivise 'defection'—opportunistic actions such as cost inflation, false claims, and quality compromises—enabled by information asymmetry between clients and contractors. By creating a single, verifiable source of truth for all cost data, DCA eliminates this information asymmetry, fundamentally altering the payoff matrix to disincentivise defection and promote cooperative, value-driven behaviour.
Synergy with Procurement Reform: The transparency mandates and supplier oversight mechanisms of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) create a powerful regulatory and commercial tailwind for DCA adoption. In the new public procurement landscape, the ability to demonstrate robust, digitally-enabled cost assurance will become a critical investment confidence differentiator, shifting DCA from a matter of legal defence to one of commercial necessity.
The strategic recommendation here is unequivocal. Large organisations including clients, contractors and consulting companies within the construction and infrastructure sectors must treat the threat of the FTPF offence as a board-level strategic priority. A comprehensive fraud risk assessment, viewed through the new lens of ECCTA, must be undertaken immediately. Following this, the strategic integration of DCA into the organisation's core GRC framework should be pursued not as a discretionary IT project, but as an urgent and essential evolution of corporate governance to meet the demands of a new era of accountability.
The New Paradigm of Corporate Accountability: Unpacking the 'Failure to Prevent Fraud' Offence
The ECCTA 2023 represents a comprehensive overhaul of the UK's legal framework for corporate and economic crime, building upon the foundations of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. Its stated purpose is to prevent the abuse of UK corporate structures and to tackle economic crime more broadly. Central to this legislative package is the creation of the new corporate offence of 'Failure to Prevent Fraud' (FTPF), a measure designed to drive a significant shift in corporate culture around fraud prevention.
The Legislative Overhaul: From Proving Complicity to Proving Prevention
Historically, attributing criminal liability for fraud to a large corporation in the UK was notoriously difficult. Prosecutors were required to satisfy the "identification principle," proving that the offence was committed by a "directing mind and will" of the company—typically a very senior individual on the board. This high bar meant that many organisations could evade prosecution for frauds committed by employees for the company's benefit, provided senior management remained sufficiently detached.
The FTPF offence, which comes into force on 1 September 2025, demolishes this barrier by establishing a strict liability crime. The offence is modelled on the successful "failure to prevent" frameworks previously introduced for bribery under the Bribery Act 2010 and for the facilitation of tax evasion under the Criminal Finances Act 2017. Under this new model, a corporation can be found criminally liable if an associated person commits a specified fraud offence for the organisation's benefit, irrespective of whether senior management knew about or ordered the fraud.
This legislative change fundamentally redefines corporate risk. Liability no longer arises solely from the active commission of a crime by the company's leadership but from the passive omission to prevent it. The crime is the failure to have adequate systems of control. This places the burden of proof squarely on the corporation to demonstrate that it had "reasonable procedures" in place to prevent such conduct. Consequently, an organisation's governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) functions are transformed from operational cost centres into the very heart of its legal defence.
Scope and Jurisdiction: Who is at Risk?
The FTPF offence is deliberately broad in its scope to capture a wide range of corporate activity and structures.
Defining a 'Large Organisation'
The offence applies only to "large organisations." An organisation falls within this definition if it meets two or more of the following criteria in the financial year preceding the fraud offence :
Turnover of more than £36 million
Balance sheet assets of more than £18 million
More than 250 employees
Crucially, if a parent company and its subsidiaries cumulatively meet this threshold, the entire group can be in scope. Liability can then attach to the specific entity that failed to prevent the fraud or, in certain circumstances, to the parent company itself.
The Expansive Reach of 'Associated Person'
The legislation defines an "associated person" in expansive terms to include employees, agents, subsidiaries, or any other person who performs services for or on behalf of the organisation. This broad definition is of profound significance for the construction industry, which operates through complex, multi-layered supply chains. It establishes a form of cascading liability, where a Tier 1 contractor could be held liable for a fraud committed by a Tier 3 subcontractor's employee, provided the fraud was intended to benefit the Tier 1 contractor (for example, by falsifying test certificates to ensure payment flows up the chain and the project milestones are met). This forces large organisations to look beyond their own internal controls and actively ensure the integrity of their entire value chain. A parent company can be held liable for fraud committed by an employee of its subsidiary.
The 'Benefit' Test
For the offence to be triggered, the associated person must have committed the fraud with the intention of benefiting the organisation, either directly or indirectly. Government guidance clarifies that this benefit does not need to be the sole or even the dominant motivation for the fraud; the primary motive could be personal gain for the fraudster. Furthermore, the organisation does not actually need to have received the benefit; the mere intention is sufficient. The benefit can also be non-financial, such as a reputational advantage. The only exception is where the organisation itself is the victim of the fraud.
Extra-Territorial Application
The FTPF offence possesses a wide extra-territorial reach. An organisation can be prosecuted even if it is based overseas, provided a UK nexus exists. This nexus is established if any act forming part of the fraud offence takes place in the UK, or if the intended gain or loss from the fraud was due to occur in the UK. This means an overseas project managed by a UK firm, or a project anywhere in the world that targets UK investors or involves UK-based suppliers in a fraudulent scheme, could fall within the jurisdiction of UK law enforcement.
The 'Reasonable Procedures' Defence: The Six Guiding Principles
The sole defence available to an organisation charged with the FTPF offence is to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it had "reasonable prevention procedures" in place at the time the fraud was committed. In rare cases, it may also be a defence to prove that it was not reasonable in the circumstances to have any such procedures.
The UK government has published guidance on what constitutes "reasonable procedures," outlining six core principles that should inform an organisation's anti-fraud framework. These principles create a benchmark against which a company's defence will be judged.
Top-Level Commitment: Senior management must foster a culture where fraud is unacceptable. This requires more than a policy document; it demands visible leadership, clear communication of the organisation's anti-fraud stance, allocation of adequate resources to compliance functions, and the establishment of clear governance structures and reporting lines for fraud prevention.
Risk Assessment: This is the cornerstone of the defence. Organisations are expected to conduct regular, robust, and documented risk assessments to identify their specific vulnerabilities to fraud. The guidance suggests considering the "fraud triangle"—opportunity, motive, and rationalisation—to understand where and how associated persons might commit fraud. The government has stated that it will "rarely" be considered reasonable for an organisation not to have conducted a risk assessment.
Proportionate Risk-Based Prevention Procedures: An organisation's controls must be proportionate to the risks it faces, considering its size, sector, complexity, and the nature of its business relationships. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach; it requires tailored procedures that directly address the risks identified in the assessment phase.
Due Diligence: Organisations must implement risk-based due diligence procedures for their associated persons. This is particularly critical for third parties such as agents, intermediaries, contractors, and joint venture partners, who represent a significant area of risk.
Communication (Including Training): Anti-fraud policies and procedures must be effectively communicated throughout the organisation and to relevant associated persons. This includes targeted training to ensure that employees and partners understand the fraud risks and their responsibilities in preventing them.
Monitoring and Review: The anti-fraud framework must be a living system. Organisations need to monitor and review their procedures regularly to ensure they remain effective and adapt to new and emerging risks. This includes learning from incidents, internal audits, and whistleblowing reports.
The emphasis on a dynamic, risk-based, and continuously monitored framework signals that static, "tick-box" compliance will be insufficient. A defensible position requires a GRC framework that is alive to the organisation's operational realities and can demonstrate, with data, that it is functioning effectively. This necessity for a data-driven approach provides the direct rationale for the adoption of advanced technological solutions.
The Prisoner's Dilemma in Practice: Game Theory Defection and Systemic Risk in Construction
To comprehend the profound impact of the FTPF offence on the construction sector, one must first understand the industry's inherent structural dynamics. The complex interplay between clients, project managers, and contractors on large-scale projects creates a real-world scenario that is aptly described by the principles of game theory, specifically the 'Prisoner's Dilemma'. This framework reveals a systemic propensity for opportunistic behaviour that ECCTA now seeks to hold corporations accountable for preventing.
An Introduction to Game Theory in Project Environments
The Prisoner's Dilemma is a foundational concept in game theory that demonstrates why two rational, self-interested parties might not cooperate, even when it appears that it is in their best interests to do so. In the classic scenario, two prisoners, unable to communicate, must decide whether to betray their partner ('defect') or remain silent ('cooperate'). The payoff structure is such that defecting is always the individually rational choice, regardless of the other's action. Consequently, the most likely outcome is mutual defection, which leads to a worse result for both parties than if they had cooperated.
This model is highly applicable to the construction industry. Large projects involve multiple stakeholders with competing interests, operating under conditions of high financial stakes and significant 'information asymmetry'—where one party (typically the contractor) possesses more or better information than the other (the client). This environment creates a powerful incentive for parties to prioritise their own interests at the expense of project-wide goals, mirroring the logic of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
The 'Pendulum Effect': From Winner's Curse to Cost Overrun
Research into public construction projects has identified a phenomenon described as the 'cost pendulum'. This dynamic begins at the bidding stage and extends through to final project delivery, driven by the strategic interactions between stakeholders.
The process often starts with a procurement model that prioritises the lowest bid. To secure work, contractors are incentivised to submit highly aggressive, often unrealistic bids that may be below market value. This is known as the 'winner's curse'—winning the contract but at a price that is unsustainable without future adjustments.
Having won the contract on a slim or negative margin, the contractor's dominant strategy becomes to recoup costs and generate profit through other means during the project execution phase. This is where 'defection' becomes a core business model. The pendulum swings from an undervalued initial bid to an overvalued final payment, achieved through a series of opportunistic tactics. The result is a state of mutual defection, which game theory identifies as the 'Nash Equilibrium'—a stable state where no player can improve their outcome by unilaterally changing their strategy. This dynamic is so ingrained that the industry has been described as having "informally accepted cost overruns as a reality".
Common examples of these defection tactics include:
Aggressive Claimsmanship: Contractors become adept at searching for loopholes in complex contracts to justify additional claims for time and money.
Inflated Valuations: Submitting false or exaggerated claims for variations, progress payments, or compensation events.
Compromising Standards: Cutting corners on quality, safety, or schedule to reduce actual costs while billing for the contractually specified standard.
Exploiting Information Asymmetry: During the construction stage, the contractor holds an "information advantage". They have granular, real-time visibility of their own costs, progress, and on-site issues, while the client and project manager often rely on periodic reports and sample-based inspections. This information gap makes it difficult for the client to effectively challenge the contractor's claims.
Lenient Oversight: Project managers, focused on project completion and avoiding disputes that could cause delays, may adopt a "lenient" management style, approving questionable claims to keep the project moving.
Linking Defection to Fraud Risk
The culture of normalised defection creates a fertile ground for behaviour that crosses the line from aggressive commercial practice into criminal fraud. The constant pressure to find margins provides the motive, the complexity of projects and information asymmetry provide the opportunity, and the industry-wide acceptance of this behaviour provides the rationalisation—completing the "fraud triangle."
Many of the defection tactics described above align directly with the "base fraud" offences listed in Schedule 13 of ECCTA. For example:
Submitting a deliberately inflated claim for non-existent work could constitute fraud by false representation.
Intentionally misrepresenting labour hours or material costs in an application for payment could be considered false accounting.
A systemic, ongoing practice of fraudulent billing across a project could amount to participation in a fraudulent business.
The critical point is that the FTPF offence does not target only isolated acts by rogue employees. It targets the corporate failure to implement systems that prevent these systemic, culturally ingrained behaviours from manifesting as criminal offences. Therefore, any "reasonable procedure" must be a systemic intervention designed to alter the fundamental game-theoretic dynamics of project delivery. The primary enabler of defection is information asymmetry; consequently, the most effective preventative control must be one that eradicates this information gap. Even seemingly collaborative contracting models, such as target cost contracts (e.g., NEC Option C), are not immune. While designed to align interests through a pain/gain share mechanism, the integrity of this model depends entirely on the accurate and verifiable calculation of the contractor's actual costs ('Defined Cost'). Without a robust and transparent assurance mechanism, the incentive to inflate costs to minimise 'pain' or maximise 'gain' persists, demonstrating that the contract form alone is insufficient without a powerful verification engine.
Digital Cost Assurance as a Strategic Defence: Aligning Technology with Compliance
Given the legal imperative established by ECCTA and the systemic risks inherent in the construction industry, a successful "reasonable procedures" defence cannot rely on traditional, manual controls alone. It requires a transformative solution that addresses the root cause of risk: information asymmetry. Digital Cost Assurance (DCA) emerges as this solution, providing the technological framework to build a robust, data-driven, and verifiable defence.
Defining Digital Cost Assurance (DCA)
At its core, Digital Cost Assurance is an automated assurance process that applies to all project-defined costs across the full terms of a contract. It represents a fundamental shift away from periodic, sample-based auditing towards a model of continuous, comprehensive analysis of 100% of a project's cost data. This is achieved through a combination of advanced technological mechanisms.
Key Technological Mechanisms
Automated Auditing and Real-Time Validation: DCA platforms integrate with project financial systems to automatically ingest cost data (e.g., invoices, timesheets, purchase orders). This data is then validated in real-time against the specific rules, rates, and terms defined in the commercial contract. The system instantly flags any non-compliant items, calculation errors, or potential duplicate billings, preventing incorrect payments before they are made.
Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence (AI): DCA leverages AI and machine learning algorithms to analyse vast datasets, detecting patterns, anomalies, and outliers that would be imperceptible to human auditors. For example, AI can benchmark labour productivity against historical norms, identify unusual spikes in material costs from a specific supplier, or flag payment requests that deviate from established patterns. This capability moves the assurance function from being purely reactive (finding past errors) to being predictive, identifying emerging risks before they escalate into significant financial or compliance issues.
Centralised Data Platform: DCA creates a single, immutable "source of truth" for all project cost information. All transactions, validations, and approvals are recorded in a secure, centralised repository with a clear and unalterable audit trail. This platform provides relevant stakeholders—including the client, project manager, and contractor—with shared visibility into project finances, directly dismantling the information asymmetry that enables opportunistic behaviour.
Mapping DCA Capabilities to the Six Principles of 'Reasonable Procedures'
The true power of DCA as a legal defence lies in its ability to provide tangible, documentary evidence that an organisation has implemented and is actively operating a framework consistent with the government's six guiding principles. The investment in and deployment of a sophisticated DCA platform is, in itself, a powerful demonstration of "Top-Level Commitment," signalling a serious, board-sanctioned approach to fraud prevention that transcends mere policy statements. The following table illustrates this direct alignment.
Table 1: Mapping Digital Cost Assurance Features to the Six Principles of 'Reasonable Procedures'
Altering the Game: How DCA Disincentivizes Defection
Beyond providing a legal defence, DCA fundamentally alters the commercial dynamics of a project by directly countering the enablers of game theory defection.
It achieves this primarily by eroding information asymmetry. With DCA, the client and project manager gain a level of granular, real-time cost visibility that was previously the exclusive domain of the contractor. When 100% of costs are subject to continuous, automated scrutiny, the probability of an inflated or fraudulent claim being detected approaches certainty.
This radically changes the payoff matrix for all parties. The "temptation" payoff for a contractor to defect is drastically reduced because the likelihood of being caught and penalised (through disallowed costs, contractual sanctions, or legal action) becomes extremely high. The dominant strategy shifts away from opportunistic defection and towards cooperation, as efficient, transparent, and honest project delivery becomes the most reliable and profitable path.
This data-driven transparency provides the foundation for genuine trust and collaboration. It allows contracts like the NEC, which are built on an ethos of mutual trust and cooperation, to function as intended. DCA provides the mechanism to verify and enforce this ethos, transforming adversarial, zero-sum interactions into positive-sum partnerships focused on shared project goals. The table below provides specific examples of how DCA's mechanisms counter common defection tactics.
Table 2: Countering Game Theory Defection with Digital Cost Assurance Mechanisms
Ultimately, DCA transforms the "reasonable procedures" defence from a subjective assessment of policies and intentions into an objective, verifiable demonstration of systemic control. It creates an immutable, time-stamped record proving that the organisation's anti-fraud controls were not just designed but were actively and effectively operating, providing a far more compelling and persuasive form of evidence to prosecutors and courts. This process also initiates a virtuous cycle: the demand for structured data improves data quality across the supply chain, which in turn enhances not only compliance but also operational efficiency, forecasting accuracy, and overall project profitability.
The Procurement Act 2023: A Catalyst for Transparency and Digital Adoption
The case for adopting Digital Cost Assurance is significantly strengthened by the parallel reforms introduced by the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023). While ECCTA creates the punitive legal imperative, the PA 2023 establishes a new public procurement framework where the principles of transparency and data-driven accountability are central. These two pieces of legislation are not independent; they represent two sides of a coordinated government strategy to enforce integrity and combat economic crime in the £300 billion annual public sector spend. For large contractors, this means the adoption of DCA is rapidly becoming a matter of both legal survival and commercial viability.
Core Objectives of the Procurement Act 2023
Coming into force in October 2024, the PA 2023 revokes and consolidates several existing procurement regulations into a single, streamlined regime for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Its key objectives are to create a simpler, more flexible, and fairer system that delivers better outcomes for the taxpayer. The most relevant changes include:
Radical Transparency and Integrity: The Act embeds transparency throughout the entire commercial lifecycle of a public contract. It introduces new procurement objectives that contracting authorities must prioritise, including delivering value for money, maximising public benefit, sharing information, and, critically, "acting, and being seen to act, with integrity".
A Central Digital Platform: The Act mandates the use of a single central digital platform for suppliers and contracting authorities, designed to streamline processes and ensure all procurement data is accessible in one place.
Enhanced Supplier Oversight: The Act introduces tougher measures for dealing with underperforming suppliers. This includes expanded grounds for discretionary exclusion based on prior poor performance and the creation of a central "debarment list," which can prevent a supplier from bidding for public contracts for a specified period.
Synergies Between PA 2023 and Digital Cost Assurance
The new procurement regime creates a powerful commercial and regulatory case for the adoption of DCA, creating direct synergies with the compliance drivers of ECCTA.
Enabling Mandatory Transparency: The PA 2023 introduces a raft of new transparency notices. Most notably, contracting authorities will be required to publish a Payments Compliance Notice every six months detailing their adherence to 30-day payment terms, and to publish information about any payment over £30,000 made under a public contract. DCA systems, which track every invoice and payment in real-time, can automate the generation of these reports with complete accuracy, ensuring a contractor can easily provide the necessary data to its public sector clients and demonstrate its own compliance with prompt payment down its supply chain.
Aligning with the Central Digital Platform: The government's vision of a central digital platform for all procurement activity perfectly mirrors the DCA model of a single, shared source of truth for project commercial data. Organisations that have already adopted DCA will be technologically and culturally prepared to integrate seamlessly with this new public infrastructure, gaining an efficiency advantage over competitors still reliant on fragmented, manual processes.
Creating a Competitive Advantage under 'Most Advantageous Tender' (MAT): The Act shifts the evaluation criteria for bids from the 'Most Economically Advantageous Tender' (MEAT) to the 'Most Advantageous Tender' (MAT). This significant change allows contracting authorities to place greater weight on non-financial factors, including a supplier's integrity, risk profile, and management processes. A bidder equipped with a DCA system can move beyond simply promising good governance; they can demonstrate it. They can prove they have a transparent, efficient, and low-risk cost management system, offering a more "advantageous" and lower-risk proposition to the public sector client. In this new landscape, demonstrable digital assurance will become a key competitive differentiator.
Defending Against Debarment: The PA 2023's debarment list creates a direct and severe commercial consequence for poor performance or integrity failings. The very behaviours rooted in game theory defection—such as significant cost overruns, a pattern of disputed claims, or quality failures—could trigger a review and lead to debarment. These are the same behavioural patterns that could attract the attention of law enforcement under ECCTA. Therefore, the systems implemented to prevent an FTPF prosecution, with DCA at their core, are the very same systems that will help a company maintain a clean performance record, build trust with public clients, and avoid the commercial catastrophe of being barred from public sector work.
The convergence of these two Acts means that large organisations in the construction sector are facing a pincer movement of legal and commercial pressure. ECCTA provides the prosecutorial "stick," while PA 2023 provides the commercial "carrot" (and a different kind of stick in the form of debarment). Together, they make a compelling, undeniable case for the strategic adoption of digital technologies that enforce transparency and integrity.
Strategic Implementation and Recommendations for Building a Defensible Framework
The successful adoption of Digital Cost Assurance is not a simple technology procurement exercise; it is a fundamental transformation of governance, culture, and process. To serve as an effective defence against the FTPF offence, its implementation must be strategic, holistic, and driven from the highest levels of the organisation. A purely technical rollout, managed as an isolated IT project, is destined to fail.
Beyond Technology: A Governance and Culture Transformation
The greatest challenge in implementing DCA is not technical but cultural. The construction industry has traditionally operated with a degree of opacity in its commercial dealings, where information is guarded and claims are negotiated. DCA enforces a new paradigm of radical transparency, which may be perceived as a threat by commercial teams—both internal and within the supply chain—accustomed to the established "game."
Overcoming this resistance requires a robust change management program underpinned by unequivocal board-level sponsorship. The initiative must be framed as a strategic GRC imperative, essential for the legal protection and commercial future of the business. This leadership is the first and most critical step in demonstrating the "Top-Level Commitment" required by the government's guidance.
The integration of DCA should be structured around the well-established "Three Lines of Defence" model of risk management :
First Line (Operational Management): Project directors and commercial managers use the DCA platform's real-time data for day-to-day cost control, subcontractor payment validation, and informed decision-making. The tool becomes part of their standard operating procedure for managing project financials.
Second Line (Risk and Compliance Oversight): A central function (e.g., Commercial, Finance, or Compliance) uses the DCA system to set enterprise-wide policies and control standards. They monitor risks across the entire project portfolio, analyse trends, investigate major anomalies, and provide assurance reports to the executive leadership and the board.
Third Line (Internal Audit): The internal audit function uses the DCA platform as a powerful tool for its independent assurance activities. Instead of relying on manual sampling, auditors can leverage the system's comprehensive, immutable data to test the effectiveness of the first and second lines' controls with 100% coverage, providing a much higher level of assurance.
A Phased Implementation Roadmap
A "big bang" approach to implementation across a large organisation is high-risk. A more strategic, phased roadmap is recommended to manage complexity, build momentum, and ensure success.
Phase 1: FTPF-Specific Fraud Risk Assessment: The immediate first step is to conduct a comprehensive fraud risk assessment, specifically through the lens of the FTPF offence. This process must identify the highest-risk projects, processes (e.g., procurement, change order management, final account settlement), and "associated person" relationships within the supply chain. This assessment will provide the data-driven rationale for prioritising the DCA rollout.
Phase 2: Pilot Program: Select one or two high-risk, high-complexity projects for a pilot implementation of DCA. A project using a target cost contract (e.g., NEC Option C) would be an ideal candidate, as the integrity of the pain/gain mechanism is entirely dependent on accurate cost verification. The pilot will allow the organisation to test and refine its processes, configure the technology, and build a powerful internal case study demonstrating the value of the system.
Phase 3: Supply Chain Engagement and Contractual Integration: A DCA system is only as effective as the data it receives. A critical phase involves developing a clear strategy for onboarding the supply chain. This will require proactive engagement to explain the benefits of the new system (e.g., faster, more accurate payments). Crucially, it will also necessitate updating standard subcontract and supplier agreements to mandate the use of the platform and the provision of data in a structured, digital format. This contractual lever is essential for managing the risk posed by the broad definition of "associated persons."
Phase 4: Full-Scale Rollout and Systems Integration: Following a successful pilot, the DCA platform can be rolled out across the organisation's wider portfolio of projects. To maximise efficiency and create a unified data ecosystem, the DCA system should be integrated with existing enterprise software, including Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Building Information Modeling (BIM), and project management systems.
Documenting the Defence: Creating the Evidentiary Record
Under the FTPF offence, it is not enough to have reasonable procedures; an organisation must be able to prove they were in place and operating effectively at the time of an offence. Documentation is paramount. DCA's greatest strength as a defensive tool is its ability to automatically generate an immutable, time-stamped evidentiary record.
Organisations should meticulously maintain the following documentation:
The documented outputs of the fraud risk assessment process, including the rationale for the prioritisation and design of the DCA implementation.
All policies, procedures, governance charters, and role definitions related to the operation of the DCA system and the associated GRC framework.
Comprehensive records of all training delivered to internal staff and supply chain partners on the anti-fraud framework and the use of the DCA platform.
Archived periodic reports generated from the DCA system, demonstrating the ongoing monitoring of risks, controls, and compliance levels, as presented to senior management and the board.
A clear audit trail of all actions taken in response to critical alerts, anomalies, or non-compliance issues flagged by the DCA system, demonstrating that the organisation responds effectively to identified risks.
By following this strategic approach, an organisation can transform DCA from a mere software tool into a cornerstone of a living, breathing, and—most importantly—defensible GRC framework. Over time, the rich, structured data captured by the DCA system will evolve from a compliance necessity into a profound strategic asset. This proprietary dataset on actual project costs, supplier performance, and risk events will enable highly accurate benchmarking and predictive analytics, allowing the organisation to bid on future work with greater precision, price risk more effectively, and build a more resilient and profitable business. The tool adopted for defence will ultimately become an engine for a sustainable competitive advantage.
Comments