The Concern
For three years, one vendor had supplied packaging materials to both of a mid-sized manufacturing company’s plants. Read More
What We Did
Defined the question. With leadership, we agreed exactly what needed to be established: whether the pricing was justified, how the vendor had been selected, and whether there was any relationship that should have been disclosed. Read More
What We Found
Pricing had drifted well above market. Over time, the vendor’s rates had risen significantly above market levels. Read More
The Outcome
Clear, evidence-based findings: Management received a report that kept established facts separate from open questions. Read More
The Concern
For three years, one vendor had supplied packaging materials to both of a mid-sized manufacturing company’s plants. Deliveries arrived on time, and there had been no quality complaints.
Then a new finance controller noticed something small. The vendor’s rates had gone up steadily every year, while comparable quotes from other suppliers had not.
On its own, that proved nothing. But the company couldn’t comfortably answer the question internally, because the vendor had been onboarded and managed by a long-serving member of the procurement team. Leadership needed to know whether there was a real problem, without casting suspicion on the wider team.
What We Did
- Defined the question. With leadership, we agreed exactly what needed to be established: whether the pricing was justified, how the vendor had been selected, and whether there was any relationship that should have been disclosed.
- Reviewed the transaction trail. We examined three years of purchase orders, invoices and approval records.
- Benchmarked the pricing. We compared the vendor’s rates over the period with market rates.
- Traced the vendor’s background. We reviewed the original onboarding file and traced the vendor’s ownership and directorship history through public company filings and other lawful sources.
- Interviewed once the facts were clear. Only after the documentary picture was established did we conduct structured interviews with the individuals involved.
What We Found
- Pricing had drifted well above market. Over time, the vendor’s rates had risen significantly above market levels.
- Increases went unchallenged. Price increases had been approved without competitive quotes.
- The onboarding file was incomplete. Key selection and verification documents were missing.
- There was an undeclared relationship. Public records showed that one of the vendor’s directors was a close relative of the procurement employee who had recommended and managed the account. The relationship had never been declared.
- Some concerns were ruled out. The evidence showed no sign that anyone else in the procurement team was involved, and the quality of supplies had not been compromised.
The Outcome
- Clear, evidence-based findings: Management received a report that kept established facts separate from open questions.
- Proportionate action: The company took action against the individual concerned, based on verified evidence.
- Supply terms reset: The supply arrangement was renegotiated to reflect fair market pricing.
- Stronger controls: Vendor onboarding and conflict-of-interest declaration processes were tightened.
- Resolved quietly: The matter was closed without disrupting operations, and no unfounded suspicion fell on the wider team.