BIOHERITAGE SELF REVIEW AND CONTRACTING
Key Points
• The Board received BioHeritage Tranche 2 Strategic Outcome/Ngā Rakau Taketake
investments from Mana Rangatira at the April Board meeting.
• The Board discussed the paper and agreed to endorse the paper subject to the external
review being carried out to ensure the process had met the required standards.
Subsequently, and as documented in the 29 April 2020 paper, the Board agreed by email on
30 April 2020 to be a self-review (by Mana Rangatira) submitted to the Manaaki Whenua
Audit & Risk Committe
• The self-review has now been completed by Mana Rangatira for the first two strategic areas
and contracts. It is currently being circulated to the full Mana Rangatira for endorsement.
The framework for the self-review, is consistent with original proposal, has evolved to record
the key control aspects applicable at each step of the investment process.
• The CEO and CFO support this presentation of this self-review to the Audit and Risk
Committee.
Recommendation
• The purpose of this paper is to
o provide and seek feedback on the self-review
o seek the Audit & Risk Committee’s endorsement of completed self-review
o approve (as delegated by the Board) to proceed to signing of the contracts
o delegate to Mana Rangatira the review and approval of the annual work plans, final
due diligence and risk assessment and contracts.
o delegate the signing of the contracts, subject to Mana Rangatira approval and legal
review to the CEO of MWLR.
Learnings
Key learnings discussed between the CFO and James Buwalda (Co-chair – Mana Rangatira) include:
• The need to record more explicitly in the where Mana Rangatira has actively considered
risk/assurance issues and the conclusions it has reached.
The Co-chair has noted that the minutes of meetings don’t fully reflect the extent and nature
of our discussion on such matters, as Mana Rangatira has worked through the investment
planning/decision process over the last year.
• The is also opportunity for decision papers to Mana Rangatira and from Mana Rangatira to
the MWLR Board to explicitly comment and confirm application of processes and active
management of risk.
Review by CFO
• Following agreement of the framework, the Co-chair of Mana Rangatira has completed the
documentation, which is in the process of being endorsed by Mana Rangatira.
• The ‘Context and introduction to self-review framework’ below explains the mapping of the
risks framework (ie the 5 areas of focus) onto the investment cycle – with
o white boxes being the points of key control,
o the blank grey boxes not having control points.
• The text in the tables contains links to the underlying document, however the key document
for the purposes of this self review are the comments contain in this document. As noted in
the learnings, the underlying documents do not always appropriately capture the explicit risk
focus.
These statements should be viewed as statements, judgements and conclusions form Mana
Rangatira.
I have not reviewed the underlying document, but rather have focused on evidence that the
control points exist and the role of Mana Rangatira.
• I believe this self-review demonstrates appropriate knowledge and actions to manage the
risks – noting:
o Some matters – ie development of the annual work plan, estimation of effort for the
agreed portfolio investment and financial due diligence relating to value for money
will be completed as part of contract negotiations and developing the annual work
plan.
o The key process aspects relating to conflicts of interest are included- ie the conflicted
individuals not being directly involved in the decision process. There are opportunities
to strengthen this process, including having a explicit plan for managing the conflicts
and declarations that the potential conflicts are understood by the panel. Mitigating
this specific area – the potential conflicts are well documented on the conflicts of
interest register, there is a specific and public statement as to how conflicts will be
managed and an awareness of the potential conflicts by the Mana Rangatira as
documented through their actions.
• As this is a non contestable sourcing activity, with preferred partners identified based on the
selection of Research co-leads (steps 1-4) their is no market process to assist assessing value
for money or as a contrast when considering the other criteria.
This is not unusual in research projects. Consequently, there is a significant reliance on the
review and assurance related to the goal setting, strategic assessment, and nominal budget
allocation as set out in steps 1-4.
Mana Rangatira Self- Review
Context and introduction to self-review framework
What is in these slides
•
The next slides summarise the state of play with respect to each Challenge Tranche 2 and Ngā
Rākau Taketake investments, matrixed against the Manaaki Whenua Audit & Risk Committee
request.
•
The Challenge decision-making framework (previously tabled) is included on a later slide. It
highlights the steps in the process of contracting Challenge and NRT investments by
negotiation.
How we have complied with the audit
•
We follow a step-wise process to build the right team. This process is
transparent, and
clearly laid out on the Challenge website for anyone to access. Key decisions are recorded,
conflicts of interest addressed and documented in the form of minutes, signed conflicts of
interest documents, an interests register, spreadsheet(s), or other documentation. Progress
towards each step is
colour-coded in column 2 on each slide.
•
On the next slides we link this step-wise process to the approach laid out in the audit Board
paper, in a matrix framework.
•
When the process is complete, relevant cells will contain a
hyperlink to documented
evidence on the Challenge Sharepoint site, accessible by anyone on the MRGG.
•
This framework will enable Mana Rangatira to
access any and all documents that
demonstrate that we have complied with the audit.
•
Every contract – irrespective of lead provider – is treated in exactly the same way i.e.
goes through the same steps in the lead-up to execution of a contract.
Key to colour-coding on the next slides
Challenge Tranche 2 - Strategic Outcome 1 - A Biological Heritage Scorecard for Aotearoa - $650,000
Strategic Outcome 1
Step
Quality of proposed activity
Provider’s capacity to deliver
Conflict(s) of interest
Pricing/Value for money
Significant risks
A Biological Heritage Scorecard for
Aotearoa
Extensive scoping, design,
Completed
Considered in early stages
Scoping Members interest
Standard honorarium paid to all
Considered in MRGG papers
- 2019/06/06 & minutes
and 2024 Goals completed
register
parties contracted to participate
$650,000
Link to T2 EOI scoping
Link to T2 EOI scoping
in scoping process, who weren’t
No significant risk, beyond those being managed
documents area which
documents
otherwise/already contracted
through standard Challenge processes, noted at this
includes spreadsheets / notes
members of the leadership
early stage of investment planning.
and ToR.
team
. Link to standard
letter/contract with honorarium
Link to Scoping Panel Report
amount
Link to Pitch Presentation
ISAP peer-review of Scoping
Completed and teams revised
Panel Report completed
reports
Link to ISAP review documents
Director, KN, & SLG review
Director review of each
SLG/KB Interest register
of Scoping Panel Report;
Scoping report with feedback
John Reid
Goals prioritised
to each team – written and
Mana Rangatira tested process
verbal
with Director, and assured that
Kiri Wallace
potential conflicts were
Link to all KB/SLG review
managed appropriately (noting
documents
no decisions at this stage
regarding project leads or
proposed levels of investment).
Potentially conflicted parties
were not directly involved in
decision regarding prioritisation
of respective goal.
Nominal budget allocated
Minutes of decision – both SLG
Minutes of decision – both SLG
for research teams to
and MRGG meetings
and MRGG meetings
address prioritised Goals
SLG Hui Meeting 4 December
SLG Hui Meeting 4 December
2019 (Christchurch)
2019 (Christchurch)
MRGG 2019/12/06
MRGG 2019/12/06
Nominal budgets reflected
priorities and
recommendations identified in
scoping reports, followed by
moderation by Leadership
Team.
Mana Rangatira interrogated
and reviewed nominal budget
allocation at December2019
meeting, noting that annual
allocations can be varied based
on commitments made in each
Annual Work Plan and
following annual reviews of
progress against objective.
Research co-leads and lead
Potential co-leads/proivders
Potential co-leads/proivders
CoI policy applied when
provider identified and
identified at SLG hui 4
identified at SLG hui 4
identifying potential co-leads
selected
December
December
and providers –
Mana Rangatira interrogated
Mana Rangatira acknowledged
Conflict of interest policy
and reviewed research
reputation and capability of
leads/lead provider
project leads and track record of
No material conflicts-of-interest
recommendations at
UoW as a lead provider. Project
identified for this investment.
December 2019 meeting.
leads demonstrate real
Project leads/lead provider not
understanding of ‘right team’,
directly involved in investment
Mana Rangtira reviewed
collaboration, and intended
recommendations to Mana
capability and reputation of
impact.
Rangatira.
project co-leads, noting their
reputation and track record.
These co-leads stood out
during scoping process as
having the best understanding
of the need and the best
approach for addressing that
need. This conclusion widely
endorsed within leadership
team and by others involved in
scoping process.
Recommendations to
Considered in MRGG papers
Considered in MRGG papers
MRGG to enable team
[link to Dec papers and
construction & AWP
minutes]
(annual workplan)
development
Approval sought from
MWLR Board for
initial investment to enable team
construction and AWP
development
SLG worked with co-leads
to build the right team;
initial research commenced
Approval sought from
MWLR Board for
further investment to enable team
construction and AWP
development and
further research begun
AWP completed (detail
Outlined in AWP
Outlined in AWP
Outlined in AWP
Outlined in AWP
Outlined in AWP
coming year, lesser detail in
out-years) and tabled with
Link will be provided when
Link will be provided when
Link will be provided when
Link will be provided when
Link will be provided when completed
SLG; initial research
completed
completed
completed
completed
activities continued
Mana Ranagtira will formally
Mana Rangatira will formally
Mana Ranagtira will formally
record its
record its
record its
understanding/assurance re
understanding/assurance re
understanding/assurance re
ability of provider/key
Conflicts-of-interest.
pricing and value-for-money
individuals to deliver.
Communications Plan,
Stakeholder Engagement
Plan, & IP Plan completed &
tabled with SLG
SLG sign off draft AWP and
submit to ISAP for peer-
review
ISAP peer-review of AWP
Link to ISAP review will be
completed; AWP finalised
provided when received
and recommended for
approval to MRGG
AWP approved; coming
Link will be provided when
Link will be provided when
year’s funding released and
completed
completed
research progresses
Ngā Rākau Taketake - Theme 1 - Oranga - $1,106,000
Theme 1
Step
Quality of proposed activity
Provider’s capacity to deliver
Conflict(s) of interest
Pricing/Value for money
Significant risks
Oranga
Extensive scoping, design,
Completed
Considered in early stages
Scoping Members interest
Standard honorarium paid to all
Considered in MRGG papers
- 2019/06/02
$1,106,000
and 2024 Goals completed
register
parties contracted to
& minutes
Link to T2 EOI scoping
Link to T2 EOI scoping
participate in scoping process,
documents area which includes
documents
who weren’t otherwise/already
No significant risk, beyond those being
spreadsheets / notes and EoI
contracted members of the
managed through standard Challenge
ToR.
leadership team
. Link to
processes, noted at this early stage of
standard letter/contract with
investment planning.
Link to Scoping Panel Report
honorarium amount
Link to Pitch Presentation
ISAP peer-review of Scoping
Completed and teams revised
Panel Report completed
reports
Link to ISAP review documents
Director, KN, & SLG review
Director review of each Scoping
SLG/KB Interest register
of Scoping Panel Report;
report with feedback to each
Goals prioritised
team – written and verbal
Alby Marsh
Conflicts of interest noted for all
parties potentially contributing
Link to all KB/SLG review
to proposed activity.
Melanie Mark-Shadbolt
documents
Mana Rangatira tested process
with Director, and assured that
such potential conflicts were
managed appropriately (noting
no decisions at this stage
regarding project leads or
proposed levels of investment).
Potentially conflicted parties
recused from decision regarding
prioritisation of respective goal.
Nominal budget allocated
Minutes of decision – both SLG
Provider is outside main
for research teams to
and MRGG meetings
Challenge Party organisations
address prioritised Goals
so extra scrutiny at SLG and
SLG Hui Meeting 4 December
cross-check that standard
2019 (Christchurch)
charge-out rates would be
applied to researchers;
Nominal budgets reflected
standard honoraria for non-
priorities and recommendations
researchers (e.g. kaitiaki) follow
identified in scoping reports,
Challenge SOP fo
r Sensitive
followed by moderation by
Discretionary Expenditure
Leadership Team.
Evidence:
Mana Rangatira interrogated
and reviewed nominal budget
SLG Hui Meeting 4 December
allocation at December2019
2019 (Christchurch); and SLG
meeting, noting that annual
review via email; and email
allocations can be varied based
evidence of Director making
on commitments made in each
final decision on this investment
Annual Work Plan and following
annual reviews of progress
against objective.
Research co-leads and lead
Co-leads ranked using criteria
Provider is outside main
Provider is outside main
provider identified and
Challenge Party organisations
Challenge Party organisations
selected
NRT co-leads scoring
so extra scrutiny at MRGG –
and leader is on the SLG, so
spreadsheet and criteria
TTW provide most significant
extra scrutiny at SLG and MRGG
documents
reach and delivery for/by/and
including Mel recusing herself
with Māori researchers and
from leadership decisions.
Mana Rangatira interrogated
communities.
and reviewed research
Evidence:
leads/lead provider
Evidence:
recommendations at December
Scoring spreadsheet for NRT
2019 meeting.
MRGG minute of discussion
about TTW – CoI and capacity
Mana Rangatira considered
Mana Rangtira reviewed nature
merit/logic of Mel’s leadership
of the ‘Māori Biosecurity
Mana Rangatira reviewed legal
for this investment, alongside
Network enabled by proposed
structure/office holders of TTW,
her role on the Challenge
lead Provider (Te Tira
and satisfied TTW is sound
leadership group, and satisfied
Whakamātaki, TTW), noting
entity for contracting and has
her specific skills and
their reach and reputation. No
appropriate reach and
experience are critical for the
other potential provider
reputation to fulfil
successful delivery of this
available with comparable
requirements of this
investment and achievement of
reach and reputation with
investment.
intended goal. Mel’s track
Māori.
record and reputation with
Mana Rangatira aware that
stakeholders in this area are
(Note – TTW recognised in MPI
funding will largely facilitate
very strong.
National Biosecurity Awards,
activity in the overall Māori
Iwi Leaders Group as
Biosecurity Network (not simply
Mana Rangatira regularly
premier/leading entity in this
by TTW office-holders)
monitors this conflict by seeking
regular assurance from the
area.)
Director that CoI policy is being
applied appropriately, and that
the nature of the risks is well
understood (to the Challenge
and to TTW).
Recommendations to
Considered in MRGG papers
Consid
ered in MRGG papers Beyond on-
MRGG to enable team
[link to Dec papers and
going management of Conflict-of-interest,
construction & AWP
minutes]
Mana Rangatira recognised need to protect
(annual workplan)
interests of Challenge (and TTW) given
development
TTW’s wider roles and functions beyond
those directly aligned to Challenge
objectives. MOU with TTW considered;
landed on NDA instead
Approval sought from
MWLR Board for
initial investment to enable team
construction and AWP
development
SLG worked with co-leads
to build the right team;
initial research commenced
Approval sought from
MWLR Board for
further investment to enable team
construction and AWP
development and
further research begun
AWP completed (detail
Outlined in AWP
Outlined in AWP
Outlined in AWP
Outlined in AWP
Outlined in AWP
coming year, lesser detail in
out-years) and tabled with
Link will be provided when
Link will be provided when
Link will be provided when
Link will be provided when
Link will be provided when completed
SLG; initial research
completed
completed
completed
completed
activities continued
Mana Ranagtira will formally
Mana Rangatira will formally
Overpricing concerns are always
record its
record its
highlighted by SLG/Operations
understanding/assurance re
understanding/assurance re
Manger during contracting.
ability of provider/key
Conflicts-of-interest.
Mana Ranagtira will formally
individuals to deliver.
record its
understanding/assurance re
pricing and value-for-money
Communications Plan,
Stakeholder Engagement
Plan, & IP Plan completed &
tabled with SLG
SLG sign off draft AWP and
submit to ISAP for peer-
review
ISAP peer-review of AWP
Link will be provided when
completed; AWP finalised
completed
and recommended for
approval to MRGG
AWP approved; coming
Link will be provided when
Link will be provided when
year’s funding released and
completed
completed
research progresses
Appendix -
