Transparency International Rwanda has been promoting integrity pacts (IPs) since the early 2000s, when a new decentralisation policy exposed local authorities to increased corruption risks in large-scale procurements. In 2011, the government expressed interest in applying IPs to infrastructure projects. TI Rwanda began to garner the necessary support for the tool among different stakeholders, and in 2013, the decision was made to monitor two projects.

The IP model in these two projects consisted of integrity pledges, disclosure requirements for contracting authorities and bidders, and sanctions such as loss of procurement and debarment from future tenders. The IPs covered the whole procurement process and included whistle-blower protection and independent monitoring.

The monitor, who had expertise in procurement and civil engineering, was selected through an independent selection committee that included TI Rwanda’s board and staff, the private sector, and the government. The monitor’s main role was to ensure compliance with relevant laws, scrutinise documents and decisions related to the procedure, identify and prevent irregularities, and, if any emerged, report them to TI Rwanda and the contracting authority. It was then at TI Rwanda’s discretion whether to report them to the public or not.

The IP increased bidders’ confidence and trust, while the mere fact that stakeholders were aware of the presence of an independent monitor positively affected their behaviour. The IP even resulted in the Rwandan Private Sector Federation developing a code of conduct requiring signatories to refrain from bribery.

In 2015-2016, TI Rwanda, with financial support from the German Development Agency, implemented an “Integrity Pact +", which combined the traditional integrity pact (IP) agreement with the use of an online monitoring tool, social audits, focus group discussions, and field visits to the previous projects. They oversaw the tender process of nine infrastructure projects in four districts (Kayonza, Huye, Musanze, and Rubavu) for a total value of approximately US$17 million. These included the construction of one health centre and a handicraft centre, as well as seven projects for the construction and maintenance of roads.

This initiative was a unique case of “decentralised” IP implementation, in which four different district coordinators from TI Rwanda led monitoring activities for the different contracting projects. During the first phase of a procurement project, district coordinators participated in meetings, reviewed the tender documents, and verified they were following the law while using the online monitoring tool. In the implementation phase, they actively involved affected communities in the monitoring by selecting two representatives to support verifying that the work's execution was according to the contract.

In addition, TI Rwanda’s district coordinators conducted social audits, collecting data and feedback about the procurements from 447 citizens, 117 hired auxiliary workers, and six supervising engineers. They also held focus group discussions with bidders and contractors in three districts. Throughout the project, the donor provided technical support, supported TI Rwanda’s organisational development and provided financing for meetings, regional coordinator inspections, dissemination and communication activities, and citizen engagement.

The use of IPs positively impacted procurement processes. In the Rubavu district, the contract was terminated after the monitor found out that the road construction material quality was sub-standard, and a new supplier was selected. In Musanze, constant alerts regarding delays in contract implementation prompted the authorities to intervene and save the project from termination. In other projects, the IP contributed to the discovery of several instances of failure in compensating citizens for land expropriations.

Moreover, the social audits and focus group discussions allowed TI Rwanda to collect a wealth of data and information regarding current problems and corruption risks in infrastructure projects, including long delays in project implementation, price schedules in the contracts different from those in the winning bids, construction imperfections, and violations of other rules.