Research Partners Toolkit

The research partners toolkit supports researchers and professional services staff when developing new and existing relationships with partners outside UCL.

What is this toolkit?

The toolkit is designed to support the identification and management of the risks that we are likely to meet when dealing with partners. Partners can include research collaborators, sub-contractors, sponsors or others where a contractual relationship with UCL is being created. It forms part of the overall due diligence for UCL to decide whether it wants to enter into new relationships or maintain an existing one; identifiying four main areas to consider and points to ways of addressing them.

Who should use this toolkit?

You should use this toolkit if you are a Principal Investigator planning or running a research project with external parties. Principal Investigators are responsible for obtaining relevant information on external parties so that their risks can be identified and assessed. Professional services staff should also follow this toolkit when supporting a research project that involves external parties.

If your project involves parties in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs), you should use the  specific LMIC due diligence process instead which is tailored to the specific risks related to these types of country.

If your project involves fieldwork, you should also refer to the Framework for starting or resuming fieldwork at non-UCL settings which addresses the approach to be taken during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• LMIC due diligence process
• Framework for starting or resuming fieldwork at non-UCL settings

When should the toolkit be used?

Principal Investigators should check against the toolkit at the planning, start and duration of a project. The types of risk and their impact will change over time so you should periodically reassess the risks and be prepared to change how you manage them. The earlier a risk is identified, the more time there is to avoid it or mitigate against it.

The key touch points are:

1. Developing a research proposal

Principal Investigators should carry out an initial check on external parties at the earliest opportunity and before outline applications are made. The check will help you to structure the research collaboration and for all partners to identify the risks involved.

You should continue to monitor the status of known risks and emerging risks as the project is developed.

2. Making a funding application

The Principal Investigator seeks institutional authorisation for a funding proposal through the Worktribe process. The process includes a risk assessment which must be completed. If the partner is not already registered on Worktribe, Research Services will conduct a check beforehand.

• Approval and submissions - Worktribe process

3. Accepting an award and agreeing a contract

You should undertake a thorough review of risks as soon as possible after an award is made, which must be completed before contracts are agreed, the research starts, and before any financial transactions take place.

4. Managing the project

Managing risk is an ongoing exercise. Following the decision to proceed with the project, the Principal Investigator should keep any relevant risk issues under review and ensure that partners are complying with funder requirements and the collaboration agreement. This can be done through regular project monitoring and financial reporting. Monitoring and reporting can be delegated to a financially competent administrator.

Longer term projects should have appropriate milestone points where the project and its risks can be reviewed, and remedial actions taken. These milestone points may also be linked to funding to ensure UCL is not financial exposure at any point. These reviews will support risk and compliance management.

If you have any concerns that risks may materialise during the project you should first raise this with your Head of Department / Division Director to agree any further investigation and the best course of action.

Where awards have already been made

Funders are increasingly requesting confirmation that risks have been identified and managed appropriately. The Principal Investigator should be prepared to respond to any enquiries from the funder about risk management.

Who gives approval?

If arrangements differ from UCL’s standard terms, approval will be required from the Head of Department / Division Director in the first instance. Where approval is needed is highlighted in the Toolkit. The Dean retains final approval for the sign-off of projects.

Toolkit

The toolkit is divided into four sections. Each section makes several statements on UCL's standard terms that you should feel confident in addressing. A Word version of the toolkit is available to help track responses.

• Research Partners Toolkit

  Research Partners Toolkit
  (Word)

Last updated 16 December 2020

1. Organisation

Statement	How to find out	If the answer is ‘no’
The partner’s organisational structure is clear.	Check the partner’s website or ask the partner for an organisational structure.	If the organisational structure is unclear, it raises concerns over management and control. This may need to be addressed in any contract.
The partner has been established for at least three years and has up-to-date annual accounts.	Check the partner’s annual accounts. These should be available on the partner’s website. Information on most UK-based organisations can also be obtained from Companies House or the Charity Commission. Companies House Charity Commission	The partner may not have a proven track record in delivering results or financial management. Any contract would need to include appropriate monitoring and funding arrangements.
Any grant funding received by the partner via UCL forms a minority of its turnover.	Check the partner’s annual accounts. Compare the amount the partner could receive against its annual income.	The partner may be over-reliant on the funding and not have the resources to fulfil its obligations. Any contract would need to include appropriate monitoring and funding arrangements.
The partner is able to engage fully in the project without any additional legal restrictions.	Enquire with the partner whether they have faced a legal sanction in the last three years (or are subject to current litigation) which could impact on the project.	Legal Services advice should be sought over the relevance to UCL of contracting with a party that has faced a legal sanction. Please note that not all breaches will be significant. Legal Services
None of the partner’s named collaborators are a politically exposed person (PEP).	PEPs can be: Heads of state, heads of government, ministers, and deputy or assistant ministers Members of Parliament Members of courts of auditors or of the boards of central banks Ambassadors, chargés d’affaires and high-ranking officers in the armed forces Members of the administrative, management or supervisory bodies of state-owned enterprises Members of supreme courts, constitutional courts or other high-level judicial bodies whose decisions are not generally subject to further appeal, except in exceptional circumstances	PEPs require additional scrutiny to mitigate the risk that the proceeds of bribery and corruption may be laundered, or assets otherwise stripped from their country of origin. If the PEP is based in an LMIC, you should use the separate due diligence process.  If the PEP is not based in an LMIC, you should seek approval. LMIC due diligence process Who gives approval?

2. Geography

Statement	How to find out	If the answer is ‘no’
The partner is based in a country with a low level of corruption.	Check the country’s ranking in the Corruption Perception Index. Corruption Perception Index	If the partner is based in an LMIC, you should use the separate due diligence process. LMIC due diligence process If the partner is not based in an LMIC but the country’s Corruption Perception Index score is below 55, there may be risks if funds need to be recovered. A partner in such a country would require approval. Who gives approval?
The partner is based in a country omitted from any sanctions list.	Check the UK Government Sanctions Regime and Barclays Restricted Countries List. UK Government Sanctions Regime Barclays Restricted Countries List (pdf)	If the partner is based in an LMIC, you should use the separate due diligence process. LMIC due diligence process If the partner is not based in an LMIC but the country appears on either the UK Government or Barclays list, approval will be required. Who gives approval?

3. Project

Statement	How to find out	If the answer is ‘no’
The project meets UCL’s definition of research.	Review the current research plan.	UCL is a registered charity and undertaking consultancy may breech the registration rules and have significant impact on future research capability.  Advice should be sought if there is any concern that the contract should be defined as a consultancy.
The project complies with UK law and UCL’s Code of Conduct for Research. Code of Conduct for Research	Review the current research plan.	UCL is required to comply with all relevant UK laws.  All research must be in line with UCL’s Code of Conduct for Research. Code of Conduct for Research
The project excludes the transfer of data or materials to external parties.	Review the current research plan.	UCL is required to comply with the GDPR legislation. Guidance is available on data protection for researchers. Data Protection guidance for researchers Where a project requires the transfer of data or materials specific contractual protections will be required to ensure compliance with legislation. In addition to any UK controls, researchers may be required to comply with overseas governments controls. These are most notably US or EU controls relating to the export of arms, Intellectual Property or other articles to embargoed states. The consequences of breaching these rules can be significant both on the individual, UCL and its senior management.  Any project likely to come under such controls should be carefully considered and specialist/legal advice sought.

4. Contract

Statement	How to find out	If the answer is ‘no’
The partner’s position on confidentiality is appropriate for all parties.	Consider what has been discussed with the partner verbally or in writing.	Confidentiality clauses in the contract should be appropriate for all parties. Confidentiality clauses often create unintended constraints and may restrict their ability to undertake existing or future research projects. Confidentiality agreements should never be entered into without appropriate contractual review.
The partner’s position on Intellectual Property (IP) is aligned with UCL’s IP Policy. IP Policy	Consider what has been discussed with the partner verbally or in writing.	All projects must comply with the UCL’s IP policy. Some funders will seek ownership or rights over background and foreground IP. This is a very sensitive area and can potentially impact on UCL’s charitable status and result in material loss to UCL. All projects where IP ownership is at issue should be referred to UCL Innovation and Enterprise for advice. IP Policy UCL Innovation and Enterprise UCL does not guarantee the outcome of any research, and to comply with its research obligations the scope of the research and its management much be solely at the discretion of UCL.  Any limitations on your or UCL’s rights over outputs must be understood and approved in advance. Who gives approval?
The partner accepts limitations on liability.	Consider what has been discussed with the partner verbally or in writing.	UCL should not take on unlimited liability in a contract.
The partner’s position on publication and dissemination is aligned with UCL’s Open Access policy. Open Access Policy	Consider what has been discussed with the partner verbally or in writing.	Projects should comply with the UCL’s Open Access policy. Principal Investigators and any other researchers involved in the project should be able to publish and disseminate research. Any exceptions should be discussed first with the Open Access Team and will require approval. Open Access Team Who gives approval?
The partner accepts a fixed-term contract.	Consider what has been discussed with the partner verbally or in writing.	Contracts should have an end date and a process and an appropriate mechanism for terminating early.