Partner Due Diligence Questions

Get a ready-to-use AI prompt and a guide to create proportionate due diligence questions and evidence requests for local partners.

What This Prompt Does

Give it a short, anonymized description of a planned partnership or subgrant and it returns due diligence questions, evidence requests and red flags. The depth scales with the size and risk of the relationship, so a small local organization is not handed a questionnaire built for a large agency.

Traditional due diligence is built for large international agencies and is too heavy for smaller national or local organizations. Funder questionnaires can run to 50, 80 or more than 100 questions that keep returning to the same topics with slightly different wording, so the prompt keeps the set focused on what the decision needs.

Before pasting anything, strip out partner and staff names, contact details, beneficiary information and case details. The assistant drafts questions; the decision stays with the people accountable for it.
I am preparing due diligence on a possible partner. Help me build a proportionate question set. Relationship details: - Partner type and country: [PARTNER TYPE AND COUNTRY] - Proposed role: [PROPOSED ROLE] - Award size band: [AWARD SIZE BAND] - Duration: [DURATION] - Locations and target population: [LOCATIONS AND TARGET POPULATION] - Handles cash: [YES/NO] - Handles personal data: [YES/NO] - Has contact with beneficiaries: [YES/NO] - May appoint further partners: [YES/NO] - What the partner has already shared: [DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION ALREADY RECEIVED] Do the following. 1. Restate the relationship in two or three sentences. Then choose a proportionate depth: a streamlined set for a small local partner with a modest award, a fuller set for a large or high-risk award. Keep a minimum baseline for every partner and add requirements as size, complexity and risk rise. Say which depth you chose and why. 2. Produce a table with exactly these columns: Assessment area | Question to ask the partner | Evidence to request | Red flag or gap to note | Non-negotiable or developmental. 3. Cover these areas: legal identity, governance, delivery capacity, financial controls and audit, procurement, safeguarding, fraud and conflicts of interest, sanctions and counter-terrorism checks, data protection, and downstream partners. Add a screening row that lists every name variant for me to search myself, since you cannot search: legal name, acronym, translated name, local-script name, former names, trading names, coalition names and names used by fiscal sponsors or affiliates. 4. Mark each question as a non-negotiable baseline (tied to law or fiduciary duty) or a developmental gap that can be handled with conditions or capacity support. 5. After the table, list the checks to run just before signing or paying: whether the agreement party, registration number, bank account name, tax or charity record and signatory authority line up or are explained, and a refreshed screening. Then list the events that should trigger a fresh assessment. 6. State what you cannot know from what I have given you. Do not invent facts about the partner. Give me questions and evidence requests only. No scores, no ratings.
Open it, with the prompt already in:ChatGPTClaudeGemini(opens empty)

How to Use It

  1. Describe the relationship first: the partner's role, locations, target population and any procurement or cash responsibility.
  2. Fill the brackets with anonymized facts, then run the prompt.
  3. Cut the table down to what is proportionate for this partner and this award.
  4. Send the questions to the partner, and treat gaps as a chance to build capacity rather than only to find faults.
  5. Keep an evidence record for each check: what was searched, the search term, the source, the access date, the reviewer's conclusion, the partner's response, the decision and the next review date.

After the Answers Come Back

  • Record a decision: approve, approve with conditions, defer or decline.
  • For every condition, write down the action, the responsible person, the deadline, the verification evidence and what happens if it is not done.
  • Do not treat an audit report as automatic assurance. Read the management letter, qualifications and repeat findings.
  • Prefer capacity support and measures like smaller tranches, joint signatories or expenditure verification over a bare pass or fail.

Check the Output

  • Is every area you asked for in the table?
  • Can this partner realistically produce the evidence requested?
  • Has the assistant invented anything about the partner?
  • Verify references, registration and bank details yourself, independently of what the partner supplies.
  • Have facts, calculations, funder rules and local terminology been checked against the real situation?
  • Similar names are not proof of a match. Check identifiers before escalating.

Related Prompts

Back to Prompt Library