LETTERS: How to ensure omissions in public procurement are tackled effectively

Processes, law and common sense are three principles that never get along in public procurement. There is a sense in which whenever common sense gets into the equation, the sensible part gets queried.

Procurement over time has shifted from acquisition of complex infrastructure and services to provision of service solutions, high risk and high value goods with complex specifications, market research and contractual arrangements.

Public procurement practices are founded on governance values of accountability, ethics, impartiality, professionalism, service delivery and transparency that preserves public trust, protect public interest, and ensure fairness.

Procurement accounts for more than 80 per cent of government spending. That’s presumably why the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act 2015 provides elaborate regulations and procedural frameworks.

However behind the backdrop of these frameworks, practitioners hide behind the same provisions to defeat laid down procedural trail through unethical acts and business networks. It is worth noting that mere adherence to institutional and procedural regulations overlooks fundamental procurement aspects.

Thus creating inconsistencies with procurement principles explicitly value-for-money, transparency, inclusivity, competitiveness and ethical behaviour. Emphasis to processes is presumed as a reflection of good practices despite ignoring official conduct of public officers. The role of Public Procurement Oversight Authority (PPOA) in streamlining procurement systems and conduct is also unclear.

Procurement systems remain crude, unregulated and disorderly. Questionable acts of omissions and commissions that result in loss of public resources portray outright deviation from Chapter Six of the Constitution and erodes public confidence in the war against graft.

Upon assuming power in 2002, the Narc administration reorganised procurement departments to make them more responsive to public demands. However, cartels that were deep-rooted within the system were only disorganised for a while before bouncing back as merchants.

As insiders, they executed widespread systems manipulation to their favour.

Laws were broken with impunity. For every scandal unearthed, financial management systems may well have been compromised or manipulated.

System weaknesses became spring boards and conveyor belts for those who desired to get rich overnight without breaking a sweat.

Conventional procurement processes lacked proper information management channels and transparency besides being inefficient. Methodologies and procedures used were simplistic and ineffective.

By incorporating policy strategies like e-procurement the government’s intent was to seal-off operational loopholes and by so doing guarantee efficiency, value-for-money and economic growth.

These automations were reform paths towards compliance to existing procurement laws, provision of low cost audit paths which enabled simplified activities monitoring.

However, e-procurement failed in accommodating much needed human capacity aspects in operationalizing Management Information Systems for efficient budgeting, planning, monitoring and management of state affairs and only used as online postings of tenders.

If omissions in procurement processes are addressed and policy guidelines steered as provided for in PPAD-Act-2015, operational breaches will be effectively tackled besides establishment of a procurement framework that resonates with principles of good governance.

Better still there should be room for regular systems, operational and administrative reviews aimed at enhancing accountability. Disclosures at all stages of procurement exercises may promote transparency and openness in view of changing governance dynamics, actors and procurement environment.

Kiragu Kariuki, public policy and administration expert.