Contemplated changes in procurement rules
THE government and the World Bank are reported to be in correspondence over the former's ongoing initiative to amend, what looks like, some major provisions of the Public Procurement Act (PPA) and Public Procurement Rules (PPR) adopted since 2006, largely at the insistence of development partners.
The government's argument for change runs like this: since strict compliance with certain conditions of PPA and PPR has had the effect of delaying implementation of development projects, that are substantially aided, such provisions do need to be amended or relaxed. Admittedly though, there is a waiver clause that can be invoked in consideration of 'national interest'. But it's evidently not being regarded as enough of a window by the present government having an ambitious ADP to implement with around 50 percent development partner support.
Of course, the reasons being cited by various project executing agencies for an amendment to the rules to speed up implementation need to be taken cognizance of by the higher authorities. And, they have to take issue with the donor community in matters concerning disbursement of project funds, if need be. At the same time, however, we must realise that not all suggestions of the development partners are bad per se or designed to create obstacles in the project implementation processes.
Insofar as the major provisions of PPA and PPR go, their essence clearly lies in upholding transparent procedures in the procurement of public goods and services involving billions of dollars. In contrast, for jobs up to Tk two crore what is being contemplated is to award contracts through lottery without any insistence on pre-qualification, thus seemingly offering outlets to ruling party elements. Qualification requirement is fundamental to competitive bidding, fairness of the process and equitable treatment to competitors. With scope for discretionary handling expanding, corruption can get a stimulus.
In the name of encouraging new contractors, the quality of development projects should not be made to suffer, even unwittingly. The propositions for dropping FBCCI representative from the review panel and replacing him or her by a firm representative and ministry seeking opinion of an expert before sending a proposal to the purchase committee need to be rethought, if any pick-and-choose method is to be discouraged.
Do we need to labour the point that the nation is for a public procurement policy that in a built-in way can ensure transparency, accountability and fairness in the entire purchase process, so that the quality of end-result is fully assured?
Comments