Enforce procurement standards

About a month ago, newspapers and other media covered a story regarding the controversial relief food acquisition.

As it tends to be the norm, four of the top Ugandan government officials were arrested. This followed reports of inflated Covid-19 relief food prices. The food was purposed to support the “vulnerable” people in Kampala and Wakiso, and parts of Mukono districts.

Under the amended Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) Act, the current health situation is classified as an emergency. The Act defines an emergency situation as a circumstance that is urgent or unforeseeable, or a situation which is not caused by dilatory conduct where Uganda is seriously threatened by or actually confronted with a disaster, catastrophe, war or an act of God; life or quality of life or environment may be seriously compromised; the conditions or quality of goods, equipment, buildings, or publicly owned capital goods may seriously deteriorate unless action is urgently and necessarily taken to maintain them in their actual value or usefulness; an investment project is seriously delayed for want of minor items; or a government programme would be delayed or seriously compromised unless procurement is undertaken within the required time frame. Therefore, in accordance with the subsections a) and e), this situation is fit considering an emergency and thus an emergency procurement is an operation.

Time and again, emergency procurement has been marked by impetuous decisions in the name of urgency and transparency obligations are skipped. This article, however, does not intend to adjudicate the case, but rather bring into the limelight contentious issues. Whereas stakeholders such as the civil society and other concerned agencies would help avert adverse effects of such purchases, there’s the scantiness of information that hinders public inquiries.

The availability of the relevant data remains the starting point towards achieving transparency. The recent public alarm questioning Members of Parliament over the appropriation of the controversial Shs20 million, is enough proof that the public would be more inquisitive and involved if only they were available with the right information. Ukraine’s anti-corruption reforms, for example, oblige that all emergency contracts are published in full, including terms of payment, delivery, and value. This is shared as open data.

With the shift towards e-procurement, all procurement-related data ought to be uploaded on the PPDA portal. This not only gives room for transparency for the public to have timely access to information on how public fundamentals are being spent, but also a platform that widens the supply base, hence reducing the emergency supplier constraint.

Unfortunately, procurement emergencies tend to increase the risk of corruption and many other suspicious patterns. Emergency procurement being the exception, ought to have checks and balances. First and foremost, any emergency situation should not negate fairness, quality supplies, and at most, value for money. If there be any parameter that should not be compromised in any sort of procurement action, it is service delivery. This should fit the purpose for which the procurement was made.

The allegations that the four government officials from Office of the Prime Minister inflated the prices of relief food alone, did not stand the accusation, procuremently speaking. The inflation might have been due to the payment terms or any other necessary requirements such as quality. However, having rotten beans filled with stones delivered to vulnerable people is professionally unacceptable. It is alleged that the latter caused a financial loss of $528,000. This calls for nothing but special auditing of the emergency procurement.

Perhaps we are underestimating the urgency of the emergency whereby there was no time for inspection of the delivered supplies, or maybe due to its bulky nature, an efficient inspection was onerous. Amid all the mentioned loopholes, the hurdle of specifications would have saved the procurement from going wrong.

There would be ground to probe the supplier for the mismatch in the supplies against the specifications. While emergency procurement tends to carry malpractice actions under the disguise of urgency, transparency must be upheld so as to ensure that legitimate decisions are being taken in order to avoid fraud.

Mr Ndivito is an academic researcher. [email protected]