Time for Govt to relook procurement processes

In light of the recent viaduct collapse, there is the question of how government procurement and the award of contracts should be done (Lessons to be learnt from viaduct collapse: Lim Swee Say; July 20).

As a management consultant with a speciality in procurement, including specification drafting and evaluation of tender processes, I believe it is important to educate people, including public servants, on the procurement principles for ensuring prudence, value and safety.

Pricing should not be the priority when it comes to awarding service contracts. Rather, more weight should be placed on the quality, outcomes and impact of the project.

This differs from procuring products, such as in information technology, where the government should study the market value of the goods available. There is thus a need to redefine cost-effectiveness, cost savings and value for money in government procurements.

Of course, some agencies may think that the highest bidder would provide quality deliverables, but the cover-one’s-back and protect-one’s-rice-bowl mentality is still prevalent.

Are most government officers really aware of the implications of awarding the lowest quote?

The current Government Electronic Business system openly provides information such as the awardee and all the bids. However, participating bidders have a right to know why their bids were unsuccessful, and agencies usually withhold such information.

The system should record the reasons for awards and rejections, so suppliers and the public understand why their bids lost. The government advocates open, fair competition in procurement, but what is open and fair?

There is also a need to look at the capability of the procurement officers and tender requesters.

More training should be given in how to word tenders in easily comprehensible terms based on the functional specifications for the goods or services, and not on the jargon of certain models of the equipment to be purchased.

There must be adequate information for tenderers to formulate their bids. That said, the Government should guard against overprescription or encouraging input-based specifications, which may perpetuate advantages for the incumbent, thus inhibiting competition and leading to over-reliance on a single contractor.

It may discourage participation by innovative tenderers who can deliver the requirements with less resources than those proposed in the tender document. Output- or performance-based requirements are more conducive to obtaining value for money.

Finally, conformity assessment procedures and tender specifications should not be prepared, prescribed and adopted or applied with the intent or effect of creating obstacles to competition among potential tenderers.