Restoring Confidence in Contract Bidding
In recent times, Barbadians were informed of the damnatory details that involved contractual agreements by the previous administration. The circumstances surrounding many of these contracts are cause for concern due to the lack of transparency and disregard for protocol. The tendering of government contracts is a matter of significance as these contracts are financed by tax-payers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Therefore, contract bidding is a potentially lucrative venture that makes it more prone to corrupt activities. As such, the regimes that govern the island’s tendering processes must be robust to mitigate any vulnerabilities that may exist.
How tendering works
Many advocates, including Integrity Group Barbados, have previously raised concerns about the island’s inadequate procurement system and recent events have legitimized these concerns. The final cost to tax-payers and the island’s reputation is yet to be known. However, the public can be informed of how the procurement system is governed and the approaches that can improve and protect the country’s well-being. It is The Financial Management and Audit Act that governs Barbados’ tendering and procurement processes. Under this Act, if the expenditure for goods and services exceed BBD $200 000.00, government departments must tender these services. This process must be publicized through the placement of notices in local newspapers. Contract bids are considered by the tendering committee that then makes its recommendations to the Head of the department. Subsequently, this Head notifies the minister responsible for that department on the committee’s decision, and thereafter the minister submits this recommendation to Cabinet.
Weaknesses in the tendering process
Although the Act specifies a process that is to be followed, unfortunately it also contains loopholes that undermine its governing procedures. One such loophole permits Cabinet to authorize goods and services to be procured in a manner other than by invitation to tender. Consequently, contract bidders can bypass the general tendering process and directly negotiate with Cabinet. This occurs at the discretion of ministers and is based on subjective criteria such as matters of urgency and contracts of a specialized nature. It is this ability to negotiate directly with the Cabinet that subjects the tendering process to potentially corrupt practices. Direct negotiations set the conditions and furthers the possibility that a corrupt actor could attempt to bribe a minister. Such attempts are aimed at soliciting political interference by exploiting that minister’s and Cabinet’s discretionary powers. Given Cabinet is a partisan body that functions collectively, the necessary scrutiny, checks and balances and oversight in relation to permitting contracts are unlikely to be adequate. These factors could also be undermined by member’s acquiescence to wealthy actors that financially support their government and party campaigns.
In addition to ministerial discretion, other provisions, namely how the tender committee is comprised, is also of concern. The committee consist of a Chief Supply Officer, the Solicitor General or legal officer of the public service, and five members appointed by the minister. This degree of ministerial input arguably also subjects the tendering process to political interference and quid pro quo.
Improving the tendering process
Therefore, if we are to ensure this process is well insulated from potential corruption, we ought to take as much discretionary and appointment powers out of minister’s control. If done correctly, a new legislative regime can provide the necessary oversight, transparency, independence and security to improve the tendering process. At the center of this new legal regime should be a Contractor General. Contractor General legislation is designed to ensure that the awarding of government contracts is an external and independent operation, that guards against the potentially self-motivated inclinations of government ministers and other actors. Through the Contractor General, political interference could be reduced and impartially and meritocracy increased since the monitoring, awarding and the implementation of contracts are his/her responsibility.
It is vital that lawmakers resist the allure of sensationalism that surrounds wrongdoings and thoroughly examine and correct the main contributing factors that undermine institutional integrity. Accordingly, the current administration ought to seriously consider contractor general legislation as it could greatly assist in restoring the island’s international reputation, while protecting tax-payers from corrupt dealings. The Attorney General has recently promised to draft procurement legislation and Integrity Group Barbados looks forward to having an input.