Reforming Public Procurement in Emerging Market ... - KDID Portal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Reforming Public Procurement -- Syquia BIS Pillars and Indicators APPI Major Criteria Explanation Ind. 11 – The public has broad access to information Ind. 12 – The country has ethics and anti-corruption measures in place Evaluation is an instrument for learning. The information it generates, if used effectively, can greatly enhance the operation of an organization. xxi Evaluation is also a primary mechanism for ensuring accountability, providing a basis for correcting operational problems and informing sound management decision making. xxii In this light, the purpose of the APPI is to identify and describe the strengths and weaknesses of the agency with respect to its personnel’s understanding of and compliance with the current public procurement legal framework. It is also intended to identify general and specific procurement practices that may affect the manner in which the basic principles of a sound procurement system are observed, namely transparency, competition, accountability, efficiency, equity, economy and effectiveness. Through the APPI, the procurement environment of an agency is presented by outlining gaps in critical areas of procurement processes and practices, including organizational matters. As such, it may be said that, as with the BIS, the ultimate purpose of the APPI is formative. General and specific recommendations may be made to the head of the subject agency to assist it in improving its evaluation ratings vis-à-vis the national procurement agenda and the BIS evaluation. These agency ratings would have to be given within the parameters of an assessment of the general level of assistance or intervention required for the subject agency. The APPI must include a rating sheet to compute the scores given by the subject agency for each Major Criterion, and also to determine its overall score, to provide an indicator of the level of assistance or intervention required to remedy identified problems. For example, if an agency gets a very low rating of 20% in the assessment, this may be an indication that the agency needs substantial assistance, to ensure that its internal regulations are consistent with the national procurement law. It will likely also need in-depth capacity building and monitoring activities, to ensure that once its internal policies are sufficiently established it would be able to translate these into actual practice that leads to improved outcomes. Conversely, a high rating of 90% may indicate that the subject agency merely requires monitoring activities to ensure that positive performance is sustained. The rating system shown below can also be used to grade an agency’s performance against each major criterion. Using such a rating system, the assessor may then make recommendations on priority interventions, grouped into short, medium and longer-term actions. Table 2: Procurement Reform Rating System 0 – 19% of Major Criteria 20 – 69% of Major Criteria 70 – 89% of Major Criteria 90 – 100% of Major Criteria NA PA SA FA Where: NA = Not Achieved (Less than 20% rating on the Indicators) PA = Partially Achieved (At least 20% but less than 70% rating on the Indicators) SA = Substantially achieved (At least 70% but less than 90% rating on the Indicators) FA = Fully Achieved (90% to 100% rating on the Indicators) Fiscal Reform and Economic Governance Project 23
Reforming Public Procurement -- Syquia 8 Concluding Remarks The APPI should be carried out in selected key line agencies—particularly those that are most heavily involved in procurement and that represent key sectors of the government, such as health, education and infrastructure—and, where applicable, at least one local government and one state-owned enterprise. In fact, during the early stages of procurement reform, the APPI may have to be pilot tested in these key agencies, in preparation for a full implementation in the coming years. Armed with the BIS assessment and the APPI for the aforementioned key line agencies, the national policy makers can then capture a broad picture of the following: 1. Progress in the implementation of the strategy that was developed through the BIS assessment, as well as difficulties encountered; 2. How much of the national public procurement reform program has been rolled out to the line agencies, local government offices and other parts of the public sector; 3. The impact of the reforms; and 4. The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats present in the public procurement system. Based on the above findings, policy makers can proceed with appropriate measures to improve the public procurement regime, and/or develop a new strategy to address unresolved needs, gaps and emerging issues. For example, if the BIS reveals that the legal and institutional frameworks are now strong, but the APPI shows that transparency and accountability in key line agencies remain weak, then the next round of reforms may focus on creation of internal audit units and the development of records management systems within those agencies. While technical assistance may be required in the initial pilot phases of the BIS and the APPI, it will ultimately be the responsibility of the central oversight body to use these tools, so that all future policy decisions and recommendations are sufficiently grounded in field data and substantiated information. As such, the central oversight body must learn to use these tools as part of its standard operating procedures, so that it has the necessary capacity to use them without further external technical assistance. On a final note, it may not be advisable to put a time frame on each of the steps in the process of reforming public procurement policies, systems and practices, because the length of time and the depth of intervention may vary greatly from country to country and depend on a variety of factors. However, based on experience, the following periods may be indicative, but should not be controlling: Table 3. Illustrative Procurement Reform Timeframe Step Step 1: Assess the national public procurement system and practices, develop the strategy and plan the approach Step 2: Develop or improve the legal framework Step 3: Develop the regulatory and institutional framework Step 4: Conduct capacity building programs Step 5: Assess the impact of reforms at both the central and local levels Period 2 – 3 months 2 – 3 years 1 – 2 years 1 year, and continuous thereafter 1 month per agency Fiscal Reform and Economic Governance Project 24
Page 1 and 2: Reforming Public Procurement in Eme
Page 3 and 4: Reforming Public Procurement -- Syq
Page 31: Reforming Public Procurement -- Syq

Reforming Public Procurement in Emerging Market ... - KDID Portal

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?