Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

254 Diagnosing Corruption in Ethiopia
Table 6.4
(continued)
• unofficial sale by client officials to prospective bidders of additional information or services
(ranging from marking schemes to help in preparing bids) to enhance the prospects for
submitting a successful bid (which may or may not follow a prior bribe to ensure
prequalification and is normally associated with a prior agreement to pay a requested
percentage of fee if successful);
• collusion between contractors in the form of price fixing (sometimes including provision
for a loser’s fee) and intimidation of aspiring new entrants;
• unofficial quota system for the award of contracts on the basis of political affiliation of the
companies involved;
• bribery (in the form of a percentage of fee, often paid through a third party) to obtain the
main contract; and
• manipulation of design to favor a particular consultant or contractor.
Indicators of such risks as perceived in Ethiopia
Specific
General
• General lack of transparency in procurement
processes
• Shortlisting of companies known to be poor
performers or lacking requisite experience or
capability
• Shortlisting procedures not fair and transparent
• Some capable companies effectively being
excluded
• Collusion between contractors bidding for some
contracts
• Difficulties facing newcomers to the construction
market
• Procurement procedures not always consistently
applied
• Concerns over quality
• Increasing unit costs
• Projects delivered late
• Weak enforcement of professional
standards
• Difficult for public to obtain
information
Examples reported by stakeholders as having recently occurred in Ethiopia a
• Unfair selective restriction of access to advance information about bidding
opportunities
• Manipulation, by persuasion, of which contractors will bid for a job and which will not
• Sale of tender documents deliberately delayed or advertisement limited to benefit
favored bidders given advance notice
• Price fixing, including collusion between contractors
• Manipulation of the tender evaluation process unfairly to favor a specific contractor
• Deliberately misleading unsuspecting bidders by including irrelevant items in the bill of
quantities
• Client pressure to modify the engineering estimate to benefit favored bidders
• Approach to bidders by intermediaries claiming (falsely) to be client’s staff seeking
incentives in return for manipulation of bid evaluation
(continued next page)