Complete Book PDF (4.12MB) - World Bank eLibrary

352 Diagnosing Corruption in Ethiopia
Box 8.1 (continued)
Minority View B: “Dubious practices but not corruption”
• The ETC procurement procedures are cumbersome and not suitable for hightechnology
purchases, so equipment can be obsolete by the time it is received.
It is therefore necessary to bypass the procurement procedures to speed up
the processes.
• The ETC tender evaluation points system can allow a supplier to win a bid even
if it is not technically compliant.
• There is too much bureaucracy at the ETC that is further increased by the fear
of being accused of corruption. Consequently, approval for decisions is often
sought from the top of the ETC or from government.
• The ETC mistakenly purchased the wrong equipment, which it then could
not use.
• International suppliers use high-pressure sales techniques, which put ETC staff
under pressure to award contracts.
• Western telecoms companies have in the past had a reputation for corruption,
so a direct agreement with an alternative understanding and trusted supplier
may have been seen as a means of reducing that risk.
Majority View C: “Very high risk of corruption in the sector”
Most of the stakeholders viewed telecoms as carrying very high corruption
risks, particularly in relation to the ETC’s placement of equipment supply contracts
with some international suppliers. Some stakeholders (both public and
private) cited the following examples that led them to suspect corruption in
the sector:
• The US$1.5 billion vendor finance contract was apparently placed in breach of
the ETC’s procurement procedures.
• Contracts for the civil works for the new mobile phone masts were apparently
placed in breach of the ETC’s procurement procedures.
• Current or previous ETC employees are believed to have an interest in some of
the companies building the mast foundations.
• There was a suspected breach of procurement procedures in an open tender
where it is believed one of the tenderers should have been eliminated after
assessment of its technical bid. Instead, its technical bid was approved, and
other, better-qualified bidders were eliminated. The unqualified bidder went on
to win the award.
(continued next page)