Compendium of Country Examples and Lessons Learned from ...

Country experiencesMany pilot countries have expressed the view that the validation of the assessment exercise and of theresults of the assessment is a useful measurement of the transparency and credibility of the assessmentexercise. Stakeholders of the procurement process, such as civil society organisations, the privatesector, the development partner community, and both political and administrative governmentauthorities have, in many cases, been consulted when reviewing the results of the assessment and, to alesser extent, at the planning stage.A few countries have expressed some disappointment with regards to the attendance at validationworkshops. In Lao for example, representatives of six key ministries, two public authorities, 2 stateownedenterprises and the World Bank participated in the validation workshop. However, professionalorganisations and private companies who had also been invited to provide their views and commentson the assessment report did not attend.Challenges also remain in addressing disagreement over scoring and understanding the significance ofthe score.The following country cases of Botswana, Zambia and the Philippines illustrate different approacheschosen to validate the process and the results.In the validation process, problems related to the procurement assessment exercise as a whole maybecome apparent and should be evaluated. For example:If there is no validation process at all, the credibility of the assessment results will beaffected. Action should be taken to ensure stakeholder involvement.If civil society organisations or private sector institutions do not participate in either surveysor workshops, it is important to analyse and understand why.Box 7. Validation process in BotswanaBotswana has chosen a three-step approach to assess the baseline indicators and validate the results:1. scoring by Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board (PPADB);2. scoring by stakeholders as a group;3. comparative analysis.All stakeholders were given the Methodology for Assessment of National Procurement Systems for theirindependent assessment during Phase 1 of the project. This assessment took place in a workshop where all theparticipating stakeholders were invited to share their independent assessment results with others for the purposeof validation. The participants were divided into groups. Each group was assigned a pillar with the objective ofreaching consensus on the scores. The scores, as agreed by each team, were then presented to the entireworkshop that then endorsed the score as presented, or modified it accordingly. The PPADB team also sharedtheir results with the workshop. It was agreed during the workshop that the two reports should be kept separateso that they could be compared and independent conclusions drawn up.A comparative analysis of the results was made displaying the margin of variation and a conclusion wasdrawn from the entire assessment exercise. The margin of variation in the two results is only 3%, which isnegligible. However, there is a need to reconcile the differences, which exist between the Procurement Board andits stakeholders, given that they have scored different marks in different aspects that the sub-indicators attempt toassess.40 COMPENDIUM OF COUNTRY EXAMPLES AND LESSONS LEARNED […] - OECD 2008