The Editor,
#TheTruthEatsLies
The PM’s welcome decision to reconvene Parliament to rectify the Exemptions provisions of the Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Property Act (the Act) needs to be carefully scrutinized to defend the Public Interest.
There are two interlocking grounds for concern –
- ‘Emergency Procurement’
Both the PM and the Finance Minister have repeatedly stated that the Act takes a one -size-fits-all approach to Public Procurement, which effectively does not cater for Emergency Procurement. Those assertions are being used to advance the case for further diluting the Act, but those assertions are absolutely untrue.
The ‘Emergency Procurement’ provisions are at Procurement Methods & Procedures Regulation 14(2)(c): “Sole source selection may be used…where, due to reasons of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseen events…the subject matter of the procurement cannot be obtained in a timely manner…”
There are also adequate provisions for other types of emergency and urgent situations, etc, but I have just included the main citation to demonstrate that it is not a one-size-fits-all set of arrangements, as its detractors have been saying. - Affirmative Resolution
The Parliament agreed on 8 December 2020 that the Ministerial Exemptions would be approved by Affirmative Resolution, yet the draft Amendments tabled for debate on Wednesday, 19 July 2023 provide for approval of those via Negative Resolution. That is contrary to what was agreed when the 2020 amendments were debated in Parliament and this is being advanced on the false basis of the lack of ‘Emergency Procurement’ provisions.
We need the utmost vigilance to defend our collective interests as these convulsions will intensify.
Sunlight is the best Disinfectant.
Afra Raymond,
former JCC President
AfraRaymond.net 
I expected a bit more explanation on the exemption authorities of the PM and the MoF.
The reality is that emergency situations do not only arise as unforeseen events (disasters, etc) but may be due to negligence of duties, incompetence, etc. And this is the “hidden” problem in the space that will be the majority of the causes, and yet do not even mention them.
We hope to treat with them indirectly, instead of creating a law to deal directly with incompetence. Like some form of punishment. But as usual it is the obvious and large elephant in the room that we hope will be dealt with mysteriously. It would be very nice to see this addressed as a normal, serious concern.
Kelvin Mc Lean.
Hello Kelvin,
Thanks for your comments and yes indeed, there are significant differences between emergency and urgent cases, sole source and single source procurement and so on. In my respectful view, those detailed matters are beyond the scope of a letter to the editor or even a newspaper column.
This letter was focused on two crucial, interlocking elements carded to be debated in our Parliament tomorrow.
Afra Raymond
Mr Raymond, you refer to the Emergency Regulation to deal with urgent situations. Section 35(4) also empowers a public procurement agency to waive the 2-month standstill period in case of urgency required in the public interest. So the issue of urgent or emergency situations were contemplated by the lawmakers in developing/debating this law. It’s not an implementation ‘surprise’ as the MoF and PM try to tell us
Absolutely so, Clyde – I only mentioned that single, strong example of those emergency/urgent provisions. I was part of the team which drafted the law and submitted it to the JSC on 22nd December 2010.
Mr. Weatherhead, while Section 35(4) provides for procuring entities to waive the standstill period if there are urgent public interest considerations, it is the Evaluation Regulations at Regulation 7 which delineate that the standstill period should be between 10-15 days and not 2 months as you have said on more than one occasion now.
And certainly, the length of this period and its effect on procurement by the state cannot have been an implementation surprise for the government as the Regulations – which also delineate the minimum period for submissions under open and limited bidding – underwent several months’ review (they were also laid in Parliament twice) at the Min. of Finance subsequent to sumission by the OPR (which included 40 pages of additional commentary received by the public according to the Minister ). Not to mention the year’s delay in full proclamation in order to consult stakeholders on the practicalities necessary for operationalisation.
(Additionally, the Regulations provide for requests for quotations, besides open and limited bidding, for which the period for submissions should be no less than 5 working days.)