THE PUBLIC INTEREST DEMANDS EXPLANATIONS

Oct 21, 2012 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

If there is a staggering variation in bid prices for a government contract, then such a variation is bound to raise red flags. It would be highly unusual if, in the face of an inordinate variation in bid prices, serious concerns were not raised.  Since such red flags are also a matter of public interest, it is the responsibility of the media to not only highlight the variations but to seek explanations.
Unfortunately, there still exist in the country significant pockets of interest who seem to associate legitimate inquiry by the media into their business as a conspiracy against those interests.
This is indeed a regrettable situation and one which must be discouraged. The media would be doing less than serving the public interest if, in the face of a large variation between bids for a public contract, it does not seek a response as to the reasons for such variations.
Instead of riling against the media, those who bid for public contracts should consider the implications for their image by their attacks on the inquirers. Instead of attacking the media, they would be better advised to forthrightly address the concerns raised.
What is needed is not short shrift, but detailed explanations. What is needed is for the public to be satisfied that there are explanations for variations.
Those who do business with the government must consider it both a duty and an obligation to provide answers. Indeed they should not shy away from the media or read conspiracies into requests for explanations.
In today’s world, companies must expect and be prepared for calls from the media at any hour.  As such, saying that the media called at an inopportune time will not suffice, because the media is known to call at all hours, depending on the situation, and companies must be prepared to deal professionally with the media.
No one expects that a company should have all the answers to media questions at their fingertips, but surely, if such answers are not available, then it would be necessary for the media to be politely told to call back when the answers can be made available.
But when certain red flags are raised about certain contracts, it is not just the responsibility of the bidders to provide information and explanations. It is also the responsibility of the government to ensure that these explanations are forthcoming.
Indeed the present controversy over the variations in bids for anti-malaria drugs raises a number of issues which the national procurement body needs to address, and address urgently and satisfactorily
Certainly it now needs to be asked how the authorities decided on the brand of anti-malaria drug that has to be supplied. The fact that it is being contended that the bid documents had specified that a particular brand of medicines had to be supplied, raises concerns as to how this particular brand was decided on and why were the authorities, in this instance the government, not willing to allow for bidders to provide more than one brand so that the government has a variety of options from which to choose.
In today’s marketplace, certain brands are controlled by certain companies, and if a government restricts tenders for the supply of only one particular brand, then this can become the basis of providing an advantage to those who have distributorship rights to that brand. But if the government instead examines various brands, then in the end it can choose based on a number of factors, including the quality of the medicines and the prices at which these are being proposed to be sold to the government.
On the other hand, if a company has exclusive distributorship for a particular brand and this is the brand that is requested, then the tender amounts to a constructive sole sourcing because even though competitive bids are being invited, only the exclusive distributor can supply.
This may not be the case with the present controversy, but if the explanations are not provided, then this possibility cannot be discounted.
In the past, other concerns have been raised. Amongst them is the issue of prequalification of bidders. The public would wish to be assured that the prequalification is fair to all suppliers and does not impose conditions that unfairly disqualify certain bidders or favour others.
Then there remains the troubling issue of sole sourcing. One of the dangers of sole sourcing is that of overpricing. If a company has the sole right to supply certain goods and services, then that company may increase prices beyond what is reasonable. As such, sole sourcing needs to be applied in a way that ensures that there is no overpricing and in a manner that is consistent with what the law provides.
There are many who feel that these issues cannot be satisfactorily addressed by the present system and they are pressing for the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission. The dangers of a constitutional Commission on Procurement, especially the one that is envisioned by our Constitution is that it can become a supra-institution, beyond the control of the government and beyond the control of parliament.
The National Procurement Commission as envisioned by the constitution and the Procurement Act is all-powerful and will become beyond the reach of any form of control by the parliament or the executive. It should be left in cold storage.
If the media believes that it is having a difficult time obtaining information on bids and procurement systems at present, it may find that the proposed National Procurement Commission can end up presenting a more daunting outcome than what exists presently.

---

---