Acting on a complaint it received from Transparency International Pakistan about gross violations of procurement rules, the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) has asked for a comprehensive report from the party concerned, the Defence Housing Authority, Lahore.
The Transparency International Pakistan had pointed to a number of violations in the pre-qualification notice that the DHA had issued to invite bids from insurance companies, complaining also that it had refused to provide a set of pre-qualification documents as per Rule 16 of the Procurement Rules, 2004.
Notably, the practice of discretion in the procurement process is no longer permissible, while it is mandatory for the concerned authorities to prepare a set of pre-qualification documents to provide detailed evaluation criteria to the applicants. The purpose, of course, is as much to allow a self-assessment opportunity to potential bidders as it is to ensure transparency.
Casting the rules to the winds, the DHA went on to discourage competition it seems, to favour a pre-selected party. The pre-qualification notices for insurance companies, among other transgressions, included the condition that the bidders must have seven identified hospitals on its panel. A fairer condition would have been the requirement that a successful bidder include these in its services.
But, the specific qualification is one of the familiar tricks commonly used by the government agencies/departments to help pre-selected bidders. There are other tactics, too, to discourage healthy competition, like a notice advertised last year by the Punjab government's Mines and Minerals Department that gave only 15 days, as against the required minimum of 30 days, to foreign consultants to apply for an iron ore techno-economic feasibility study.
By the time some of the interested parties learnt about the project, the time to apply was over. The Transparency International Pakistan has referred to a major dispute over the award of a multi-billion dollar LNG contract to a foreign company, which the Supreme Court later ruled violates the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, read with the Public Procurement Rules, 2004.
Such indiscretions are not only unfair to the parties bidding for a project, they lead to unsavoury compromises on quality. Merit thus becomes a major casualty in most development projects. It is sad, indeed, that this should happen despite the existence of relevant rules and a regulatory authority. There is an obvious need to ensure compliance, and turn PPRA into an effective and efficient body. Some sort of disciplinary action, perhaps, needs to be introduced also for use against the errant officials so that it serves as a deterrent.