PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC ASSETS AUTHORITY

IMPLEMENTATION OF INDEPENDENT PARALLEL BID EVALUATION AS A

MECHANISM TO ADDRESS BID EVALUATION CHALLENGES

BACKGROUND institutions have hinged on bid

evaluation.
Public Procurement has evolved
from an operational function into a Concerned with the challenges,
more strategic function risks and vulnerabilities involved
characterised by complex, strategic in evaluating bids for strategic and
and high-volume procurement complex procurements, a study
transactions requiring new was conducted on the feasibility of
technologies, unique skills and implementing the Independent
competencies, new approaches and Parallel Bid Evaluation (IPBE) as a
new financing mechanisms mechanism to minimize the
especially for infrastructure challenges that face evaluation of
projects like roads, airports, in strategic and complex
railways among others in order to procurements.
increase service delivery.
Independent Parallel Bid
The evaluation of bids is one of the Evaluation is a mechanism where
high-risk stages in the public two evaluations take place at the
procurement process. It has been a same time, one internally being
major cause for administrative done by the evaluation committee,
reviews, leading to delayed and the other by a third party; and
completion of the procurement the results from the two reports
process. As a result, providers lose are compared for decision making
confidence in the public purposes.
procurement system and decline to
respond to subsequent tender Complex and Strategic
opportunities or transact with the Procurements are characterized
government. with either the following:
 unique where the specification
According to the of PPDA is difficult to define/innovative,
Administrative Review Reports and  the procurement is high risk,
the Appeals Tribunal decisions for  the competition is restricted to
the FY2020/21; a number of cases a limited market,
adjudicated therein by both

1
 the contract will be based on inadequate/ambiguous
unusual commercial models evaluation criteria,
 will typically take longer to contradicting/inconsistent
deliver information. This can lead to
 will require a much more reports being rejected by the
considered approach involving contracts committees while
strong governance, robust others may lead to
processes and skilled administrative reviews.
management
 Offers great contribution to the  Adverse selection: The risk of
attainment of national goals. the best evaluated bidder not
being the most qualified bidder
Objective of the Paper with the appropriate
The purpose of the paper is to competence to deliver on the
present the gains that come with requirements. This may be as a
implementing the IPBE mechanism result of mistakes in the
and the applicability of the IPBE evaluation or conflict of interest
within the existing legal framework by some members of the
and highlight any policy issues evaluation team.
that may arise with the
implementation of the IPBE.  Limited confidence in the
evaluation process by
Challenges faced when stakeholders: The outcome of
Evaluating High Value/Complex the evaluation process is viewed
Procurements as unfair by bidders and civil
society because of the
 Skills gaps in conducting the perception of corruption in
evaluations for complex and public procurement.
strategic procurements.
 Conflicts and disagreements
 Time spent on evaluation: between evaluation committee
Complex procurement members disagree during the
transactions significantly more evaluation of these high value
time to evaluate which in turn complex procurements.
increases the total procurement
time for the entity.  Acts of corruption: Corrupt
practices at the evaluation stage
 Gaps in the Bidding pose risks and challenges
Documents: The gaps that exist during the procurement
within the bidding documents process, and can negatively
including affect contract implementation.
inadequate/ambiguous
definition of requirements,

2
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE IPBE TO ADDRESS THE ABOVE
CHALLENGES

 Reduction in complaints: The  Improvement in skills: IPBE

evaluation of bids by two
independent teams increases
the credibility of the outcomes
and leads to a reduction in the
number of complaints.
 Increase confidence of the
stakeholders in the
evaluation process: If
stakeholders especially bidders
aware that there is a parallel
evaluation team, then they are
more likely to accept the award
decision hence increasing their
participation.
 Reduce corrupt practices at
the evaluation stage: IPBE
mechanism can reduce effects
of corrupt practices at
evaluation stage because those
that would influence the
evaluation process are likely the
internal evaluation team and
would most likely have no
access to the parallel team.
presents opportunities for the
internal evaluation teams to
gain skills and competences in
evaluation through analytical
review of the reports from the
experts on the IPBE team of
evaluators. Where the two
reports differ, the reconciliation
process would enhance the
quality of the evaluation reports
and build technical capacity in
report writing and comparative
analysis.
 Acting as a check on the
internal evaluation team: The
perceived oversight of the work
of the internal evaluation teams
by the IPBE team increases
vigilance and due care in
carrying out bid evaluations.
Any oversight or inconsistencies
by the internal evaluation
teams will quickly be resolved
through the reconciliation
process.

SWOT ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTING THE IPBE

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
 Independent party conducts a  Lack of enabling policy and legal
parallel evaluation framework
 Technical  Lack of data on the number and
competencies/expertise availability of local IPBE providers
acquired for unique  May exist in the environment of faulty
procurements prior stages of the procurement process
 The IPBE service provider has  Limited to the existing legal framework.
integrity beyond public  The estimated cost for IPBE services
scrutiny may not be known in advance for
budget purposes.

3
  Monitoring and measurement of the
impact of IPBE is subjective.
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
 High value and complex
 Inadequate financial resources to fund
projects IPBE mechanism
 Inadequate local capacity in  Lack of integrity in the earlier stages of
the entities. the procurement process
 Knowledge and skills transfer  Gradual decline in the level of integrity
 Government publicof the IPBE service providers.
procurement principles  Potential conflict of interest by the
 Funding by the government IPBE service providers, the PDE and
 Enhancement in bidders’IPBE funding agency
confidence  Bidder’s perception of lack of absolute
 Increased participation inindependence
public bidding activities.  Conflicting interests of the different
 Reduced administrative review stakeholder in the procurement
complaints process.
 Improved quality of evaluation  Influence peddling.
process and the report thereof.  Stakeholder perception that IPBE can
 One of the conduits for the only be successful if undertaken by
adherence to the basicforeign service providers.
principles of the basic
principles of public
procurement.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF IPBE
and ensure sustainability of the
 IPBE should be provided for in implementation of the
the procurement legislation as a mechanism.
mechanism to be performed
alongside the normal  As integrity risks exist
mandatory evaluations. throughout the public
procurement process, for
 Identification of competent local successful implementation of
and international firms that can the IPBE mechanism, a holistic
undertake the IPBE, with and integrated approach for
integrity beyond public risk mitigation and prevention
scrutiny: These should have of corrupt practices is needed.
solid base of knowledge and
experience in specified fields.  There should be a clear strategy
and an unambiguous definition
 Development of local capacity to of the types of and threshold for
avoid the high cost of the procurement activities to be
externalizing the IPBE function subjected to the IPBE

4
 mechanism, unique to each service providers should be put
sector, recognizing that one size in place.
does not fit all.
 A mechanism for monitoring
 A criteria and eligibility and evaluating the performance
requirements for pre-qualifying and integrity of the IPBE service
and selecting multiple IPBE providers should be put in place

CONCLUSION
devising alternative approaches
Whereas IPBE is considered a that cover an end-to-end
solution towards addressing most procurement process. Such
of the identified challenges, it may intervention measures may include
not counter those that emanate but are not limited to Technical
from lapses in other stages of the Assistance, Independent
procurement processes. An Monitoring or Fudiciary
example, IPBE cannot counter the Assurance.
challenges caused by inadequate
statement of requirements. This approach would not only
guarantee better value by ensuring
Focusing integrity measures solely that the necessary checks are
on one stage of the process (Bid made at each stage of the
Evaluation) may increase risks in procurement process, but also has
other stages. This may instead give the potential to enable knowledge
leeway to integrity violations and skills transfer, hence
through other mechanisms. contributing to sustainability.
It is therefore necessary for the
implementers to scale up by