Measuring procurement performance of LGED and RHD based on key performance indicators (KPIs)

Abstract

Transparency, efficiency, accountability, competitiveness, equitable treatment and free & fair competition are essential for using public funds. To streamline these objectives through public procurement, the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh has enacted Public Procurement Act (PPA) 2006 and thereafter issued Public Procurement Rules (PPR) 2008. The Central Procurement Technical Unit (CPTU) of the Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED) is continually monitoring the compliance procurement activities in 04 target agencies in the light of 45 predetermined Key Performance Indicators (KPI). Among the four target agencies, LGED and RHD are the largest in terms of budget allocation against the projects in the Annual Development Programme (ADP). It is generally said that a total of 80% of ADP allocation are spent for procurement of goods, works and services. Thus, it seems to be a good consideration to have a look at the compliance issues of PPR 2008 in RHD and LGED’s procurement activities. The present study seeks to provide an assessment of the current procurement performance of LGED & RHD and to find out the gap of compliance with scope of improvement for implementation of PPR 2008. A semi structured questionnaire was used to collect primary data from randomly selected 60 procurement practitioners working in LGED (30) and RHD (30). The Responses were analyzed by using SPSS 17 version package. The related literatures and reports, particularly from LGED and SRGB, have been thoroughly reviewed before conducting the main research work. The key findings of these reports have been compared and analyzed to draw conclusion of the study. The highest proportion of the respondent was middle aged and male. Majority of them were from engineering background with post graduate education and were trained in public procurement. The study found that LGED performed better in respect of KPI 4 (Percentage of Tenders following Development Partner Rules), KPI 6 (Average number of days between publishing of advertisement and Tender submission deadline), KPI 7 (Percentage of Tenders having sufficient tender submission time), KPI 10 (Ratio of number of Tender submission and number of Tender document sold), KPI 11 (Percentage of cases TOC included at least ONE member from TEC) and KPI 12 (Percentage of cases TEC formed by Contract Approving Authority) and KPI 13 (Percentage of cases TEC included two external members outside the Ministry or Division), KPI 14 (Average number of days between Tender opening and completion of evaluation), KPI 15 (Percentage of cases Tender evaluation has been completed within timeline), KPI 16 (Average number of responsive Tenders), KPI 19 (Average number of days taken between submission of Tender Evaluation and approval of contract), KPI 22 (Percentage of cases contract award decision made within timeline by Contract Approving Authority after submitting Tender Evaluation Report), KPI 23 (Percentage of cases TER reviewed by person/ committee other than the Contract Approving Authority), KPI 25 (Average number of days between final approval and Notification of Award (NOA), KPI 27 (Average number of days between Invitation for Tender (IFT) and Notification of Award), KPI 32 (Percentage of Contracts fully completed and accepted). On the other hand RHD complied better on KPI 8 (Average number of Tenderers purchased Tender Documents), KPI 17 (Percentage of cases TEC recommended for Re- Tendering), KPI 20 (Percentage of Tenders approved by the proper financial delegated authority), KPI 24 (Percentage of Tenders approved by higher tier than the Contract Approving Authority), KPI 28 (Percentage of Contract awards published in CPTU’s website), KPI 34 (Percentage of cases (considering each installment as a case) with delayed payment), KPI 38 (Percentage of cases complaints have been resolved), KPI 41 (Percentage of Contracts with unresolved disputes), and KPI 44 (Percentage of procuring entity which has at least one trained/ certified procurement staff). The perceptions of the respondents regarding procurement performance need to investigate more cautiously as there are ambiguity among the findings of present study, individual consultant’s reports and SRGB’s report. The scenario may be more or less similar in other target agencies. Although LGED is being complied better than RHD against most of the KPIs, there is scope and need for improvement to have a 100% compliance of PPR 2008 in both of the organizations.