PPADB in a web of conflicting interests

Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board’s continued role of participating in adjudication and award of tenders is a cause for concern. Government, through the ministry of finance and development planning has long announced considering proposals from PPADB to review PPAD Act to come up with clear roles which will ensure that PPADB assumes a proper regulatory role, which has not happened up to now.

The Board is tasked with a sensitive mandate that demands public confidence in its procurement system. The system must further engender a sense of transparency, integrity and intolerance for corruption. Over the years, PPADB has not fared well in terms of winning public confidence with members of the public over corruption in government tenders. Recent benchmarking exercises undertaken by the Board in countries such as Sweden, New Zealand, Ghana and South Africa have all identified a conflict of roles in PPADB’s participation in procurement and oversight. The delegation found that procurement roles are well defined in these countries and that the procurement institutions do not adjudicate nor award tenders.

Executive’s dual role raises eyebrows
The combined role of executive chairman and executive director of the Board, all vested in the incumbent Bridget John, is yet another area of concern. It is tantamount to bad corporate governance as it makes it difficult to say who the executive director and chairperson are accountable to, whether it is the minister or the board chair. President of Directors Institute of Botswana (DIoB) Ronald Phole argues that “changes do happen, the world has changed,” but said this was basically a “principle” of management, whose decision should be left to shareholders and the Board. Incidentally, PPADB had previously sought the services of DIoB to give them advice on the appointment of a new Board and to interrogate the continued need for this system (dual role). The Board of PPADB composes the executive chairman (who is also executive director) appointed by the minister, three full-time directors and three part-time directors chosen from nominees of contractor associations, professional associations and the private sector as per the PPADB Act.

Ideally, the executive director who is head of management reports to the Board, which in turn is accountable to the minister and by extension, Parliament, in that order. The problem however arises where these two functions are assumed by one individual- creating as it does- a headache in reporting structures as well as conflict of interest in the absence of clearly defined roles. KPMG who developed the initial PPADB Strategic Plan also recommended a separation of these functions in the interest of good corporate governance.

Bidders don’t trust PPADB
For the period April 2012 to February 2013 PPADB received 109 complaints. According to PPADB boss John, most of the complaints had to do with procedure.

“We are aware of views held by some that there is corruption in government tenders,” says John, explaining however that losing bidders are encouraged to seek debriefing from procuring entities on why they lost tenders in order to improve their future bids. Losing bidders can also appeal the decisions of the Board to the independent complaints and review committee and courts. Ministry of Finance and Development Planning had not responded to questions from this paper at the time of going to print.