The critical transformational role that state procurement departments could play in local, provincial and national economies has been thoroughly subsumed by their laser-like focus on stymieing corruption.
Consequently, all recruitment and processes, such as monitoring and evaluation, are geared towards ensuring that corrupt practices are strangled, and that the Auditor General (AG) is completely satisfied.
Staff are appointed on their apparent moral rectitude and ethics, rather than their qualification to execute their job descriptions.
The result is that procurement is driven (strangled) by red-tape at every step; red-tape that is almost entirely directed to controlling corruption.
I use the word controlling deliberately because, despite all these measures, malfeasance has not been eliminated, let alone reduced.
What are the opportunity costs of this state of affairs?
To begin answering this question, it might be instructive to look at some of the transformative levers that state procurement can wield, bearing in mind that many of these ‘levers’ are already enshrined in national, provincial and local statutes.
Firstly, there is the promotion of local procurement, simply put, projects based in a particular locality should maximise the purchase of goods and services from the locality they are based in.
Indeed, projects in a particular locality should also involve local professionals from the get-go, meaning, a project in Ugu District should utilise engineers and architects for example, from one of the four local municipalities.
Alas, the usual pattern is that projects are parachuted into localities by national and provincial government with their professional teams (generally, large national or international companies) already in place.
Similarly, services rendered in a particular area eg: verge maintenance in a particular suburb or township, should as far as possible be rendered by local enterprises.
Secondly, the subject of the transfer of skills and enterprise development.
An example of this is the upskilling and capacitation of emerging contractors in infrastructure projects.
My experience has been that even though most contract documents incorporate elements of these, successful contractors pay lip service to them, secure in the knowledge that the client’s (state) agents tasked with enforcement rarely have the capacity, willingness or intention to do so.
There may be a case to be made for centralising the purchase of some commodities or services in the interests of economy (lower prices) or management (utilising experienced service providers).
However, my sense is that with a little bit of extra effort and application on the part of state supply chain management (SCM) departments, greater results can be achieved on transformational goals, without sacrificing the quality of service of products, or corrupt practices safeguards.
Vijay Naidoo is the CEO of the Port Shepstone Business Forum. He writes in his personal capacity. The views expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication.
HAVE YOUR SAY
Like the South Coast Herald’s Facebook page, follow us on Twitter and Instagram
