Public procurement is the government financial activity that is most at risk of being corrupted. The volume of transactions that go through the procurement system is vast and involves hundreds of millions of taxpayer euros.
The process is invariably complex, with major financial interests at stake. Formal and informal networks of politicians, public officials and businesses interact. The procurement process is often tainted with a sense of familiarity that could easily become a breeding ground for embezzlement, undue influence and bribery.
The country has been given another clear sign, if ever it was needed, that the public procurement process lacks integrity and is a source of waste of taxpayers’ money. This came in the form of damning National Audit Office report on the €274 million worth of contracts awarded for the upgrade of St Vincent De Paul Residence (SVDP). In the wake of that report, a reminder of the dire need for reform of the process was issued by the Chamber of Commerce earlier this week.
A few months ago, the chamber had published a report on how the system could be reformed to inspire more confidence in the way goods and services are supplied to the public sector. It is utterly justified in renewing its call for change. Ordinary people need to be reassured that the system is transparent, fair and operated primarily in their interest rather than in the interest of those involved in the transactions.
Integrity is not a difficult concept to grasp: it is about ensuring that the right thing is done at all times. In the case of public procurement, it is about having a robust process in place, with proper checks and balances, to guarantee that the public gets the best value for its money with every contract.
Like most processes, the weakest link in public procurement is the human one. Those who manage it, from the political decision makers to the public officials who award the contracts, must not only be competent but must be trusted to act in the country’s best interests.
The competence of officials involved in the procurement process is proven by their ability to assess needs, plan expenditure and stick to budgets. When selection criteria are not objectively defined and made to favour a particular contractor, the procurement process is corrupted. It is not surprising that a survey conducted by the chamber showed a substantial number of businesses lack trust in its integrity.
Over the last several years, major government contracts, including the building of Mater Dei Hospital, the privatisation of government hospitals, the Electrogas power station and the upgrade of SVDP facilities, have been heavily blighted by both incompetence and lack of integrity among the stakeholders involved.
The financial, political and reputational consequences of failures in public procurement are substantial. The country can no longer afford them.
So far, the government does not appear to have taken any significant action to hold accountable those with political or administrative responsibility for the massive failure of integrity in the SVDP contracts.
The stock reply to questions, besides a non-committal acceptance of the need to look into the contracts, has been that it was a project the country needed. This utterly and disingenuously misses the point: how many tens of millions of euros could have been saved for the taxpayer, to be used on other desperately-needed projects, if the contracts had been awarded in a manner that respected the principle of integrity?
The ordinary taxpayer has every right to doubt the political will to curb such abuse. For how much longer can this culture of impunity be tolerated?