Leadership Accountability in Public Procurement Underscored

The Office of Public Procurement Policy is underscoring the responsibility of heads of procuring entities to safeguard public funds and ensure compliance with the law, particularly when emergency procurement measures are invoked.

Chief Public Procurement Policy Officer at the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service, Jovell Barrett, underscores that leadership within public bodies entails clear legal and fiduciary obligations, even in times of crisis.

“We put people in management for a reason. When you’re in charge of an entity, you have the responsibility of ensuring that what you do is in compliance with the law,” he told JIS News.

Mr. Barrett emphasised that all procurement actions must adhere to established rules and fiscal safeguards.

“With the guidance note that has been issued by the Office of Public Procurement Policy, with a fiscal responsibility framework that governs your operation, with the Budget that has been approved… all of these things will guide you… when it comes to how you spend the money that has been allocated to you,” he stated.

Mr. Barrett pointed out that oversight bodies remain a vital component of the accountability framework.

“The public knows… the Integrity Commission is there, the Auditor General is there, and they will come in… they’ll do the assessment and persons will be held accountable,” he added.

Addressing emergency procurement, Mr. Barrett stated that public expectations demand procuring entities act decisively when urgent situations arise.

“As a head of a procurement entity, it is their responsibility to ensure that they perform. The public requires in an emergency that they respond… they have the tools. The procurement rules, as they are now, allow them to respond quickly,” he noted.

Mr. Barrett added that mechanisms are in place to prevent inflated pricing, fraud, or corruption when single source or restricted procurement methods are employed during emergencies.

“The head of a procuring entity has the responsibility to put systems in place to guard against these types of activities which may happen in an emergency. In an emergency, an entity still has to have regard for the principle of value for money and getting value for money. That requires an assessment as to whether or not the prices that are being charged in an emergency are reasonable,” he stated.

“That may require an assessment as to a comparison between what you used to pay versus what is being required now. Of course, where what is required now is over and above what would be reasonable in the circumstances, then a procuring entity is not supposed to award a contract in those circumstances,” Mr. Barrett further indicated.