Heather Robinson

One of the best measures that can be used to determine a government's credibility rating is the level of transparency that is displayed by the government in the award of contracts. Electors are concerned with how and by whom their tax dollars are spent. Demands are made by constituents for road and water supplies to be upgraded, schools to be built, beautification projects and the construction of health centres. These are just a few of the ways in which the tax dollar is spent, but there are other ways that government utilises the tax it collects.

The most transparent method utilised by governments to award a contract is through a publicly advertised tender. The popular way of advertising this tender is by placing an advertisement in the print media. An examination of The Sunday Gleaner of January 21, 2007, revealed the following information:

Total number of government tenders: 25

Total number withdrawn: 4

Total number for public opening: 17 (68 per cent)

The majority of these advertise-ments (56 per cent) were advertised in the sports section of The Gleaner, and covered areas such as refurbishing and rehabilitation of buildings, infrastructural work, insurance, water supply, uniforms, audio visual systems, beautification and electrical work. Each company who responds to the request for proposal is required to provide some basic documentation to qualify to tender. These include current Tax Compliance Certificate, certificate of registration from the National Contracts Commit-tee, and in some cases proof of compliance from other government institutions, for example, the Financial Services Commission.

The bidding

The advertisement tells the bidder where and when to collect the RFP and where and when the tender should be submitted. It also states if there will be a public opening of the tenders, which usually takes place within 15 to 30 minutes of the tender being closed. At the opening, representatives of companies are invited to observe the opening of the tenders in the presence of the representatives of the National Contracts Commission. Interested persons record the figures that are read and can raise concerns about tenders that might not have satisfied the basic criteria. At this point, disqualifications can also take place.

In Sunday's Gleaner, eight of the tenders advertised did not state that there would be a public opening. These included tenders from the Sugar Company of Jamaica, the Portland and Manchester Parish Councils, Fiscal Services Limited and the Bureau of Standards. The failure on the part of these government entities to specify that there would be a public opening can only raise unnecessary suspicion as to the credibility of those public servants who open these tenders behind closed doors.

Attendance of a bidder at a public opening does much to promote trust and ensures that when the tender figures are read out loud, there can be no doubt about who quoted at what rate.

We have come a long way in seeking to have a transparent tendering process, but we still have further to go. Jamaica can only gain if Cabinet insists that ALL government tenders should have a public opening at the close of the tender.

Transparency in the award of government contracts can only increase the credibility of that government, and ensure that electors' confidence levels improve.