India : Country Procurement Assessment Report
The Country Procurement Assessment for India commenced in January 2000, which in view of the magnitude of the task, and budget constraints, it was divided into three phases. Thefirst phase covered the Central Government and its agencies (submitted...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Country Procurement Assessment (CPAR) |
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
Washington, DC
2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2003/12/3067150/india-country-procurement-assessment-report http://hdl.handle.net/10986/14596 |
| Summary: | The Country Procurement Assessment for
India commenced in January 2000, which in view of the
magnitude of the task, and budget constraints, it was
divided into three phases. Thefirst phase covered the
Central Government and its agencies (submitted in February
2001); the second phase covered three State Governments,
selected as representative of the twenty-five States, and
Union territories (in October 2001); and, the third phase
covered the 250 plus Public Sector Enterprises under the
Central Government (submitted in August 2002). This report
combines the reports in the three phases, in the form of a
comprehensive summary, to present a total picture of public
procurement in the country, its strengths and weaknesses,
and the recommendations for improvement and modernization.
It reviews the public procurement regime and its performance
within the country's legal and regulatory framework,
and stipulates the policies, procedures, guidelines and
delegation of authority relating to procurement, are issued
by the executive branch of the government, through
primarily, the finance, but also through the industry and
other ministries. The basic framework of rules and
procedures require open tenders, open to all qualified firms
without discrimination, use of non-discriminatory tender
documents, public bid opening, and selection of the most
advantageous tender, taking all factors (preferably
pre-disclosed) into consideration. Thus, there is a
reasonably good framework of rules, procedures and
documents. However, good performance is marred by cases of
mal-practice, pervasive corruption, and occasional scandals
of corruption at high levels. The situation in the States is
worse. Though the procedural framework is the same, the
quality of the personnel is not as good, and there is much
more intervention by politicians, and higher incidence of
corruption. This study identifies the weaknesses in
procurement, and looks for solutions, as well as to explore
avenues for improvement and modernization, discussed in
great detail. It suggests that, in the absence of a central
lead department or agency in the center, dedicated to policy
and oversight of public procurement, and, in the absence of
a Central law or State act in public procurement, a
'Public Procurement Law' complemented by a set of
Public Procurement Regulations, to replace and consolidate
the present fragmented rules, will improve the transparency
of the process, and accountability of public officials.
Furthermore, the introduction of an independent authority -
Public Procurement Tribunal - and a debriefing procedure
should be useful steps to improve transparency, as well as
simplified review and approval process, and a revamping of
blacklisting rules. |
|---|