2009年-世界发展银行全球_Pakistan_Sindh_Province_-_Baseline_Indicators_System___Baseline_Procurement_Performance_Assessment_Report_41页_1mb

Summary of Pakistan Sindh Province Baseline Procurement Performance Assessment Report

Core Content

This report is a joint product of the Government of Sindh and its development partners, including the Asian Development Bank (ADB), The World Bank Group, The European Commission, and the UK's Department for International Development. It assesses the public procurement system in Sindh Province using the OECD-DAC Baseline Indicators System, which is a standardized tool for evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency of procurement systems. The report identifies the current status of the procurement system, outlines areas needing improvement, and highlights the government's reform roadmap to align with international best practices.

Main Points and Key Findings

Assessment Overview

• The report is structured around four pillars and 12 indicators, with sub-indicators used to provide detailed analysis.
• The score range for the indicators is from 3 (full achievement) to 0 (complete failure).
• The overall score for Pillar I (legislative and regulatory framework) is 1.5, indicating that the system requires significant improvements.
• Pillar II (institutional framework and management capacity) has an overall score of 1, suggesting major work is needed.
• Pillar III (procurement operations and market practices) scores 1.25, indicating the need for moderate improvements.
• Pillar IV (integrity and transparency) scores 1, highlighting the need for substantial reform.

Key Indicators and Sub-Indicators

Pillar I: The legislative and regulatory framework

• Indicator 1: The procurement framework complies with national and international requirements, but it is scored 2, indicating some improvements are needed.

  • Sub-indicator 1(a): The framework covers a wide range of entities and is published, but the hierarchy of rules and regulations is not clearly defined. Score: 2.5
  • Sub-indicator 1(b): Competitive selection methods are limited, and the only method is "lowest evaluated bid," which is considered restrictive for consultancy services. Score: 2
  • Sub-indicator 1(c): Advertising rules and time limits are well defined and enforced. Score: 3
  • Sub-indicator 1(d): Rules on participation are present, but they lack transparency and clarity. Score: 1.5
  • Sub-indicator 1(e): Tender documentation and technical specifications are partially available. Score: 2
  • Sub-indicator 1(f): Tender evaluation and award criteria are not fully developed. Score: 2
  • Sub-indicator 1(g): Tender submission, receipt, and opening processes are well defined. Score: 3
  • Sub-indicator 1(h): Complaint mechanisms are underdeveloped. Score: 1

• Indicator 2: Existence of implementing regulations and documentation is scored 1, indicating major improvements are needed.

  • Sub-indicator 2(a): Some implementing regulations are in place, but not all. Score: 2
  • Sub-indicator 2(b): Model tender documents are not fully developed. Score: 1.5
  • Sub-indicator 2(c): Prequalification procedures are partially established. Score: 2
  • Sub-indicator 2(d): Procedures for services based on technical capacity are not in place. Score: 0
  • Sub-indicator 2(e): User's guide for contracting entities is not available. Score: 0
  • Sub-indicator 2(f): General contract conditions are partially aligned with national and international requirements. Score: 1.5

Pillar II: Institutional framework and management capacity

• Indicator 3: The procurement system is not well integrated into the public sector governance. Score: 1

  • Sub-indicator 3(a): Procurement planning is not linked to the budget formulation process. Score: 0
  • Sub-indicator 3(b): Budget laws and financial procedures support procurement but are not fully effective. Score: 1
  • Sub-indicator 3(c): Procurement actions are initiated without adequate budget appropriation. Score: 1
  • Sub-indicator 3(d): Completion reports are not systematically prepared. Score: 1

• Indicator 4: The province has a functional normative and/or regulatory body (SPPRA). Score: 2

  • Sub-indicator 4(a): The status and basis of the regulatory body are not clearly defined in the legal framework. Score: 1
  • Sub-indicator 4(b): The body has defined responsibilities. Score: 3
  • Sub-indicator 4(c): The body's organization, funding, staffing, and independence are not fully established. Score: Not scored
  • Sub-indicator 4(d): The body ensures separation of responsibilities to avoid conflict of interest. Score: 3

• Indicator 5: Institutional development capacity is scored 0, indicating that the system lacks sustainable development and training mechanisms.

  • Sub-indicator 5(a): A procurement information system exists. Score: 1
  • Sub-indicator 5(b): Procurement statistics are not collected or monitored. Score: 0
  • Sub-indicator 5(c): No sustainable strategy or training capacity exists. Score: 0
  • Sub-indicator 5(d): Quality control standards are not disseminated or used to evaluate staff performance. Score: 0

Pillar III: Procurement operations and market practices

• Indicator 6: Procurement operations and practices are scored 1.25, indicating that they require moderate improvements.

  • Sub-indicator 6(a): Procurement competence among officials is limited. Score: 0.5
  • Sub-indicator 6(b): Training and information programs for officials and private sector participants are not aligned with demand. Score: 0
  • Sub-indicator 6(c): Record-keeping norms are in place. Score: 2
  • Sub-indicator 6(d): Delegation of authority is well defined. Score: 2.5

• Indicator 7: The functionality of the public procurement market is scored 1.5, indicating the need for moderate improvements.

  • Sub-indicator 7(a): Partnerships between public and private sectors are not well developed. Score: 1
  • Sub-indicator 7(b): Private sector institutions are well organized. Score: 2
  • Sub-indicator 7(c): There are no major systemic constraints. Score: 2
  • Sub-indicator 7(d): Rules for choosing between international and national markets are not fully clear. Score: 1

• Indicator 8: Contract administration and dispute resolution provisions are scored 1, indicating that they require significant improvements.

  • Sub-indicator 8(a): Contract administration procedures are defined. Score: 1
  • Sub-indicator 8(b): Dispute resolution procedures are in place. Score: 1
  • Sub-indicator 8(c): Procedures to enforce dispute resolution outcomes are not well developed. Score: 1

Pillar IV: Integrity and transparency of the public procurement system

• Indicator 9: Control and audit systems are scored 0.5, indicating that they require substantial improvements.

  • Sub-indicator 9(a): Internal and external control frameworks exist. Score: 1
  • Sub-indicator 9(b): Enforcement of control findings is not effective. Score: 1
  • Sub-indicator 9(c): Compliance information is not timely. Score: 1
  • Sub-indicator 9(d): Audit procedures are not sufficiently defined. Score: 0

• Indicator 10: The appeals mechanism is not scored, indicating that it is either not relevant or not yet implemented.

• Indicator 11: Access to information is scored 1, indicating that it requires significant improvements.

  • Sub-indicator 11(a): Information is published through available media and the government website. Score: 1

• Indicator 12: Ethics and anticorruption measures are scored 2, indicating that they are partially in place.

  • Sub-indicator 12(a): Legal and regulatory framework includes provisions against corruption, fraud, and unethical behavior. Score: 2
  • Sub-indicator 12(b): Legal system defines responsibilities and penalties for corrupt practices. Score: 1
  • Sub-indicator 12(c): Evidence of enforcement of penalties is present. Score: 2
  • Sub-indicator 12(d): Special anticorruption measures are in place. Score: 2
  • Sub-indicator 12(e): Stakeholders support the integrity of the procurement system. Score: 2.5
  • Sub-indicator 12(f): A secure mechanism for reporting unethical behavior is in place. Score: 2
  • Sub-indicator 12(g): Codes of conduct for participants are in place. Score: 2

Planning and Preparation

• The assessment was conducted through interviews with a wide range of stakeholders, including:
  • Special Secretary Finance
  • Departments of Health, Irrigation and Power, Works and Services, and Audit
  • Karachi Water and Sewerage Board
  • Local government staff
  • National Accountability Bureau Sindh (NAB)
  • Transparency International
  • Consultants and Contractors

Government's Procurement Reform Roadmap

• The government has developed a procurement road map to align the system with international best practices.
• Key milestones include:
  • Revising the regulatory framework
  • Preparing standard bidding documents (SBDs)
  • Staffing and operationalizing SPPRA
  • Developing a long-term training strategy
  • Implementing a reform management strategy
  • Ensuring e-procurement readiness

Conclusion

• The current procurement system in Sindh Province shows partial compliance with international standards.
• Major areas requiring attention include:
  • Strengthening the legal and regulatory framework
  • Improving institutional management and capacity
  • Enhancing procurement operations and market practices
  • Establishing robust control, audit, and transparency mechanisms
• The government's reform roadmap provides a clear direction for future improvements, and continued commitment will be essential for achieving efficient and transparent procurement.