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 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.