|
And the loser is...
Apparently, the Ontario government isn’t doing so well with transparency. Ann Cavoukian, information and privacy commissioner, released her 2006 annual report in June, leveling criticism at the province for its purchasing system. The problem is requests for information about bids and contracts are routinely refused. In some cases, the information withheld is almost identical to data that had already been released in previous appeals.
Despite the trend among government agencies to become more accountable to the public, officials are still adhering to the traditional “veil of secrecy” approach, according to the report.
Her suggested remedy is to make all bid results available to the public. She cites British Columbia as an example. The BC government has a web site, called BC Bid, where all successful bids are posted. The record includes the amount of the contract, the tender number, and the name of the successful vendor. The site is easy to navigate, search and browse (http://www.bcbid.gov.bc.ca).
It also lists the purchasing agent in charge of each contract, along with their phone number, making the system even more accessible to vendors and members of the public. I checked in with a purchasing agent listed on such a site to ask if posting their name and number invited a deluge of calls from the public and supplier community, but apparently the phone is relatively quiet. So concerns over increased workload and communication can be allayed.
But Cavoukian wants the Ontario government to go one step further. Instead of posting just the winning bid, she’d like officials to list the unsuccessful bids next to the successful one. This is where things get sticky. It might be OK to list the losing bids in dollar amounts only. It would provide a visible gauge of the tendency of officials to award to the lowest bidder.
An investigation could be undertaken if the web site shows contracts are frequently awarded to the second or even third lowest bidder, particularly where the same vendor wins each time. In that manner, bid transparency would alleviate suspicion around bribery and favoritism.
But is it necessary—or even wise—to post the name of the losing company? Surely the unsuccessful supplier wouldn’t want news of his failure publicly broadcast. It would likely taint negotiations with current and potential customers. Some buyers might even favour the supplier’s competitor from the outset, knowing how they’ve won time after time in other competitions.
Not that it’s the buyer’s duty to protect the reputation of suppliers, but competitions should be conducted fairly, with no preconceived notions gleaned from years of bid history posted on a web site.
At the moment, Cavoukian is waiting for a response to her suggestions from Premier Dalton McGuinty. Hopefully McGuinty will consult with experienced procurement managers—and possibly a few supplier associations—before making any kind of decision on what data is appropriate to post.
Efforts around transparency won’t be subsiding. Instead of waiting for new requirements to be mandated, public officials—in all provinces—might want to open up a dialogue with government leadership on how bid information can be shared with the public, without jeopardizing suppliers’ viability and goodwill.
—Lisa Wichmann, Editor
Contact the editor at lisa.wichmann@pb2b.rogers.com
|
