Craig Terblanche forwarded an interview with Kenneth Brown, National Treasury's chief procurement officer who been given the responsibility of overseeing the design and implementation of "rigorous procurement reforms" that Pravin wishes to implement. These reforms intend to improve infrastructure project management, strengthen service delivery, eliminate waste and root out corruption. The priority being to improve efficiency and visibility across the value-chain so as to guarantee value for money and a reduction in waste. (most of this has been cut and pasted directly from the Engineering News article).
Part of this process is to take a look at the PPPFA
A technical committee has been established to assess all aspects of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (PPPFA) to deal with some of the objections that have emerged from certain interest groups. "By the end of June, we should have a sense on where we are headed with the PPPFA and whether amendments are needed."
The "certain interest groups" are in all probability the Black Business Cabal Council. I wrote about this last week. In the post I quoted something from BDLive where "BBC CEO Xolani Qubeka said. The act in its current form was "antitransformation". His criticism is based primarily on the 90:10 (price to socioeconomic ratio) gauge used for the adjudication of tenders."
The Engineering News article refers back to section 217 of the constitution
Part of the agenda involves a process of legislative reform, guided by Section 217 of the Constitution, which stipulates that public entities contract for goods or services in a way that is "fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective", while leaving room for "preference" in the allocation of contracts, as well as "protection or advancement" for those "disadvantaged by unfair discrimination".
I cannot see how changing the PPPFA rules are going to provide the necessary reforms that are going to talk section 217. In fact the BBC have no time for section 217. What they are advocating is the removal of the PPPFA altogether to further their specific agenda – which is quite patently to get the state to hand over business on the basis of race and race alone. Besides the fact that this is neither fair, equitable, competitive or cost effective (it is very transparent) it opens up the door for rampant corruption and abuse. At least with the PPPFA you've got a few basic guidelines and processes that could prevent abuse. Imagine a scenario where a government department (SOE or the like) state that certain procurement can only come from black-owned businesses. You must understand that the BBC operates at the highest levels in government departments so they could influence what gets set-aside. This could be certain types of high-end items that the BBC's members have exclusivity over. They could collude and ensure that an inflated price is set for each bid (like the construction sector during the world cup). That government department will then pay that premium price that the BBC has engineered.
It is impossible for the BBC to get its way and for Treasury to ensure that it "guarantee value for money and a reduction in waste". I am slightly heartened by Ken's suggestion that by June they'll know what to do with the PPPFA and whether to amend it. I just hope that he is able to resist the extreme pressure that Zuma's buddies in the BBC are able to exert. I also think we could have a defensive constitutional challenge on any of these reforms. It'll probably be my responsibility to do this.
Comments