Name of Grant Activity: Transparent Public Procurement Rating – Assessing Public Procurement Legislation and the Enforcement Process in the Eurasian Region and Beyond
Donor Organization: Open Society Institute Budapest Foundation (OSI)
Grant Recipient: Institute for Development of Freedom of Information
Total Grant Amount: 155, 292 USD
Project Number: OR2017-34436
Period of Performance: November 1, 2017 – May 31, 2019
Public procurement is considered to be one of the key areas susceptible to corruption, especially in the economies of developing countries with widespread corruption. Public procurement accounts for around one-fifth of global gross domestic product. In most high-income economies the purchase of goods and services accounts for a third of total public spending, thus public procurement can become a significant area for corruption, collusion and other illegal practices. Without transparent public procurement systems, which are based on electronic means, are efficient, operate on API and open data, corruption may stay undetected from government authorities, as well as watchdog organizations or procurement enthusiasts. In this regard, collaboration between government authorities and civil society is crucial for efficient functioning of public procurement systems.
For this reason, in 2016, IDFI elaborated a common standard (methodology) for assessing the legislative framework of public procurement in 6 pilot countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The result was a ranking of public procurement legislations based on benchmark characteristics that any well-functioning public procurement system must have: transparency, efficiency, accountability and integrity, uniformity of the legislative framework, competitiveness and impartiality. The methodology was then used to assess the implementation of PPLs of each participant country for the purpose of identifying the gaps that come with putting the legislation into practice, and elaborating specific recommendations to remedy them.
The project aims to build on the experience of the project – “Transparent Public Procurement Rating (TPPR) – Assessing Public Procurement Legislation and the Enforcement Process in the Eurasian Region” and expand the (TPPR) and its common standard for assessing the legislative framework of public procurement beyond the Eastern Partnership Countries, in Central Asian States (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan), Visegrad Countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia), Albania and Mongolia.
The TPPR project is a good example of how CSO collaboration can produce a unique product, with which it is possible to rank countries according to PPLs and create ground for improvement based on research and exchange of information. As a result of CSO collaboration in 6 Eastern Partnership countries, a standardized methodology was created that provides possibility to assess, compare and rank PPLs in different countries. The methodology was piloted in Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The above mentioned regions for expanding the project were chosen in order to ensure that TPPR will cover diverse public procurement systems with different origins and realities. Central Asian states, Visegrad and Balkan countries have different political systems, which affect their public procurement systems.
In addition to expanding to 8 more countries, the project will have a greater emphasis on advocating for policy and practical changes based on the results of assessing public procurement legislations and their implementation. The project will also involve creating a standardized questionnaire for assessing the implementation of the legislation in order to make country comparison more viable.
- Expanding the Transparent Public Procurement Rating (TPPR) Network (PPL Assessments, PPL Implementation Assessments)
- Creating a Set Questionnaire for Assessing the Implementation of the PPLs in Participant Countries
- Expanding the CSO Network in Target Countries
- Conducting targeted advocacy campaigns to reach out to relevant stakeholders involving public officials, businesses, media, civil society and communities
Good Governance Forum (GGF)30.11.2019
Emergency Joint Statement by NGOs14.11.2019
Selection of Supreme Court Judge Candidates: What people in Georgia know and think about the process21.10.2019