By IPRP Communications Unit
The Independent Procurement Review Panel (IPRP) has engaged a team of World Bank Consultants who visited the office on Tuesday, December 10, 2024, in Freetown.
The consultants from the World Bank noted that the visit was to hang heads with the IPRP staff on the proposed review of the Public Procurement Act of 2016, adding that they were conducting a Methodology Assessment of Procurement Systems (MAPS) in Sierra Leone.
The Independent Procurement Review Panel is a creature of section 65 (1) of the Public Procurement Act (PPA) No.10 of 2016. The IPRP is responsible for reviewing complaints and appeals from dissatisfied bidders about decisions made by a procuring entity.
Speaking during the engagement, the lead World Bank consultant Simeon Sahaydachny disclosed that MAPS had been developed by the World Bank and other institutions, as a tool to be globally used for assessing procurement systems around the World.
The lead further noted that MAPS comprises 14 indicators and 54 sub-indicators, as well as numerous assessment criteria, pointing out that the indicators are divided into the following four pillars: legal framework, institutional and organizational management for proper procurement system, accountability, and integrity.
He disclosed that indicator 13 in the pillar focuses on complaint handling of dissatisfied bidders, emphasizing that the section deals with the public and private sectors, the professional sector, and civil society.
He added that the exercise was geared towards assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the Public Procurement Act of 2016 and mentioned that the IPRP must have encountered grey areas in the procurement laws which need to be strengthened to ease its work.
He noted that the assessment of MAPS in Sierra Leone is in the preliminary stage, adding that the team would consult with various stakeholders.
Ahmed Ramadan Jalloh, an investigator of IPRP, thanked members of the World Bank and staff of the National Public Procurement Authority (NPPA) for the visit, noting that the IPRP had been looking forward to such an opportunity.
He noted that part VII of the PPA of 2016 which deals with complaints does not clearly spell out the powers of the IPRP, thus making the institution’s work difficult.
He cited relevant sections of Part VII of the Act that should be amended and made unambiguous. He went on to highlight challenges encountered during investigation including getting procuring entities to surrender documents and such entities not adhering to the IPRP rulings.
The investigator further disclosed that some procurement officers and entities had been reported to the IPRP twice in a year for alleged procurement irregularities.