The Tribune

Five years after The Bahamas introduced its Public Procurement Act, an important question remains: Are the arrangements governing the Public Procurement Department sufficiently independent to safeguard the integrity of government contracting? The answer matters to every taxpayer and every business competing for public contracts.

THE PUBLIC Procurement Act 2021 came into force on September 1, 2021. It introduced a framework intended to strengthen transparency, competition, accountability and value for money.  At that time, an acting chief procurement officer was publicly identified while recruitment for a permanent head continued. The Act was amended in 2023, but an official procurement notice published in October 2026 still directs inquiries to an “Acting chief procurement officer.” This raises questions about the duration of acting leadership and whether a substantive appointment has been made.

A department with Government-wide responsibilities

The Public Procurement Department has functions that extend beyond the Ministry of Finance. Its work concerns procurement standards, administration, reporting and the broader implementation of procurement rules across public entities. Under the legislation, the chief procurement officer has defined management and reporting responsibilities, while procurement committees and other bodies exercise their own decision-making and review functions.

These distinct functions should reinforce one another. Yet effective governance also requires clear boundaries between officials involved in recommending a contract and those charged with monitoring, reporting on or questioning the procurement process.

The potential conflict

Information that the acting chief procurement officer also serves on the Ministry of Finance procurement committee warrants clarification. If confirmed, the nature of that membership matters. Is the officer a voting member, an adviser or an observer? Does the officer participate in recommendations or approvals? What recusal procedures apply?

Committee membership alone does not establish an unlawful conflict of interest. But an official who participates in a procurement decision while also carrying department-wide reporting or compliance responsibilities may encounter an actual, potential or perceived conflict. The relevant test is whether safeguards preserve impartiality and provide meaningful scrutiny.

Consider two direct-award scenarios

Suppose the acting chief procurement officer, as a member of the Ministry’s committee, recommends a direct award for a contract that should instead have been openly competed for. Who challenges that recommendation, and through what process?

Suppose another committee member proposes such a direct award, and the acting chief procurement officer supports the recommendation. If the procurement method is later questioned, how is the decision independently examined, particularly where the official with broader procurement responsibilities participated in it?

These are hypothetical examples, not claims that either event occurred. They expose a practical governance concern: Who checks the decision-maker when the official responsible for broader procurement administration is also among those making or recommending the decision?

Direct awards are not inherently unlawful. The 2023 procurement framework allows non-competitive procurement in specified circumstances, subject to legal conditions and applicable approvals. The issue is whether a particular direct award meets those conditions, whether the justification is recorded and whether an impartial challenge or review mechanism is available.

Who checks the process?

The Ministry of Finance should be able to explain the acting chief procurement officer’s precise committee role, the authority under which the arrangement operates, and the safeguards separating participation in individual procurements from departmental reporting and compliance responsibilities.

If the officer takes part in a contested recommendation, is there a requirement to recuse from subsequent examination of that matter? Who receives complaints? Which body is empowered to review the procurement method, and how are its findings communicated? The existence of formal avenues for challenge does not remove the need for strong controls before contracts are awarded.

The question of acting leadership

The Department also deserves stable and clearly accountable leadership. In January 2022, the Ministry of Finance’s financial secretary publicly linked delayed contract award disclosures to the absence of a formally-appointed chief procurement officer. Subsequent public statements described progress in reporting and training, including challenges in bringing procuring entities into full compliance.

An October 2026 procurement notice still uses the ‘acting’ title. That does not by itself prove that the Department has been ineffective. It does, however, make it reasonable to ask whether a substantive appointment has occurred, why acting arrangements have continued, and how leadership continuity and statutory accountability have been maintained.

A test of public confidence

The public procurement reform effort should be judged by more than legislation, a department’s existence or an electronic tendering platform. The meaningful tests are whether competition is the norm, exceptions are justified, awards are properly disclosed and decisions can be scrutinised without institutional conflicts.

The Ministry of Finance and the Public Procurement Department can strengthen public confidence by explaining these governance arrangements openly. Clear answers would protect the integrity of officials as well as the rights of suppliers and taxpayers.

Ultimately, the question is not whether the Department exists, but whether its leadership, safeguards and reporting arrangements allow it to fulfil its responsibilities with transparency and impartiality.

• NB: Daniel S. Ferguson, FCIPS, CM is the author of Public Procurement in The Bahamas: Lessons Learned from Reform, Practice, and Experience.

He is retired Chief Petty Officer (RBDF), Lead Investigator – 2004 Lorequin Commission of Inquiry, former Chief Supplies Officer, Ministry of Health; Procurement Consultant, Ministry of Finance; Adjunct Facilitator in Public Procurement, University of The Bahamas; former Component Coordinator for the IDB-sponsored Public Financial Management Reform Project.

Mr Ferguson led the drafting team for the Public Procurement Act 2021 and Regulations, assisted in developing the University of The Bahamas professional procurement officers training framework, and managed the development of the e‑Procurement Supplier Registry.