This document reviews what procurement indicators can be calcultated using data from the United Kingdom, Kenya, Nepal, Uganda, South Africa and Zambia, as part of the OC4H project.
The following table shows the coverage of key variables needed to calculate key procurement indicators:
| field | GB | KE | NP | UG | ZA | ZM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| award_periodEndDate | 0 | 0 | 0.6 | 6.2 | 0 | 48.9 |
| award_periodStartDate | 0 | 0 | 11.1 | 6.2 | 0 | 99.8 |
| award_value_amount | 37.9 | 13.2 | 0 | 18.8 | 3.6 | 49.1 |
| award_value_currency | 37.9 | 13.2 | 0 | 18.8 | 3.6 | 49.1 |
| numberOfTenderers | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 99.4 |
| ocid | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| procurementMethod | 68.8 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.8 |
| procuringEntity | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 9.3 | 100 |
| supplier_name | 54.1 | 13.2 | 0 | 10.4 | 100 | 49.1 |
| tender_item_description | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 99.8 |
| tender_periodEndDate | 76.1 | 100 | 100 | 5.5 | 100 | 99.8 |
| tender_periodStartDate | 0 | 100 | 100 | 8.6 | 100 | 99.8 |
| tender_status | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.8 |
| tender_value_amount | 16.7 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 99.8 |
| tender_value_currency | 16.7 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 99.8 |
Based on the coverage of key fields, the following table shows the proportion of tenders that have the fields necessary to calculate key indictaros. For instance while the proportion of open tenders and cancelled tenders can be calculated for all the countries with a good coverage, other indicators such as the duration of the award period can be calculated only for 6% of the tenders in Uganda and 49% of the tenders in Zambia.
The full list of indicatos with their description can be found here
| indicator | GB | KE | NP | UG | ZA | ZM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average and median number of bidders per tender | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 99.4 |
| Average duration of the award period | 0 | 0 | 0.6 | 6.2 | 0 | 48.9 |
| Average duration of the tendering period | 0 | 100 | 100 | 5.3 | 100 | 99.8 |
| Market concentration | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.4 | 0 | 49.1 |
| Number of unique suppliers by institution | 54.1 | 13.2 | 0 | 10.4 | 9.3 | 49.1 |
| Proportion of cancelled tenders | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.8 |
| Proportion of contracts with savings and overruns | 7.2 | 0 | 0 | 18.8 | 0 | 49.1 |
| Proportion of open tenders | 68.8 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.8 |
| Proportion of single bid tenders | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 99.4 |
| Proportion of value awarded in single bid tenders vs competitive tenders | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 49.1 |
| Share of direct awards | 43.5 | 13.2 | 0 | 10.4 | 100 | 49.1 |
| Share of single bid contracts | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 49.1 |
| Top suppliers | 37.7 | 13.2 | 0 | 10.4 | 3.6 | 49.1 |
Below are some examples of indicators calculated with the data.
Description: This indicator calculates the proportion of competitive tenders in the whole procurement market.
Considerations: Consider open tenders and other types of procurement methods that allow competition. It is important to check local regulations regarding the different types of procedures that apply and the threshold values for competitive tenders. This can be calculated for each procurement agency and by year.
Formula: (Number of open tenders / Total number of tenders)*100
Data fields needed: tender.procurementMethod
Interpretation: A higher value can signal more competition and integrity (transparency) while having more direct awards may signal a risk.
This indicator can be calculated for all the countries, however for GB 31% of the tenders do not have information about the procurement method used
| direct | limited | open | selective | NA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GB | 1.4 | 0.0 | 47.8 | 19.6 | 31.2 |
| KE | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| NP | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| UG | 93.2 | 6.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| ZA | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| ZM | 0.0 | 83.0 | 16.8 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
Description: This indicator calculates the proportion of tenders that received a single bid out of the total number of tenders were competition was expected.
Considerations: This has to be calculated for open (or limited selected) tenders where competition is expected. Single bids can be analysed by procuring entity or by item category. For some markets (or items) single bids can be a result of specialised goods or limited suppliers.
Formula:(TOTAL Number tenders with a single bid/ TOTAL number of tenders)*100
Interpretation: Having a high proportion of single bids in tenders that should be competitive is considered a risk in procurement, since it might signal limited competition, a low capacity of procurement agencies, result in higher prices, lower quality, weaker political accountability.
Data fields needed: tender.procurementMethod, tender.numberofTenderers or tender.tenderers_count
The number of tenderers is only available for Zambia and Nepal
Description: This indicator calculates the total value awarded in tenders that received a single bid in comparison to the value awarded in competitive tenders.
Considerations: This has to be calculated for open (or limited selected) tenders where competition is expected. Single bids can be analysed by procuring entity or by item category. For some markets (or items) single bids can be a result of specialised goods or limited suppliers.
Formula:(TOTAL Award value of tenders with a single bid/ TOTAL value awarded)*100
Interpretation: Having a higher value awarded in non competitive tenders may signal less competition in high value tenders, or higher prices as a result of no competition.
Data fields needed: tender.procurementMethod, tender.numberofTenderers or tender.tenderers_count, award.value
Only Zambia hast both the number of tenderers and the award values. In the case of Nepal they dont publish award values, and for thwe rest of the countries, the number of bidders is not available so it is not posible to segment between single bid and competitive tenders.
Based on the flags included in the dataset, related to constrained competition and health, all the tenders have at least one of the flags.
GB has the higher proportion of health tenders with 16.6%, while in other countries like Zambia only 4.7% of tenders where related to health. A high proportion of the tenders have at least one flag related to constrained competition. For instance in South Africa a 100% of the tenders were flagged, this could be an error in the flags definition. Similarly in Kenya and Zambia more than 80% of the tenders are flagged, so it could be worth verifying if the flag definition and thresholds are correct.
| country | both | competition_constrained | health |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB | 5.8 | 37.3 | 16.6 |
| KE | 6.2 | 81.1 | 7.4 |
| NP | 2.3 | 28.5 | 8.5 |
| UG | 0.0 | 0.6 | 14.2 |
| ZA | 5.7 | 100.0 | 5.7 |
| ZM | 3.3 | 88.3 | 4.7 |