Currency unit = Colombian peso US $1 = MX $2,311.70 (as of December 10, 2008) World Bank Vice-President • Pamela Cox Country Director • Axel Van Trotsenburg Sector Director • Elizabeth O. Adu Sector Manager • Enzo de Laurentiis Task Manager • Tomás Socías Inter-American Development Bank General Manager, Country Department, Andean Group • Alicia Ritchie Chief, Operations Procurement Office • Katharina Falkner-Olmedo Chief, Institutional Capacity of State Division • Xavier Comas Representative, Colombia Country Office • Rodrigo Parot Chief of Operations, Colombia Country Office • Humberto Gobitz Task Managers • Felix Prieto, • Rodolfo Gastaldi, • Eugenio Hillman
The final discussions held in the closing workshop were focused on determining: a) if the assessment report was complete and reflected all of the relevant aspects concerning the Colombian public contracting system; b) if the conclusions drawn by the team that prepared the report were consistent with the elements presented as being characteristic of the public contracting system, and c) if they agreed to the conclusions drawn and the scores given. The exercise concluded by taking the results shown and observations made during the closing workshop into consideration, after which the final version of the report was written up, and it is now presented for the consideration of the reader. The report consolidation was the responsibility of Gonzalo Suárez Beltrán and Roberto Laguado Giraldo, consultants to the Technical Secretariat of the Intersectoral Commission for Public Procurement (CINCO) currently under the National Planning Department Public Administration Renewal Program/Contracting Project. The Colombian team received support and technical coordination from the following specialists, officers, and consultants from the World Bank and from the Inter-American Development Bank: Felix Prieto, Humberto Gobitz, Eugenio Hillman, Alfonso Sánchez, Tomás Socías, María Camila Padilla, and Rodolfo Gastaldi. E. Summary of results The chart below summarizes the scores obtained upon applying the above-mentioned methodology. It is the result of the analysis made by the consulting team. Sub-indicator Rating Pillar I – Legislative and Regulatory Framework Sub-indicator 1(a) – Scope of application and coverage of the legislative and regulatory framework. 3 Sub-indicator 1(b) – Procurement Methods 3 Sub-indicator 1(c) – Advertising rules and time limits 3 Sub-indicator 1(d) – Rules on participation 3 Sub-indicator 1(e) – Bidding documentation and technical specifications 3 Sub-indicator 1(f) – Bidding evaluation and award criteria 3 Sub-indicator 1(g) – Submission, receipt and opening of biddings 3
Sub-criteria 12(f) – The country should have in place a secure mechanism for reporting fraudulent, corrupt, or unethical behavior 2 Sub-criteria 12(g) – Existence of Codes of Conduct/Codes of Ethics for participants that are involved in aspects of the public financial management systems that also provide for disclosure for those in decision making positions. 2
ASSESSMENT At present, the procurement system does not have a quality assurance and procurement process monitoring system as such. Nor does it have indicators to evaluate the performance of the officials and offices that participate in procurement. There are no job descriptions or office function descriptions for the procurement units yet. Operational audits aimed at monitoring compliance with procurement quality standards have not been implemented. Conclusions: Internally speaking, the procurement system does not meet the sub-indicator requirements because equality assurance, monitoring, and staff performance evaluation mechanisms based on results and professional behavior have not been developed nor are there mechanisms for operational audits that verify compliance with the above-mentioned aspects. Score: Considering the above, a score of 0 is given to this indicator.
Chart 4. Distribution of contract numbers, according to purpose Purpose National Government Profile/1 Body of 10 entities Sample Goods Works Services 22 percent 6 percent 72 percent 20 percent 17 percent 63 percent 21 percent 17 percent 62 percent Total 100.0 percent 100.0 percent 100.0 percent Source: 1/ Naranjo, Salomé (2007), Profile of Public Procurement
3) (1c-b) Average number of days between tender and tender opening according to the procurement method and purpose (1c-b-i) Average number of days for bid preparation, according to the procurement method and purpose. Average number of days for bid preparation, according to the procurement method and purpose Method Goods Services Works Total Direct contracting 18.3 17.8 20 18.3 Direct contracting after bid declared void 10.7 NI 4 9 Public tendering 18.2 21.2 20.5 20 Total 17.7 19 19.8 18.8 On average, the bidders that participated in procurement processes from the analyzed group of entities had about 19 days to prepare their bids; regardless of the type of process that was used for bidder selection (tendering or direct contracting) The time for bid preparation is the time from opening to closing for the tendering process, and from the publication of final terms of reference to final terms to the bid submission date for direct contracting Contract sample (1c-a) Percentage of invitations for open biddings publicly advertised (1c-b-ii) Average number of days for bid evaluation, according to the procurement method and purpose.174 Average number of days for bid evaluation, according to method and achieved purpose Method Goods Services Works Total Direct Contracting 28.2 33.9 29.3 31.6 Direct Contracting after bid declared void 16.3 NI 85 33.5 Public Tendering 30.6 31.7 54.5 39.5 Total 28.3 33.2 47.7 35.8 The time for bid evaluation is the time from the close of the process to the contract award for the Contract sample
cases where pre-rating was used as prescribed in the legal framework was used appropriately as prescribed in the legal framework not consider the mechanism for any purpose (2c-b) Percentage of cases that used objective pass/fail prerating criteria as opposed to subjective qualitative criteria (2c-b) Percentage of cases that used objective pass/fail criteria as opposed to subjective qualitative criteria 0 percent (2f) Percentage of tenders that use the General Contract Conditions (CGC from (2f) Percentage of bidders who utilize the General Contract Conditions (CGC from its Spanish acronym), standard clauses, or templates, as 0 percent. It was found that each entity attaches to the tender documents the forms that bidders must fill out with information relative to their signature and proposal, but no standard general conditions or templates exist at the national governmental level. The regulations in force in 2007 do not require the CGC.
its Spanish acronym), standard clauses, or templates, as applicable Applicable PILLAR II – INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND MANAGEMENT CAPACITY The public procurement system is well-integrated and is part of the public sector governing system (3b) Percentage of payments made late (e.g., exceeding the specified payment schedule) (3b-i) Percentage of contracts with evidence of late payments, in comparison with the provisions 61.1 percent of all sample contracts contain a clause that specifies payment terms, and of those, one quarter (25 percent) recorded late payments in comparison with the provisions 18.9 percent of all sample contracts specify the time for the contract auditor to issue his judgment concerning deliverables, and of this number, 56.9 percent recorded late payments in comparison with the provisions. Contract sample (3b-ii) Average delay in review on the part of the supervisor/auditor, in contrast to what is provided in the contract For cases in which a review term was established for deliverables, the average delay is 37.1 days in comparison with the provisions Contract sample (3d-a) Percentage of major (3d-a) Percentage of bids with completion resolution or minutes Contract settlement is important since, by Contract sample
contract award award date or termination of the evaluation period176 *Does not include the 10 days between publication of draft documents and advertisement of bidding projects and the date of opening for tendering, nor the 5 days during which terms of reference drafts are published for direct contract notice. An average of 55 days pass between the opening of the bidding process and contract award for the group of analyzed entities. This period is longer for contracts signed by means of competitive bidding. In the group of analyzed entities, the procurement process of a procurement for works is delayed more than twice the time of a tender for procurement of goods. opening for bids. (6c) Percentage of contracts found with incomplete records (6c) Percentage of contracts found with incomplete records to assess pre-contract and contract performance indicators Pre-contract and contract information of sample contracts are complete for the group of entities, although some entities file pre-contractual information separate from contractual information. The information most difficult to obtain is that related to payments and the contract settlement process, since this information is generally collected in the file upon settlement of the contract. In the case that a contract was not settled, this information was requested by official letter. However, in 14.4 percent of all contracts, no information was obtained about the filing dates for deliverables, the dates of receipt, and/or the dates of execution according to payment terms. 7) of the public procurement market (7b) Average number (7b) Average number of bids submitted in each Average of proposals submitted by process (adjusted/ 1) The regulation in force in 2007 Contract sample
control procedures for procurement responses reported by the entities: Frequency of reported control mechanisms ADDITIONS TO OECD METHODOLOGY (21a) Average percentage of savings associated with public procurement– final contract amount/contract budget On average, the amount for which contracts were signed was 7.4 percent below the amount budgeted in the tenders or terms of reference for the group of analyzed entities: Average percentage of savings associated with competitive bidding Methods Goods Services Works Total Total 7.5 3.8 13.0 7.4