Irregularities in RHD project execution
Monday, 3 August 2009
The latest directive given by the Prime Minister seeking a report from the Ministry of Communications on the on-going road and bridge construction projects at the meeting of the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC) was a move in right direction. The PM's order came in the backdrop of alleged irregularities, generally financial, of massive scale in the implementation of projects under the control of the Roads and Highways Department RHD. The irregularities in RHD project implementation, according to a report published in this daily last Friday, had dominated the proceedings of the last ECNEC meeting. Allegations of deliberate compromise with the quality of RHD projects, disbursement of the entire contracted amount before full execution of projects and breach of some key procurement rules of the government during awarding of contracts were also discussed at that meeting.
The issues that have surfaced at the ECNEC meeting are nothing surprising. Actually, such irregularities are very much common in almost every government procurement or implementation of most development projects. Only difference remains in the degree of irregularities. But the RHD is one of the public sector agencies rife with corruption. The surveys carried out by the Bangladesh chapter of the Transparency International, the global graft watchdog, recently have found the roads and bridge projects are highly graft-tainted. The people involved in the monitoring of the development projects estimate the extent of misuse or misappropriation of public sector investments in the building of road and bridges by the RHD between 20 and 30 per cent. Even on the basis of that estimate, the amount misappropriated by the contractors and the RHD people was between Tk. 280 million and Tk.420 million in the last fiscal. Since allocation to the RHD this fiscal has been scaled up, the rate of misappropriation would, naturally, go up unless higher authorities took some corrective measures.
In most cases, contractors do not adhere to specifications mentioned in the original bids, leading to poor quality construction of basic infrastructures such as roads and bridges. The corrupt officials in the RHD, for understandable reasons, overlook such lapses. The lifestyle of these officials and property they own in 'benami' are enough to substantiate the allegation about their involvement in massive financial irregularities. However, it would be unfair to single out the RHD officials since the situation is not anyway different in other government agencies. It is small wonder that the Public Procurement Rules introduced in 2008 following much persuasion by the multilateral lenders have been failing to deliver the intended results. The PPR can help stem irregularities in the bidding process, but those would be of little help if the officials concerned, for their own pecuniary gains, work hand in glove with dishonest contractors or suppliers to overlook the quality of goods supplied or works done.
The Prime Minister has rightly asked the Ministry of Communications to prepare a report on the ongoing RHD projects. But what if ghosts exist in the very rapeseeds? It would be rather befitting to ask the Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED) or an independent organization to carry out the evaluation work of the ongoing RHD projects. What would be more important is meting out sufficient punishment to the officials and contractors found involved in irregular practices. Such actions might also send a warning message to others engaged in similar foul acts.
The issues that have surfaced at the ECNEC meeting are nothing surprising. Actually, such irregularities are very much common in almost every government procurement or implementation of most development projects. Only difference remains in the degree of irregularities. But the RHD is one of the public sector agencies rife with corruption. The surveys carried out by the Bangladesh chapter of the Transparency International, the global graft watchdog, recently have found the roads and bridge projects are highly graft-tainted. The people involved in the monitoring of the development projects estimate the extent of misuse or misappropriation of public sector investments in the building of road and bridges by the RHD between 20 and 30 per cent. Even on the basis of that estimate, the amount misappropriated by the contractors and the RHD people was between Tk. 280 million and Tk.420 million in the last fiscal. Since allocation to the RHD this fiscal has been scaled up, the rate of misappropriation would, naturally, go up unless higher authorities took some corrective measures.
In most cases, contractors do not adhere to specifications mentioned in the original bids, leading to poor quality construction of basic infrastructures such as roads and bridges. The corrupt officials in the RHD, for understandable reasons, overlook such lapses. The lifestyle of these officials and property they own in 'benami' are enough to substantiate the allegation about their involvement in massive financial irregularities. However, it would be unfair to single out the RHD officials since the situation is not anyway different in other government agencies. It is small wonder that the Public Procurement Rules introduced in 2008 following much persuasion by the multilateral lenders have been failing to deliver the intended results. The PPR can help stem irregularities in the bidding process, but those would be of little help if the officials concerned, for their own pecuniary gains, work hand in glove with dishonest contractors or suppliers to overlook the quality of goods supplied or works done.
The Prime Minister has rightly asked the Ministry of Communications to prepare a report on the ongoing RHD projects. But what if ghosts exist in the very rapeseeds? It would be rather befitting to ask the Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED) or an independent organization to carry out the evaluation work of the ongoing RHD projects. What would be more important is meting out sufficient punishment to the officials and contractors found involved in irregular practices. Such actions might also send a warning message to others engaged in similar foul acts.