[e-drug] Drug shortage feared as Uganda govt, WHO haggle over supplier (5)

["Murtada SESAY" <MurtadaS@unops.org>]

E-DRUG: Drug shortage feared as Uganda govt, WHO haggle over supplier (5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear e-Druggers,

Even without the need to consider the facts or mention names at this point, I  think that this story has value on account of the opportunity it presents as a useful case study for all involved in the management of public procurement of pharmaceuticals. One can ask many questions for reflection. 

For example:

(1) What constitutes a "murky" procurement process, and when/how do we identify and remedy this in real life? Like the flowing river, I think procurement can become murky or dirty at any point along the often tortuous path; from upstream at specification setting, for example, to downstream, at delivery to the end-user. It is always possible, however, to take remedial actions accordingly and promptly. One would therefore hope that the outcome of whatever the reality of this story is, will be in the best interest of that ONE hard-to-reach Ugandan child who will need to have prompt treatment for life-threatening malaria.

(2) One may also ask how information about a tender evaluation process becomes public knowledge even before finalisation? Confidentiality or the lack of it, is indeed a big challenge in public procurement, especially in settings where people involved with critical aspects of the process don't get paid appropriate wages. 

(3) We also need to ask the question "who are really the so called Procurement Agents" and what roles do they play in the procurement process? Well, I suppose it will depend on the terms of engagement, but I do not think any procurement agent should ever be given a blank cheque, as it were, to decide or influence the procurement outcome at will. This means that before such terms of engagement are agreed, all parties must know their limits and responsibilities, and there should be no surprises or murkiness. All parties are therefore advised to beware, at all times, when they contract to give and take.

(4) Also, how much do we really know/understand about the WHO prequalification process, its role in supporting quality procurement, and how well do we use this to facilitate procurement in countries? The more we understand the purpose of this programme, the more useful it will be. My personal view is that if one consults the prequalification programme only when procurement is under way, it may be too late!

(5) Inter/Intra-country sharing of useful procurement information is alluded to in the report but how well organised or structured is the mechanism, to make it credible and reliable? - bilateral or multilateral collaboration is a very good idea! But Such collaboration need not be ad hoc. Let the ground rules be laid and made clear to all parties so that there can be little room for misinformation or misrepresentation. I get the impression that in this report one party is said to share information only because they feel "cheated"?

(6)Some statistics have been used, apparently to strengthen the story, but we all know the dangers with numbers. For example, when I read a statement like "it could only manage a maximum of 200,000 to 400,000 doses", I am not quite sure which of these two number boundaries represent the reality and therefore the gravity. In procurement, especially of pharmaceuticals, there is/should be little room for uncertainty in our numbers.

(7) Unfortunately, we do not know if there were other bidders who would otherwise have qualified for the award. The consideration of " other bidders " is fundamental in public procurement, to ensure fair treatment, access to the same information, at the same time, and that they indeed comply or otherwise with the clear requirements of the procurement. I can imagine that if there were other bidders in this story, by now they would be preparing their representations to the tender evaluation committee!

To conclude, I think that there will always be cases or stories about murky public procurement but the degree of murkiness will depend on:

(1)	How clear our description of what we set out to procure is.

(2)	Who will be involved and what roles and responsibilities they will be expected to play.

(3)	The processes and procedures we have in place to monitor progress so that we can take appropriate action where necessary - we should never wait until a contract is awarded, or nearly so.

(4)	Finally, it seems to me that no matter what we may do, or what statutory and/or regulatory safeguards are in place, the old adage of "caveat emptor" comes in handy - LET THE BUYER BEWARE. 

Regards

Murtada  Sesay
Senior Pharmaceutical Product/Supply Chain Officer
UNOPS INPC
New Delhi, India
Tel.: +91 11 3041 7430  
Cell: +91 9971992883
Fax: +91 11 4350 8527
Skype: Murtada.Sesay1
www.unops.org