Full and Open Competition in Public Procurement: Values and Ethics in Contracting Opportunity

ABSTRACT

Governments have sought to respond to increasing pressures to accomplish aims with efficiency and at low cost. A perception of the potential for corruption and waste of public resources has been met with calls for transparency and accountability. Competition is believed to lead to impartial, optimal outcomes, but attention paid to competition in the literature suggests that the benefits are not universally clear. This paper considers ‘full and open competition’ as a policy promise, ethical obligation, and a matter of justice, drawing upon work of John Rawls and others, in the United States case. The research question is: What do Federal procurement data tell us about the nature of full and open competition in practice? This study draws upon contract data available from the U.S. Federal government, for fiscal years from 2015 to 2018. Through an ordinal regression, it is suggested that variation in the extent of competition results in part from size of project, size of the business (or potential business) receiving the project, and the industry classification, particularly in cases centering on commercial acquisitions. While ‘full and open competition’ is frequently employed, the difference between the normative value of the concept in statute, and practical outcomes in implementation, is clear. This difference has consequences for both vendors and the government.     

Conclusion: Is competency management a passing fad?

Is competency management a passing fad; is it a catch‐all term to cover diverse national patterns of development or a symptom of wider changes within bureaucracies? As the papers published here suggest, it is more likely to be a passing fad in Europe than the USA. Competency management addresses rather different agendas in different countries and while it does not embrace as diverse a collection of activities as ‘new public management’, there is substantial range in the issues it does address. European experience suggests competency is more likely to be ephemeral and concerned with repackaging rather than bringing something substantially new to personnel management in the upper reaches of civil services. Without taking too rosy a view of US experience, there may be a stronger case for arguing that contemporary competency management approaches there have brought something new to a longer standing debate in public and private management.     

Reflexive Watchdogs? How Supreme Audit Institutions Account for Themselves

Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) such as the UK National Audit Office and the French Cour des Comptes play important roles within the institutional mechanisms of the democratic state. They are given high independence in order to secure public accountability for, first, the probity and legality of public spending and, second, economy, efficiency and effectiveness. During the last twenty years several SAIs’ mandates have been adjusted to reflect the latter, more managerialist, concerns. This article asks two questions: first, what evidence do these SAIs offer as to the quality and effectiveness of their activities in carrying out their mandates and, second, to what extent does their self–reporting appear to have been influenced by the precepts of the ‘New Public Management’ (NPM)? To address these questions an analysis is carried out of the annual reports and other relevant documents of the Finnish, Swedish, French and UK SAIs, and of the European Court of Auditors. The analysis shows considerable differences of approach. These may well be related to the differing constitutional positions and administrative cultures of the SAIs concerned. In conclusion we identify different concerns which are associated with either a fervent embracing of NPM criteria by SAIs or, alternatively, with an apparent rejection of those approaches.