Public tenders, direct selection

Rogério Beltrão Coelho

Just to start, I want to clearly stress beforehand that I am not against the government’s right to choose to bypass the tender process and go straight to selecting a service provider, a process I will refer to as direct selection.
The fact is that a public tender by itself does not warrant total impartiality of the process nor assure the best quality of services provided. Also a public tender may not assure that the selected option was the best one.
Oftentimes the value (cost) of the proposal presented is not a determining factor in choice, but if it happens to be, nothing assures us that quality is the second winning factor.
Whichever way we look at it, a jury’s intervention is always subjective. And subjectivity by itself, is always doubtful to some degree.
So, if we view a direct selection as implying a ‘bet’ waged by a person that holds the power of decision and makes a choice after duly weighing the experience and competence proven by a company or individual, one may hope right from the start that conditions are set for the results to be the most desirable ones.
Also true is that direct selections are contemplated by the law – and that, in general, should make them as “fool-proof” as any public tender.
On the other hand, albeit legal, direct selection that can be viewed as suspicious or unjustified may become at least reproachable in the ethical or moral point of view. And in these cases, criticism is all too important – no matter if it is just or unfounded…
Macau is a land of compromises and singularities and so it is only natural that direct selection is a common and frequent feature. And, as earlier said…not an illegal one.
The matter has only to deal with accountability. Political accountability (and not only political) of those who are entrusted with the power of decision in terms of direct selection.  Whoever decides, takes that decision based on a professional trust that ought to have some correspondence.
If something goes amiss in a project that was launched by public tender, conscience may be appeased by the simple fact that the process was done with the utmost transparency. Obviously a well-prepared set of terms and conditions included in any public tender usually foresees sanctions for the bidder whenever things go wrong.
But direct selection is not subject to public scrutiny and thus should be prepared with added care.
It’s exactly here that the vulnerability of direct selection rests: if apparently launched to satisfy clienteles or other interests that have nothing to do with the public interest . (You may regard this as a purely academic hypothesis, albeit not applicable to Macau).
How many cases of direct settlement were there that failed to fulfill purposes previously stated? And what were the consequences? None, apparently.
Presently in the middle of a Summer recess, a large part of the resident population is enjoying a rewarding rest after a year-long toil.
Since the Administration is also not showing a schedule you might consider interesting, I dare to present a harmless but quite practical working suggestion:
How about using these few weeks of lesser work to launch an extensive assessment of all the services awarded by direct selection by the Government and find out which ones present results that can be considered null or insufficient?
Topping the list – since we are truly in a phase of great technological advancement – the Administration could get some inspiration and start by probing for instance the areas of multimedia and the web.
We could all reach some interesting conclusions.
Public funds spent in a useless and careless fashion possibly does not make a difference nowadays, but some sort of moralising, even in a small degree, might prove to be very fruitful in terms of transparency and quality-reaching policy.
Otherwise, we will be forced to side with all those that get suspicious every time there is a direct selection.
Not my case, by the way…