Finance quiet and quick to close open contracting review?
There is a strong international movement promoting open government contracting-publishing and using open, accessible and timely information on government contracting to engage citizens and businesses in identifying and fixing problems. The Open Contracting Global Principles gather norms and best practices for disclosure and participation in public procurement. They serve as a guide to advance open contracting around the world. The principles were developed in a collaborative process involving nearly 200 members the open contracting community from government, private sector, civil society, donor organizations, and international financial institutions.
Australia’s OGP National Action Plan includes a commitment to review Federal government compliance with the Open Contracting Data Standard.
Here is our submission in response to Finance publishing the review report.
“We support the submission from Publish What You Pay Australia and express our disappointment at the way the Department has approached implementation of the commitment in the OGP National Action Plan, and what appears to be the department’s initial response to the report as published on the Procurement blog that the “results of the review are largely positive.”
The failure to engage with civil society before commissioning the report runs counter to the guidance adopted by the OGP Interim Working Group and issued by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet which encourages action in the spirit of partnership and an open, inclusive and collaborative approach to implementing commitments.
The commitment in question is to “undertake a public review of the Australian Government’s compliance with the Open Contracting Data Standard” with the stated objective also to “continue to support the Open Contracting Global Principles.”
The report focuses on AusTender, a system as stated on its website designed for “centralised publication of Australian Government business opportunities, annual procurement plans, multi-use lists and contracts awarded.”
Not surprisingly, given the broader scope of the OCDS, the report concludes that what is published on AusTender and the OCDS procurement data is “fundamentally different.”
“Although AusTender publishes procurement information online, AusTender was not designed as a system that publishes structured data using discrete data releases in machine readable format or to integrate with other data sets. AusTender does not publish procurement data using the same structures or data fields as the OCDS. This means that the OCDS data fields do not always align with the data published by AusTender.”
The report concludes “AusTender generally publishes data which meets the ‘basic’ level of disclosure recommended by the OCDS (although that information is not always published in the same format or level of detail required by OCDS).”
This basic level of disclosure covers about one-third of the requirements of the OCDS.
The report notes some additional information is published online on sites separate from and unconnected to AusTender.
Some data and documents central to the OCDS are not publicly available at all for example the contract document entered into with the successful tenderer, any subsequent amendments or adjustments, unsuccessful tenderers, and data about contract milestones and performance
The conclusion to be drawn from the Maddocks report is that the Federal Government is significantly non-compliant with the OCDS.
The report and the post on the Procurement Blog cite the cost and complexity involved if the AusTender system is reconfigured to provide all the data fields included in the OCDS.
This is premature.
A finding that Australia is non-compliant should be followed by consideration of options to improve compliance in light of the associated costs, risks and benefits.
The report is silent on benefits and does not refer to the Open Contracting Global Principles (reproduced below) or the Open Data Charter that the Government is committed to support. The Charter lists open contracts as a key data set for “Improved Governance and Citizen Engagement.”
The Australian National Audit Office has reported major deficiencies in contract management.
(For example https://www.anao.gov.
There is a strong international support for open contracting.
Afghanistan, Argentina, Bulgaria, Colombia, France, Georgia, Ghana, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Nigeria, Romania, the UK and the USA have all announced that they are committing to implement the Open Contracting Data Standard.
Reconfiguring AusTender is only one option should the government decide to address identified shortcomings.
While a number of countries have committed to government wide implementation of the OCDS, others, for example, the United Kingdom, Canada, Mexico, Argentina and Nigeria.have taken a more graduated approach. sometimes commencing with a pilot project or with initiatives on contracts in one sector.
In our submission published information about the review indicates significant non-compliance with the Open Contracting Data Standard.
We welcome ongoing government commitment to the Open Contracting Global Principles and the Open Data Charter.
As written, the Review of AusTender data against the Open Contracting Data Standard undermines (i) the fundamental basis of these policy positions, (ii) Australia’s membership of the Open Government Partnership, and (iii) the potential national benefits of OCDS.
The Review should accept and apply the Government’s adoption of the principles and charter, reflecting the OGP belief that increased disclosure and participation in public contracting will have the beneficial effects of making contracting more competitive and fair, allow increased scrutiny of procurement and expenditure, limit the scope for corrupt conduct, and improve contract management and performance.
A new dialogue through public engagement and participation is necessary to determine issues and options for addressing the non-compliance issues.
This submission is lodged with the expectation it will be published along with other submissions and representations received.”
Ken Coghill
Chair
Peter Timmins
Interim Convener
Australian Open Government Partnership Network