Abstract
In the past years, the public perception on Philippine procurement is unfavorable due to its susceptibility to corruption. In order to “modernize, standardize, and regulate” procurement activities, the Government Procurement Reform Act was introduced, with the latest implementing rules and regulations published in 2016. In this paper, we studied the dynamics of the public procurement in the Philippines. Results can be used by the government to identify possible improvement mechanisms in its procurement policy. Using the PhilGEPS open datasets on bid and award notices, network science was applied by creating three network topologies that reveal hidden patterns which are not readily apparent using traditional analysis. From these, we were able to identify three key findings. First, there is a growth in the supplier degree distributions from 2009-2018. However, 43% of these suppliers have partnered with the government for one year only, with only 2% remained throughout the 10 years. Also, for most areas of delivery studied, there is a high correlation between the number of suppliers and the number of projects awarded. In contrast, there is no strong correlation between budget spend and the number of suppliers. Lastly, consistently observed was the presence of intermediaries in the networks studied.
Abstract
In the past years, the public perception on Philippine procurement is unfavorable due to its susceptibility to corruption. In order to “modernize, standardize, and regulate” procurement activities, the Government Procurement Reform Act was introduced, with the latest implementing rules and regulations published in 2016. In this paper, we studied the dynamics of the public procurement in the Philippines.
Results can be used by the government to identify possible improvement mechanisms in its procurement policy. Using the PhilGEPS open datasets on bid and award notices, network science was applied by creating three network topologies that reveal hidden patterns which are not readily apparent using traditional analysis. From these, we were able to identify three key findings. First, there is a growth in the supplier degree distributions from 2009-2018. However, 43% of these suppliers have partnered with the government for one year only, with only 2% remained throughout the 10 years.
Also, for most areas of delivery studied, there is a high correlation between the number of suppliers and the number of projects awarded. In contrast, there is no strong correlation between budget spend and the number of suppliers. Lastly, consistently observed was the presence of intermediaries in the networks studied.
