Supplier delivery performance in ugandan public procurement contracts

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to develop a comprehensive framework of achieving supplier delivery performance based on contract governance mechanisms, justice perceptions and ethical behavior using cross sectional survey data from public procuring and disposing entities (PDEs) in Uganda. Public procurement contract governance covers the design, development, implementation and enforcement of contracts. It serves to align interests of the contracting parties, reduce opportunistic behavior, lower transaction costs, promote justice perceptions, improve ethical behavior and achieve value for money procurement. Poorly managed procurement contracts result in conflicts, yet in many developing countries only rich suppliers can afford to resolve disputes through courts. For other suppliers, justice is out of reach. While it has been assumed that contracts result in good performance, little research has been carried out to corroborate this assumption. In this paper we provide theoretical, empirical and policy implications of supplier delivery performance.

Outsourced contracts, buyer-supplier trust, supplier opportunistic behavior and supplier performance in ugandan public procuring and disposing entities (PDEs)

“…As a result, such behavior can have negative implications for supplier performance (Wathne & Heide, 2000). Poor supplier performance is exemplified by late delivery, delivery unreliability, order incompleteness, poor delivery speed, poor quality of goods or services provided, infrequency of delivery, faulty deliveries, high prices, failure to match specifications, and unfair conditions under which goods and or services are delivered (Ntayi et al, 2010c), and is seen as a major source of increased costs.…”

“…Buyer-supplier trust yielded a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of 0.79 and content validity index of 0.86. Supplier opportunistic behavior was measured based on measurements from Wathne and Heide (2000) and Ntayi et al (2010c) that were modified to suit the study and dimensions like transactional costs, withholding and distorting information, shrinking and failing to fulfill promises or obligations, evasion, refusal to adapt, violation, and forced renegotiation were adapted. The abridged examples were as follows; the supplier change prices without our knowledge, our supplier gives us wrong information about goods and services, the supplier does anything within his means to further his own interests, our supplier do not inform us when they are going to replace their suppliers, our supplier evades the performance of some duties, on occasion the supplier has lied about certain things in order to protect his interest, sometimes the supplier presents facts in such way that he looks good, our suppliers drag us into forced negotiations.…”

“…Supplier opportunistic behavior yielded a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of 0.86 and content validity of 0.89. Supplier performance measurements were modified from works of Ntayi, Namugenyi, and Eyaa (2010c) and item scales for on-time delivery, delivery reliability, order completeness, delivery speed, quality of goods provided by the supplier, frequency of delivery, number of faulty deliveries, cost mitigation, flexibility, matching specifications, reduced user complaints and conditions under which supplies were received were added to the questionnaire. Responses to supplier performance measures yielded a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of 0.89 and content validity index of 0.87.…”

Procurement records compliance, effective risk management and records management performance

“…In the same report, the records management culture of PDEs was reported as being very poor. Further, studies in Uganda indicate that there are high levels of non-compliance with procurement structures, policies and procedures (Eyaa and Oluka, 2011;Ntayi et al, 2010) which could be contributing to the loss of billions of dollars annually. Ahimbisibwe (2014) and Ntayi et al (2010) also have voiced their concern about the lack of complete information on contract files of ongoing and past procurement contracts which complicates the execution, supervision and evaluation of contracts in public procurement.…”

“…Further, studies in Uganda indicate that there are high levels of non-compliance with procurement structures, policies and procedures (Eyaa and Oluka, 2011;Ntayi et al, 2010) which could be contributing to the loss of billions of dollars annually. Ahimbisibwe (2014) and Ntayi et al (2010) also have voiced their concern about the lack of complete information on contract files of ongoing and past procurement contracts which complicates the execution, supervision and evaluation of contracts in public procurement. Ahimbisibwe (2014) reveals that Uganda's public sector lacks complete information about the progress of the procurement process, status of implementation of procurement contracts, the number of procurement contracts awarded to service providers and the performance levels of service providers who have been awarded contracts in the past.…”