There is a great need to have all the public procurement processes monitored by independent bodies. The monitoring bodies have the mandate of ensuring that the procurement processes are transparent and in the interest of the public. The monitoring bodies should never be connected with the bodies they are assigned to monitor since this may compromise the integrity of the monitoring process. The reasons for carrying out monitoring of public procurement processes are manifold as we shall see shortly.
First, monitoring of public procurement processes ensures that there is transparency in the tendering and the bidding processes by different vendors. When there is no monitoring, chances are the outsourcing process could be set in a way that locks out certain vendors and this is inappropriate. Instances as this are not rare and that is why it is so crucial that procurements are monitored from start to end so that instances of corruption are mitigated or stopped altogether.
Also, equitable distribution of opportunities would be impossible without having oversight processes in such organizations. With the rising cases of nepotism and other manifestations of corruption, it is not uncommon to have all the opportunities being let open to only a certain class of people. Monitoring therefore guarantees that the opportunities are open to all and that those who win or lose those opportunities do so because they are qualified or unqualified.
The monitoring processes also ensure that accountability within public institutions is upheld and that every coin allocated to a procurement process doesn’t go down the drain. To ensure that there is no impairment of service delivery to the public due to embezzlement of funds by the employees in such organizations, it is important, therefore, to have monitoring processes in place.
Accountability has the effect of making it possible for organizations to make proper judgement on its future budgetary allocations. Given the fact that the processes are transparent to all from start to end, stakeholders are better placed to clearly see the trends in the public expenditure and are thus better positioned to supplement or extend their support to areas that could be experiencing insufficient funding. When there is proper decision making, sectors will be saved from having to have too little or too much in terms of budgetary allocations.
Lastly, oversight over procurement processes ensures that the masses have confidence in the spending of such institutions. Usually, there is some level of skepticism on the public regarding expenditures in the public organizations. This skepticism can only be dispelled where there is an oversight over the procurement processes.