BENEFITS AND IMPACTS OF THE GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

It also holds officers liable and can be ordered by the courts to take action or stop whatever they were doing. While the regulation will improve value for money in public procurement in Australia, it has some areas that need improving or further clarification, such as tender terms and conditions and amendments made to the ‘no process contract’ clause and issues of amending tender policies. Introduction Project procurement refers to the process of acquiring goods and services through a series of activities during project execution; project procurement follows the project objectives that are pre-determined early in the project execution phase. Project procurement depends a great deal on the goals and objectives of the project (Brahm&Tarziján, 2015). Project procurement, unlike other types and forms of procurement, is complex; goods and services procurement has to be timed in such a way that they are availed just when needed, so that there are no delays or additional costs incurred in storing and managing procured items (Fleming, 2016; Redlich, 2017) ).

Reforms in recent times towards this goal have been promising, and public procurement emerged as a major policy instrument to improve local firms’ innovative capacity (Thurbon, 2014). Thurbon (2015) investigated Australia’s abandonment of procurement linked strategic activism by evaluating how PTA’s (Preferential Trade Agreements) have limited the ability of the Australian government to use public procurement for the development of local Australian industries. The author compared the Australian case with Korea, another PTA country and established that while there was room for improvement and development, policy makers ‘stood still’ and never took the necessary steps to develop the industry. Regan, Love & Jim (2015) reviewed public infrastructure procurement in Australia and the OECD countries in general, in the context of both adversarial and non-adversarial methods of contracting.

The authors acknowledge that most public procurement is characterized by adversarial methods of contracting resulting in problems with timely deliveries within budget. The ‘relevant CPR’s’ refer to the CPR’s Division Two as well as provisions of CRPR’s Division One that are all considered relevant; this implies that the ‘covered procurement’ are all those applicable under the CPR’s Divisions One and Two. Under the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017, the payable compensation is limited to the reasonable expenditure a supplier incurred while preparing for the tender, costs incurred during reasonable attempts to resolve the complaint, and costs incurred in making a complaint in which the CPR’s have been violated. However, the compensation as covered by the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017 does not extend to loss of opportunity, loss of profit.

The costs a supplier bears in preparing for tenders can be significant for major projects, such as road construction, meaning that the Bill is a positive development in as far as procurement and supply is concerned, and how to resolve problems. Under the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017, Federal Circuit Courts and the Federal Court have powers to grant two new forms of statutory injunctions; a performance injunction and a statutory injunction. However, it also places uniform controls to all Commonwealths and territories, meaning that it ensures uniformity where there is diversity and ensures there is greater oversight and administration of procurement processes and methods in Australia. However, the regulation could have been made better with a designated Chief Procurement Officer (COP) in each procurement entity with regular forums to be organized to evaluate how well the regulation rules are being implemented.

Allow ‘alliancing’ as a valid method of contacting where all affected parties can be compensated rather than just having to deal with individual cases of procurement. It should require that Auditors or probity Advisors be used whenever there are large contracting projects (Kumar, 2015). The Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017 has significant impacts to the Commonwealth Entities as well as suppliers in how procurement processes are conducted. The common theme in the comments is that the new regulation will change procurement in Australia, but an overwhelming majority of responses are questions and concerns of how it will impact the CPR’s and public procurement in general. On Facebook, the regulation has received 113 ‘Likes’ and 46 comments, in which case the sentiments mirror those of Twitterwith most being posts of its passing by the House of Commons and about a quarter wondering how it will affect procurement and if it overrides the CPR’s.

Most shares, posts, and comments are either by journalists or people’s representatives, and industry players or people with direct interests in procurement, with participation from random people still low. This shows the population need to be sensitized on the new regulation Conclusions The Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017 is a regulation that could not have come at a better time; the regulation enables any supplier to lodge a challenge that District Circuit Courts or the Federal Courts in all the territories and Commonwealths’ will review. This is an important development because it takes into consideration the resources expended by suppliers in seeking public contracts and makes appeals and challenges to procurement decisions straightforward. However, it needs improvements to integrate changes to tender terms and conditions and amendments made to the ‘no process contract’ clause.

Issues on amending contract policies and procedures also need addressing as well as guidelines on issuing certificates of public interest in the context of challenges. ‘Alliancing’ should be allowed as a valid method of contacting where all affected parties can be compensated rather than just having to deal with individual cases of procurement. It should require that Auditors or probity Advisors be used whenever there are large contracting projects References Bernard, P.  Major changes to Australian Procurement law. Retrieved fromhttps://www. linkedin. com/pulse/government-procurement-judicial-review-bill-michael-brennan [Accessed 24 Oct. Clarke, P. Curbing the Abuse of a Dominant Position Through Unfair Contract Terms Legislation: Australian and UK Comparison. cips. org/en/supply-management/opinion/2017/september/the-top-six-challenges-facing-procurement-/ [Accessed 24 Oct. Fleming, Q.  Project procurement management. 1st ed.

Small and medium-sized enterprises policies in public procurement: Time for a rethink?.  Journal Of Public Procurement, 14(3), 328-360. doi: 10. 1108/JOPP-14-03-2014-B002 Rahmani, F. , Khalfan, M. com/australia/x/566592/Government+Contracts+Procurement+PPP/Procurement+Year+in+review+and+year+ahead+unfair+contract+terms+marketled+proposals+and+the+Government+Procurement+Judicial+Review+Bill [Accessed 24 Oct. Regan, M. , Love, P. , & Jim, J. Public infrastructure procurement: A review of adversarial and non-adversarial contracting methods. Retrieved fromhttps://www. linkedin. com/pulse/government-procurement-judicial-review-bill-introduced-amanda-story [Accessed 24 Oct. Temby, I.  Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Act 2018 (Cth) expands scope for challenges to Commonwealth procurement decisions | Lexology.  Summary of Updated Commonwealth Procurement Rules for Furnishing Sector Suppliers. [online] Linked IN. Retrieved fromhttps://www. linkedin. com/pulse/summary-updated-commonwealth-procurement-rules-sector-torelli Thurbon E. and Worthington, I.