A year ago this newspaper reported the frustration that the public sector procurement process has inflicted on the country. At the time, our focus was on Cornwall Regional Hospital (CRH), where rehabilitation work had been under way for seven years.

While Health and Wellness Minister Dr Christopher Tufton had told us that a number of factors contributed to the protraction, he admitted that the procurement process played a major role, taking up almost half the time of the project.

Despite that experience, the pain associated with the procurement process has not eased. In fact, it appears to have exacerbated, going by the testimonies of legislators at the most recent sitting of the Public Administration and Appropriations Committee of Parliament.

Members of Parliament Ms Lisa Hanna, Ms Tova Hamilton, and Mr Fitz Jackson voiced their frustration with the process, pointing out that development projects have been stalled, sometimes for years. The upshot is that political representatives are deemed by their constituents to be lethargic and not delivering on their mandate to make living conditions better.

We recall last year Dr Tufton sharing that his ministry has had cases in which acquiring a large diagnostic piece of equipment takes a year or more to go through the procurement process, and because that type of equipment is not in storage, therefore it has to be built, they have to wait another year before it is delivered.

No one can challenge the value of the policy. It is designed to thwart corruption; maximise efficiency in procurement; ensure fairness, integrity, and public confidence in the process.

However, this perfectly logical push for transparency and accountability is backfiring because of inordinate delays.

Dr Tufton had pointed to what he believes is insufficient capacity at the level of people managing the process, meaning that mistakes can be made at times, or clarity is required because of uncertainties, thus slowing the process even further.

He had also raised the issue of some public sector workers shying away from engaging in the procurement process out of fear that they may be accused of wrongdoing. So the fear of reputational damage, he argued, “is greater than the need to solve the problem that the procurement process is intended to solve”.

Dr Tufton is indeed correct.

He has suggested that the procurement process be shortened to effectively benefit those who need the “solution”, while the audit function is improved to ensure that there is value for money.

This, he argued, will enable government ministries and agencies to carry out their functions within an appropriate timeline, while also being held accountable by the Public Procurement Commission.

The Government has also said that efforts to train public servants in the use of the Procurement Act would be redoubled. Additionally, there was talk of a review of the Act and a “few amendments” to make the system more efficient.

We agree that there is need for some corrective measures. However, as we have stated before, in whatever is done there needs to be balance, as corruption and the threat thereof have a debilitating effect on our economy.