I wonder why Bright Simons would throw this tentrum about the procurement processes of the National Cathedral, and a so-called ‘Procurement Expert’ jumps in to say it is illegal.
I sincerely believe Experts have no business giving conclusive statements. We can only advice per available laws, knowledge and experience acquired over the years in practice. And leave judgement to the conscience of voters or the judiciary.
If one reads section _(f) of the public procurement act on how sole-sourcing can be applied by procurement entity It states;
Where the procurement entity applies this Act for procurement that concerns national security and determines that single-source procurement is the most appropriate method of procurement.
In many countries that has built national monuments, such as the national cathedral, sole sourcing were used. They have even taken measures to resolve that, pictures cannot be taken at certain places whilst visiting there. All these measures are instituted to prevent people from taking notice of some critical security features which may allow ‘alien’ study of the architecture and subsequently pose security threats to the nation from unknown assailants.
The National Cathedral is no exception. Its constructional features, particularly those concerning security features of the building, could not have been included in contract specifications for an open competitive tendering/bidding.
Typical examples are the American Embassy building and the new Chinese Embassy buildings in Accra.
One can argue from another angle but the so-called expert is wrong in saying it is illegal to sole-source. In actual fact, there are several reason in our public procurement act that supports sole-sourcing in such situations as the building of the National Cathedral.