Photos
Give Credit To Jean Mensa
18 Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) operating in Ghana, spanning a range of focuses and backgrounds, were recently invited to a “briefing” by the Electoral Commission of Ghana (EC) to support the latter’s efforts to compile a fresh biometric register, replace the entirety of the existing biometric voters management system (BVMS) and spend roughly $150 million (accounting for contingency) doing so.
The CSOs emphatically rejected the EC’s position.
According to IMANI’s report, “As promised, the second cost-related, procurement-inspired spirited defence mounted against the EC’s push for a completely new register is on cost-comparators with other African countries (some more populous) that use similar biometric electoral processes.”
IMANI continues to state in the report that;
a. At any rate, the proposed pricing suggested by the EC for the BVRs and BVDs it intends to buy ($3,500 and $400 respectively), which are the main cost drivers in setting up a Biometric Voter Management System (BVMS), apart from the mass registration/enrolment exercise itself, and which it touts as having led to savings, are actually grossly inflated if one benchmarks against several recent elections in the African region. We have provided a quick snapshot in a subsequent section.
b. But even before a regional benchmarking survey is discussed, it is useful to advert minds to an earlier EC procurement activity, in 2015, which awarded a $38 million-plus contract to STL, and which inferentially priced BVDs for roughly $222 and BVRs for roughly $3,000. The scuttling of this order and the downward revision of the amount following a new contract in 2015 is a matter of public record.
c. A most illustrative regional case study is that of Zimbabwe’s ZEC (that country’s elections management body), which opened up the entire procurement process, from inception planning to vendor demos, in stark contrast to Ghana’s opaque process, and ended up procuring 3000 BVRs from the Laxton Group in 2017/2018 for $1300 per kit and an Automated Biometric Identification System (ABIS) from IPSIDY for less than $1.7 million. These spending patterns, like the roughly $750 per next-generation, integrated, BVR tablet that Kenya procured for its most recent elections, or the $188 Nigeria paid for its BVDs, completely undermine the argument being propagated by the EC that by paying $3500, or even $3000, per BVR kit and $400 per BVD it is saving the country money.
d. If the EC adjusts its planned procurement spending pattern to suit the best practice in the Africa region, it can save at least 60% of its projected expenditure on the BVMS. These are the true potential savings the EC dare not consider.
In reaction to the above stated in the latest second IMANI report, Jacob Osei Yeboah popularly known as JOY, an independent Presidential candidate who contested in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential elections has given a response to IMANI.
He argues that IMANI was trying to make a point in its second report but still fell short.
“The 2nd is a bit better than the first,” he stated.
According to him, the cost is dependent on the specifications of the BVR kits used by the respective countries as well as the branding.
“Don’t call Nokia 3310 and Huawei Y9 as mobile phones and conclude Huawei Y9 is too expensive.”
He added that “when you go on International competitive tendering, you cannot conjure the quotations except those submitted by Bidders.”
He outlined his defence argument as follows:
a. The $3500 BVR is what the monopolistic Vendor is quoting for refurbishing, whilst New Ones will cost $5,145. EC is getting a new one at $3000. Apart from specifications, quantity discounts and Country specific scenarios can all play a factor.
b. Imani research on monopolistic tendencies coupled with the same forewarning of EOL of equipment as an avenue to increase prices. Don’t be simplistic in your analysis. Give credit to the current EC’s decisions and don’t hold the current for 2015 ill decisions.
c. It is a good attempt Imani though. Let’s have the respective specifications. Go to EC find out the quotations of the bidders, because it’s a public document before you rush with conclusions. How can you be unfair to say EC’s own is an opaque process. Do the right thing Imani.
d. I wish EC will have the opportunity to achieve these further savings all things being equal. But, is Imani suggesting EC to open tender again or to engage those vendors for the other countries. I can’t think far, Imani. And you still want EC to deliver election 2020.
Imani rethink about your stance, my piece of advice else the integrity of your reports will be doubted afterwards. Stay above this as the President and NPP has challenged the credibility of your 48% scoring.
