Every year, over the last four years, Government expenditure has exceeded revenue by several billion dollars. The forthcoming budget 2027 is not expected to be any different. At a time when the country continues to face significant fiscal constraints, the manner in which public money is spent assumes even greater significance.
Annual reports of the Office of the Procurement Regulator and of the Auditor General and matters which have entered the public domain over the years have repeatedly drawn attention to deficiencies in the management and expenditure of public funds. These concerns have arisen under successive administrations and are therefore not partisan.
Whatever political party forms the government, properly conducted procurement should encourage competition among suppliers and contractors and increase the likelihood that the state obtains the best combination of price, quality and performance. In this way, taxpayers are more likely to obtain value for the money spent on their behalf. This is where the relationship between the upcoming Budget 2027 and public procurement becomes particularly important.
There is really no debate that the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property (Amendment) Bill, 2026 materially changes aspects of the procurement framework established under the original legislation. There has been considerable debate surrounding these amendments and, in particular, the appropriate balance between facilitating the implementation of Government projects and maintaining sufficiently strong independent oversight of public procurement.
And neither is there any real debate that projects initiated by the state should be unrestricted from unnecessary bureaucracy on the one hand and that taxpayers should get value for money on the other. A procurement system that makes implementation unnecessarily difficult would itself impose costs on the country!
It is not the case that a government has to choose between speed or value for money, as both are important. The speed of implementation or lack thereof has repeatedly been a major point of contention by the citizenry and indeed by government itself. But there is an equally important public interest in ensuring that taxpayers receive value for money and that public contracts are awarded through processes which are transparent, competitive and accountable. The challenge is to design a procurement system capable of achieving both.
Notwithstanding a diluted Procurement Bill, policymakers in T&T should remain mindful of international standards and expectations. Important multilateral organisations, such as the Organization for Economic Development (OECD), World Bank, IDB and the UNECLAC, have long recognized the importance of sound public procurement.
Some of these organisations even finance development projects in T&T and pay particular attention to the systems through which public resources and borrowed funds are spent. I feel certain that the recent debate would not have escaped them. In fact, the OECD has identified public procurement as an area especially susceptible to risks of corruption, collusion and waste. Among the principles of procurement emphasised by the IDB and the World Bank are transparency, value for money, integrity, efficiency, fit for purpose and fairness. These principles are important because procurement is not simply an administrative process, it is an important component of good economic governance.
Several of the highest-value areas of public expenditure including housing, education, infrastructure and utilities have the greatest bearing on the less fortunate in society. These sectors account for a large chunk of every budget, and it is noteworthy that the OECD has found that the most detrimental effect of poor procurement practices is on the most disadvantaged in the society. The organisation goes further to say that distortions in public procurement are detrimental to democracy and inhibit investment and economic development.
A good procurement system should ultimately help the State deliver value for money. It is well accepted that generally the best guarantee of value for money is through a process of fair competition. This means that the process of procurement must be fair to all companies, and any company should be free to complain to the relevant regulator and find satisfactory redress.
Procurement does not have to mean that one size fits all. For example, special procurement arrangements may, legitimately be designed to facilitate participation by micro, small and medium sized enterprises (MSMEs) without sacrificing competitiveness. Properly designed, such arrangements can broaden the supplier base and increase competition over time.
It is therefore noteworthy that provisions concerning micro and small enterprises which appeared in the the Simplified Procurement Regulations, 2024, have not been retained in the same manner under the 2026 amendments to the Bill. This is an area which deserves further consideration, particularly given the importance regularly highlighted in any discussion on national economic policy. The objective should be to facilitate greater MSME participation without sacrificing the fundamental benefits of competition.
Now that the Bill has been passed, can value for money in government procurement still be protected? Perhaps. Legislation should never be regarded as beyond review. If experience demonstrates that particular provisions undermine transparency, competition, accountability or value for money, the Bill should be revisited, sooner rather than later.
Secondly, public procurement does not exist in isolation from the wider legal and institutional framework. There are other laws and regulations which might be able to stem the more questionable aspects of the revised legislation. I refer to the Fair Trading Act which provides the framework for competition law and policy and the Exchequer and Audit Act which forms an important part of the system governing public financial administration. As Vanna Jankiepersad observed in an article published in the Express on October 4, 2026, these wider mechanisms remain relevant to the protection of public resources.
A budget tells citizens how government intends to spend public money. But fiscal responsibility does not end when Parliament approves expenditure. It extends to the manner in which contracts are awarded, the extent to which businesses are permitted to compete for those contracts, the prices ultimately paid, the quality of the goods and services received and the mechanisms available to hold public institutions accountable.
That is why Budget 2027 and the revised procurement legislation are very much directly related. At a time when every public dollar matters, the question is not simply how quickly Government can spend it, but how has development been advanced and how satisfied are taxpayers with the outcome of that expenditure?
