Ethical misconducts within the invitation to tender and tender evaluation and award stages of construction contracts in Ghana

Agyekum, K; Adinyira, E and Amudjie, J (2021) Ethical misconducts within the invitation to tender and tender evaluation and award stages of construction contracts in Ghana. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 19(5), pp. 1101-1123. ISSN 1726-0531

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine the views of construction practitioners on the prevalence of ethical misconduct within the invitation to tender and tender evaluation and award stages of construction contracts in Ghana. Following a critical comparative review of literature resulting in the identification of 18 potential misconducts within the invitation to tender and 11 potential misconducts within the tender evaluation and award stages of construction contracts, a questionnaire survey was conducted among 65 construction professionals. Data obtained from the survey were analysed using both descriptive (i.e. frequencies, mean scores and standard deviations) and inferential statistics (paired t-test), followed by gap analysis. The findings revealed that corrupt, fraudulent, collusive or coercive practices, client divulging more information to the preferred bidder and inflating tender prices by tenderers in return for kickbacks are key unethical practices prevalent at the invitation to tender stage. Following these key unethical practices, the findings further suggested through gap analysis that submission of bids on non-working days and inadequate time for preparation and submission of tenders were the top two unethical practices that needed serious interventions at this stage. At the tender evaluation and award stage, the findings revealed that interference by influential people in political positions, fake tendering and bid shopping are prevalent. Again, from the gap analysis, interference by influential people in political positions and poor definition of selection criteria were identified to be the two key unethical practices that need urgent intervention at this stage of construction contracts. This study holds a significant practical implication in the sense that key unethical practices at the invitation to tender and tender evaluation and award stages of construction contracts have been identified, and this provides a suitable basis for stakeholders that spearhead such activities to offer suitable interventions to control such practices. This study contributes to the body of knowledge as it uncovers ethical misconducts within two important phases of construction contracts in a developing country setting. As there is a continuous effort by the international community towards finding lasting solutions to such misconducts, the findings from this study can be used as a starting point for appropriate policies to be put in place in Ghana to control such misconducts.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: developing country; evaluation; fraud; selection criteria; tendering; valuation; client; professional; stakeholders; questionnaire survey; gap analysis; Ghana
Index terms: gap analysis, Ghana, deviation, construction contract, construction professional, bidder, unethical practices, statistics, selection criteria, ethical misconducts, fraud, developing country, construction practitioner, survey, invitation to tender, tender price, tender evaluation, questionnaire, body of knowledge
Subjects: financial and cost management, ethical practice, bidding, knowledge management, mathematical modelling, contract type, data collection methods, professional ethics, development economics, professional development, Geography, tendering, performance measurement
Topics: International Construction, Legal Issues, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Information Management, Cost Management, Procurement
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here