When the latest critique of the government’s “Big Push” road programme surfaced, it triggered exactly the reaction one would expect: outrage, suspicion and a renewed insistence that all contracts should have gone through open competitive tendering. It is an intuitively appealing argument.

After all, competitive tendering is widely regarded as the gold standard of public procurement, synonymous with transparency, fairness, and value for money.

But procurement is not governed by intuition. It is governed by law, context, and trade-offs.

The central question, therefore, is not whether competitive tendering is desirable. It is whether, in this specific case, it was feasible, proportionate, and fit for purpose.

This article addresses that question by interrogating Ghana’s procurement law and drawing on established insights from infrastructure procurement practice.

The Law Is Not as Rigid as the Debate Suggests

Ghana’s Public Procurement Act (Act 663, as amended) does not impose a one-size-fits-all approach. It establishes competitive tendering as the default, yes, but it also explicitly provides for restricted tendering and single-source procurement under defined conditions. These are not loopholes.

They are deliberate instruments designed to respond to real-world constraints: limited supplier markets, urgency, and project complexity.

However, and this is where the public debate must sharpen, these alternative methods are not discretionary conveniences. They require clear justification and formal approval, particularly from the Public Procurement Authority.

The legitimacy of their use, therefore, rests not merely on their existence in law, but on whether the statutory thresholds were properly met and documented. That is where scrutiny should be directed.

Scale, Speed, and the Reality of Infrastructure Delivery

The Big Push reportedly involves the award of dozens of major road contracts within a compressed timeframe.

That is accelerated infrastructure delivery- not routine, not regular. Subjecting every package to full, open competitive tendering under such conditions is not costless.

It introduces significant transaction burdens: lengthy bid periods, complex evaluations, and administrative delays. In large infrastructure programmes, time is not a neutral variable, it directly affects cost, public welfare, and political accountability.

That said, it would be misleading to frame this as a simple trade-off between speed and competition. Modern procurement practice offers hybrid approaches: prequalification, framework agreements and two-stage tendering that can preserve competition while reducing delays.

The real question, therefore, is not whether competition could have been used, but how it could have been structured under the circumstances.

The Myth of Automatic Competition

A persistent assumption in the current discourse is that open tendering guarantees robust competition. In theory, yes. In practice, not always. Ghana’s road construction sector is not infinitely deep.

The number of firms with the technical capacity, equipment base, and financial strength to execute large-scale road projects is limited. Open tendering in such a market can produce a familiar outcome: a long list of bidders, but only a small subset of credible contenders. The appearance of competition is created, but the outcome is often predictable.

When properly applied, restricted tendering does not eliminate competition; it targets it. It narrows participation to firms with demonstrable capacity, reducing noise and focusing evaluation.

The issue, therefore, is not whether restricted tendering is inherently problematic, but whether the selection of firms was objective, transparent, and justifiable.

Single-Source Procurement: The Real Flashpoint

Unlike restricted tendering, single-source procurement removes competition entirely. It is the most sensitive method in the procurement toolbox and must be treated as such.

The law permits it only under strict conditions-urgency, exclusivity, or continuity requirements and places a heavy burden of justification on the procuring entity. This is where public concern is most justified. If single-source procurement was used, the critical questions are straightforward:

1.What specific conditions justified its use?

2.Were approvals properly obtained?

3.Are the justifications publicly defensible?

Lumping single-source procurement together with restricted tendering obscures this distinction. One is a calibrated competitive mechanism; the other is an exception that demands rigorous scrutiny.

The Missing Conversation

While much attention has focused on procurement methods, two equally important issues remain underexplored.

First, pricing. Ultimately, value for money is tested not by the method used, but by the cost outcomes.

If per-kilometre costs significantly exceed benchmarks, then concerns about procurement choices gain credibility, regardless of the method adopted. Secondly, contract packaging. How projects are structured into lots can significantly influence competition.

Large, aggregated contracts may limit participation to a few firms, while smaller, disaggregated packages can broaden access. Procurement outcomes are often shaped less by the method chosen and more by how the opportunity itself is designed.

Accountability does not end with method selection. In other words, where competition is constrained at the front end, accountability must be strengthened at the back end.

If alternative procurement methods are used, transparency must shift. This means there should be:

1.Clear documentation of justifications

2.Formal approvals by oversight bodies (PPA and others)

3.Publication of contract awards and key terms

4.Post-award value-for-money audits

Moving the debate forward, the current discourse risks collapsing into a false binary: competitive tendering equals good governance; alternative methods equal wrongdoing. That framing is analytically weak and operationally unhelpful.

Procurement is not a morality play. It is a strategic function that must balance time, cost, capacity, and risk. The appropriate question is not whether one method is inherently superior, but whether the chosen method was justified, properly applied, and well-governed.

So yes, demand answers. Ask hard questions about approvals, pricing, and contractor selection. But let us be precise in our critique. Because in the end all citizens need is their roads delivered efficiently, transparently, and at a cost that reflects true value for money. Anything less is not pragmatism. It is risk.

To further clarify, the true test of the Big Push will not be how the contracts were awarded, but whether the roads are delivered; on time, on budget, and to standard.
End.

Augustine Tankong

Doctoral Student, Procurement and Supply Chain, UCC